Punjab-Haryana High Court
Godhan Singh @ Amar Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab on 17 November, 2009
Author: Daya Chaudhary
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Daya Chaudhary
Crl. Appeal No. 824-DB of 2007 (1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No. 824-DB of 2007
DATE OF DECISION: 17.11.2009
Godhan Singh @ Amar Singh & Ors. ..........Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab ..........Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present:- Mr. Wazir Singh, Advocate
for Ms. Aman Sibia, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. D.S. Brar, Deputy Advocate
General, Punjab.
****
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.
1. The present appeal arises out of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.7.2007 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Patiala in Sessions Case No. 139T of 9.12.2005 whereby the accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:-
Under Section Sentence 302 IPC Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default, six months RI. 460 IPC Ten years R.I. and fine of Rs.500. In default, six months. 455 r/w 149 IPC Ten years RI and fine of Rs. 500/-. In default, six months RI. 454 r/w 149 IPC Three years RI and fine of Rs. 500/-. In default, six months RI. Crl. Appeal No. 824-DB of 2007 (2)
2. All the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
3. Briefly, the facts of the prosecution case are that FIR No. 23 dated 3.3.2003 was registered on the basis of statement made by Umesh Saini (PW-5), son of deceased Shadi Ram Saini, who stated that he is a resident of village Dehar and is working in M.S.L. Lalru Mandi. He has three brothers. His two brothers reside abroad. They have constructed kothi in their land, where, he, his father (deceased), mother-Jarnail Kaur and brother-Phool Kumar resides. On the intervening night of 2/3.3.2003, he and his parents were present in their kothi and his brother-Phool Kumar had gone outside. On that night, they slept at about 12.00 midnight. The complainant was sleeping in his room and his parents were sleeping in a separate room. At about 2.00 am, 10/12 persons armed with iron rods, dangs and swords entered their house from stairs. All were clean shaven and one was having mullah type appearance. All those persons after opening the door entered in the room of complainant. They tied the complainant, taken away the gold ring, one silver ring from the fingers of the complainant and threatened him not to make hue and cry. Thereafter, they went in the room of parents of the complainant and caused injuries to them due to which they became unconscious. All the rooms were searched by those persons. They also took keys of the car from the complainant and took away stereo and CDs. Thereafter, the complainant managed to untie himself and found that his father had expired due to injuries. Complainant raised hue and cry on which his maternal uncle Harbans Singh and Balbir Singh reached at the spot. Mother of the complainant was shifted to the Hospital and he went to the police station to record his statement, which was recorded by SI Karan Sher Singh. On the basis of statement made by the complainant, a formal FIR was registered at Police Station, Lalru.
Crl. Appeal No. 824-DB of 2007 (3)
4. Further Investigation of the case was conducted by SI Karan Sher Singh, who prepared the inquest report of the deceased, got conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body, prepared site plan of the place of occurrence, recorded the statements of other witnesses and arrested the accused.
5. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented and after supplying copies of the documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C. to the accused-appellants, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Accused-appellants were chargesheeted on 30.8.2004, to which, they denied the allegations and claimed trial.
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined MHC Phool Chand (PW-1), Kaka Ram (PW-2), ASI Rajinder Singh (PW-3), Sandeep Kumar (PW-4), Umesh Saini (PW-5), Jarnail Kaur (PW-6), HC Jaspal Singh (PW-7), Sunil Bhosla (PW-8), Iqbal Singh (PW-9), ASI Gurmit Singh (PW-10), SI Karan Sher Singh (PW-11), ASI Ramesh Kumar (PW-
12), SI Harbans Singh (PW-13) and Ramesh Chander (PW-14). The prosecution has also tendered the chemical examination report Ex.PY.
7. After close of the prosecution evidence, statements of accused-appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein, they denied the allegations and pleaded innocence and false implication. It was also stated by the accused-appellants that they had falsely been implicated in the case at the instance of Inspector Didar Singh, SHO and In-charge of CIA Staff, Patiala and no recovery was effected from them. In defence, the accused-appellants examined Rakesh Kumar, Record Clerk, Sessions Court, Patiala (DW-1) and HC Sohal Lal as (DW-2).
8. The trial Court on appreciation of evidence and after hearing both the sides, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants, as mentioned above.
Crl. Appeal No. 824-DB of 2007 (4)
9. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial Court is subject matter of challenge in the present appeal.
10. Mr. Wazir Singh, learned counsel for the accused-appellants argued that the disclosure statement thumb marked by appellants in front of ASI Ramesh Kumar, SI Karan Sher Singh and complainant-Umesh Saini has no relevance. No independent witness was joined at the time of recovery of articles and the accused-appellants have falsely been implicated in the present case.
11. Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the accused-appellants also argued that there is a delay of about three months from the date of occurrence and upto the arrest and recovery of stolen articles. The identity of the accused-appellants has not been clearly established as no identification parade was conducted.
12. Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the accused-appellants further argued that the prosecution story is totally based on the statements of closely related witnesses and no independent witness was examined, which makes the prosecution story doubtful. Mr. Singh also argued that there are discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, which makes the prosecution story suspicious.
13. Mr. D.S. Brar, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has argued that the prosecution has fully proved its case on the basis of statements of prosecution witnesses. The prosecution case rests upon the statement of complainant Umesh Saini and his mother-Jarnail Kaur, who have witnessed the whole occurrence. The ocular evidence has also been corroborated by medical evidence. The contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses are minor in nature, which are bound to occur with the passage of time and these minor contradictions and discrepancies are not fatal to the case.
14. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the Crl. Appeal No. 824-DB of 2007 (5) parties and perused the evidence and other documents available on record.
15. The argument of learned counsel for the accused-appellant that there is a delay of about three months from the date of occurrence and upto the date of arrest and recovery of stolen articles, has no merit. Although there is a delay from the date of occurrence upto the date of arrest of accused and recovery of the stolen articles and there is no test identification parade but the identification of the accused-appellant in the Court cannot be doubted. The statement of injured witness Jarnail Kaur (PW-6) cannot be disbelieved as there is no motive to falsely implicate the accused-appellants. She has stated in her statement that the accused- appellants were amongst 8-9 assailants who came to her house. She has also stated that she and her husband were given blows on heads, shoulders and arms. The golden ear rings which she was wearing were removed by the accused and other articles were scattered in the house. A ring with pukhraj worn by his son was also removed by the accused- appellants. One silver ring and car stereo and other articles were also taken away by the accused. The recovery of those stolen articles was made on the basis of disclosure statement made by the accused- appellants. Jarnail Kaur was admitted in PGI. The injuries on her person were supported by Dr. Ramesh Chandra (PW-14), Senior Resident, Neurosurgery, PGI, Chandigarh, who proved her admission and discharge on 6.3.2003. Her bed head ticket was also proved. The statement of injured witness Jarnail Kaur (PW-6) has proved the alleged incident and there is no motive to falsely identify the accused-appellants. Shadi Ram Saini, father of the complainant died due to ante mortem injuries which were sufficient to cause death as per post mortem report Ex. PA.
16. Dr. Ishwar Chand Taneja found as many as 5 injuries on the person of deceased and stated that those injuries were ante mortem in Crl. Appeal No. 824-DB of 2007 (6) nature and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock due to injury No.1, 2 and 5. The probable time between injury and death was minimum and between death and postmortem was within 12 hours. The medical evidence has proved the death of Shadi Ram Saini, which has occurred due to the injuries and the same has been corroborated by the statement of injured witness Jarnail Kaur (PW-6). The presence of Jarnail Kaur (PW-6) was natural in the house where the occurrence took place.
17. The argument of the learned counsel for the accused- appellants that complainant-Umesh Saini (PW-5) and injured witness Jarnail Kaur (PW-6) were closely related to the deceased and their statements cannot be relied upon, has also no merit, as it is settled law that the statements of closely related witnesses are to be scrutinized with care and caution. There is no inconsistency in the statements of Umesh Saini (PW-5) and Jarnail Kaur (PW-6) and their statements cannot be discarded.
18. For the reasons explained above, we are of the view that there is no reason to interfere with the findings given by the trial Court. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial Court is upheld and the appeal filed by the accused-appellants is dismissed.
(DAYA CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
November 17, 2009 (JASBIR SINGH)
pooja JUDGE
Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No