Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raghuvir Singh And Others vs The State Of Haryana on 7 December, 2011
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Sabina
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 933-DB OF 2007 -1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
DATE OF DECISION: December 07 , 2011.
Parties Name
Raghuvir Singh and others
...APPELLANTS.
VERSUS
The State of Haryana
...RESPONDENT
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
PRESENT: Mr. R.S.Bajaj, Advocate, and
Mr. Dhiraj Chawla,
Advocate, for the appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 933-DB of 2007
Mr. Jai Singh Yadav, Advocate, for Mr. Sachin Mittal,
Advocate, for the appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 973-DB of 2007
Mr. Pardeep Singh Pooonia, Addl. A.G., Haryana
for the respondent.
Jasbir Singh, J.
JUDGMENT
This judgment will dispose of two appeals, i.e., (1) Criminal Appeal No. 933-DB of 2007 titled as Raghuvir Singh and others v. The State of Haryana and (2) Criminal Appeal No. 973-DB of 2007 titled as Chattar Pal and another v. The State of Haryana as both arise from one and CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 933-DB OF 2007 -2 the same judgment relating to murder of Joginder Singh on April 7, 2003. For facility of dictating judgment, facts are being taken from Criminal Appeal No. 933-DB of 2007.
The process of law was started on a statement made by Narender Singh (PW9) (brother of the deceased). His statement Ex. PG was recorded by ASI Jawahar Singh (PW15), which led to registration of an FIR No. 73 on April 7, 2003 under Sections 148, 302/149 IPC against the eleven accused, including the six appellants in these two appeals. It is necessary to mention here that an accused, namely, Nanwa Ram son of Maman Chand expired during pendency of this trial. It is also brought to our notice that during pendency of these appeals, Kripa Ram appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 933-DB of 2007 had also expired.
The trial Judge has noticed following case of the prosecution:
"Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that on 7- 04-2007, complainant Narender informed telephonically from Village Rasgan in Police Station Dharuhera that his brother Joginder Singh has been killed by the sharp edged weapon by Nanwa Ram, Kirpa Ram, Ashok, Surender, Pale and Attar Singh. On this information, ASI Jawahar Singh along with other police officials reached at the site. Complainant Narender Singh lodged the complaint Ex. PG alleging therein that he is the resident of Village Rasgan and is a teacher of 10th standard in Masani school. In the family, Joginder Singh is the eldest brother. Thereafter, Geeta is elder to him, whereas Harish is younger to him. On the festival of Holi, his brother Joginder CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 933-DB OF 2007 -3 Singh had a dispute with his cousin Kirpa Ram and Joginder Singh was challaned. He was released on bail by the Court. Accused Kirpa Ram and Nanwa Ram etc. were having a grudge against him. Today, i.e., on 07-04-2003, his brother Joginder was going towards Village Dungarwas on his scooter bearing registration No. DL-8S-N/4077. While he was going in front of house of Nanwa Ram, his father Raghubir, his uncle Nanwa Ram along with Kirpa Ram, Ashok, Surender, Chattarpal, Amar Singh, Angoori, Premwati, Sarbati, Hemlata came out over there as they were sitting there in a pre-planned manner. His father was empty handed. Accused Nanwa Ram and Kirpa Ram were armed with Gandhasa. Accused Ashok was armed with a Farshi. Accused Surender was armed with an iron DAV. Accused Chattarpal was armed with axe. Accused Amar Singh was armed with a sword, whereas all the three women were armed with BAKADIA (wooden stick). At about 5.30 P.M., his father caught hold of Joginder Singh and Ashok gave a blow of Farshi on the head of Joginder Singh. Accused Amar Singh gave a blow of sword on the neck of Joginder Singh. Accused Surender gave a blow of iron DAV on the neck of Joginder Singh. Accused Ashok gave a blow of KARSI on the head. His brother Joginder Singh fell down and all the remaining accused gave the blows on his person with their respective weapons. When the complainant along with his brother Harish wanted to rescue Joginder Singh, then the accused also tried to CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 933-DB OF 2007 -4 give blow on their persons. Accused Chattarpal had left the axe at the site, whereas all the accused left the spot with their respective weapons. Several villagers assembled at the site and Joginder Singh succumbed to the injuries at the site. Previously, a civil dispute was going among his brother and Nanwa Ram over a plot and his brother had won the case. Nanwa Ram had not handed over the possession of the spot."
It is also important to mention here that the police came to know about the accused on receipt of information on telephone, given by Narender Singh (PW9). In that regard, a DDR No. 33 (Ex. PH) was recorded at 5.45 PM in Police Station Dharuhera. The Investigating Officer went to the place of occurrence, prepared an inquest report of the dead body of Joginder Singh and sent it for post-mortem examination. He also recorded statements of the witnesses and got the place of occurrence and the dead body photographed. Rough site plan Ex. PD of the place of occurrence was got prepared with correct marginal notes. Blood-stained earth was also lifted from the spot and was taken into possession against a recovery memo. On that very day, accused namely, Kripa Ram, Ashok Kumar and Chattar Pal were arrested. On a disclosure statement Ex. PM, made by Ashok Kumar accused, a Farsi was recovered. Appellant - accused Chattar Pal got recovered a Kulhari against his disclosure statement Ex. PN. The appellant accused -Kripa Ram got recovered a Gandasa after making a disclosure statement. Appellant - accused Surender Singh was arrested on April 11, 2003. His disclosure statement led to recovery of Daav. Amar Singh, appellant - accused, was arrested on July 4, 2003. His disclosure CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 933-DB OF 2007 -5 statement led to recovery of one sword from his house. Other accused were also arrested in the meantime.
On completion of investigation, final report was put in Court for trial. Copies of the documents were supplied to the appellants and other accused as per law. The case was committed to the competent Court for trial. The accused were charge-sheeted, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution to prove its case produced sixteen witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence. On completion of prosecution evidence, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating material existing on record was put to them, which they denied, claimed innocence and false implication. Suman Kumar (DW1) was produced in defence. The trial Judge, on appraisal of evidence on record, found accused Premwati, Sharbati, Hem Lata and Angoori innocent and acquitted them. However, the appellants were found guilty and vide judgment dated September 14, 2007, they were convicted for commission of offences under Sections 302/148 read with Section 149 IPC and vide order of the same date, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each with a default clause for commission of an offence under Section 302 IPC. For commission of an offence under Section 148 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Hence this appeal.
It is an admitted fact that appellant No. 1 in Criminal Appeal No. 933-DB of 2007 is father of deceased Joginder Singh. Other accused CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 933-DB OF 2007 -6 are also closely related to the deceased.
Counsel for the appellants have vehemently contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish motive on the part of the appellants to commit the crime. It is further argued that the alleged eye witnesses, namely, Narender Singh (PW9) and Geeta (PW13) were not present at the spot. To say so, reference was made to small contradictions here and there in their statements when they appeared in the witness-box. It was further stated that PW8 Smt. Sheela Devi has failed to support case of the prosecution. It is also averred that when alleged weapons of offence were produced in Court, those were not found stained with blood as was case of the prosecution. They prayed that the appeals be allowed , judgment and order under challenge be set aside and the appellants be acquitted of the charges framed against them.
Prayer made has been opposed by the State counsel, who by making reference to the medical evidence, coupled with eye witness account given by PW9 and PW13 argued that the prosecution was successful in bringing home guilt of the appellants - accused. He further argued that the lodging of the FIR is very prompt. Within minutes, information was given to the Police Station through telephone by PW9. Occurrence had taken place at 5.30 PM. DDR regarding receipt of telephonic message in the Police Station Ex. PH was recorded at 5.45 PM. The police reached at the spot within half an hour. Statement of PW9 Narender Singh was concluded at 7 PM and FIR Ex. PG/2 was recorded at 7.30 PM in Police Station Dharuhera, situated at a distance of about 12 KMs from the place of occurrence. He prayed that the appeals having no substance be dismissed.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 933-DB OF 2007 -7 After hearing counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned judgment and order at the instance of the appellants in these two appeals. Occurrence is stated to have taken place on April 7, 2003 in a village street next to the house of the appellants - accused. Post-mortem on the dead body was conducted by PW1 Dr. Ran Vijay Yadav on April 7, 2003, at about 9.45 AM. He found the following injuries on the person of the deceased:
" (i) Incised wound 3" x 1" bone deep on right pareital aspect.
(ii)Incised wound 4" x 2 " bone deep over inter-parietal aspect.
(iii)Incised wound 2 ½ " x 1 " on the left parietal aspect, bone deep.
(iv)Incised wound 5" x 1 ½ " bone deep on the lower occipital region.
(v)Incised wound 2 ½" x 1" bone deep, upper cervical area, just below occipital region.
(vi)Incised wound 4"x 1"x1" deep, just below the left ear, on the neck.
(vii)Incised wound 2" x 1" bone deep, on the left shoulder, near neck.
(viii)Incised wound 2" x 1" , muscle deep, left side of the neck, anterior laterally.
(ix)Incised wound 2" x 1" left arm, bone deep.
(x)Incised wound 4" x 2" bone deep, left thumb, hangs with skin tag.
(xi)Incised wound 2" x 1" just medial to left nipple, piercing CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 933-DB OF 2007 -8 right atrium of heart.
(xii)Incised wound 3" x 2" left wrist, bone deep.
(xiii)Incised wound 3 1/2" x 2", right knee, bone exposed.
(xiv)Incised wound 2" x 1" , right leg, lower 1/3rd area, placed laterally and obliquely.
(xv)Incised wound 2" x 1" , left ankle, bone exposed. (xvi)Incised wound 2" x 1" left leg, medially upper 1/3rd aspect of the leg.
(xvii)Incised wound 2" x 1" left knee, bone deep, placed obliquely.
(xviii)Incised wound 3" x 1 ½ " left gluteal region on illiac crest."
As per opinion of PW1, cause of death was haemorrhage and shock as a result of multiple injuries, which were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course. Post-mortem report was brought on record as Ex. PA. The eye witness account was given by Narender Singh (PW9), who is younger brother of the deceased. At the time of occurrence, he was a student of Xth class. In his complaint Ex. PG, he has given a vivid description as to how the occurrence had taken place. He has stated that when his brother Joginder Singh reached in front of Nalwa Ram's house, his father Raghuvir Singh caught hold of the deceased and injuries were caused to him by the other accused with their respective weapons. This witness has given the detail regarding weapons wielded by the appellants and other accused. Further detail has been given as to the CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 933-DB OF 2007 -9 manner, in which injuries were caused to the deceased. It is also stated that when he, his brother and sister PW13 tried to come forward, they were threatened, which made them to rush to the house of Smt. Sheela (PW8) from where he made a telephonic call to the Police Station. This witness has also given detail regarding the mode and manner of conducting investigation by the Investigating Officer, ASI Jawahar Singh (PW15). The witness has further stated that his grand father had gifted a plot of land to his brother. Civil suit qua that plot was decided in favour of the deceased but Nalwa Ram accused had refused to hand over possession of the land to the deceased. It is further stated that earlier also, some altercation had taken place, for which an FIR was registered against his brother and then he was released on bail. Copy of FIR No. 57 dated March 18, 2003, was brought on record by PW6 H.C. Sube Singh as Ex. PJ. Perusal of the same indicates that on a complaint made by Kripa Ram accused, a case was registered under Sections 323/324/452 IPC against Joginder Singh etc. PW13 Geeta younger sister of the deceased had also supported case of the prosecution. It is noted by the trial Judge that during her deposition, she went emotional and started crying / weeping and made a prayer that strict punishment be awarded to the accused who had committed murder of her brother. Except indicating small discrepancies here and there in the statements of PW9 and PW13, counsel for the appellants have failed to show any major contradiction in their statements which may casts doubt in the mind of the Court regarding case of the prosecution.
Appellant No. 1 - Raghuvir Singh in Criminal Appeal No. 933- DB of 2007 is father of the deceased, PW9 and PW13. It is case of the CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 933-DB OF 2007 -10 defence that Joginder Singh deceased was a vagabond. He was killed in a gang-war and his body was thrown in the street by some unknown persons. If that was so, it is not expected from PW9 and PW13 that they will accused their father and other close relations for murder of their brother. Enmity between the parties is proved on record. PW13 has specifically stated that Joginder Singh deceased was disowned by Raghuvir Singh, appellant No. 1, at an earlier point of time.
DW1 Suman Kumar, Sarpanch of the village, was produced to support case of the defence regarding committing murder of Joginder Singh by unknown persons. However, in Court this witness has specifically stated that he had not seen anybody throwing dead body of Joginder Singh in the fields and nothing had happened in his presence. This witness has also failed to give any cogent proof to say that the deceased was a gangster. Testimony of this witness does not inspire confidence.
Investigating Officer - ASI Jawahar Singh (PW15) and HC Kabal Singh (PW11) have deposed regarding arrest of the accused and disclosure statements made by them, which led to recoveries of the weapons of offences. H.C. Siri Chand (PW12) has also disclosed as to how on a statement made, weapon of offence was recovered from Surender Singh, appellant No. 2- accused. Merely because some of the accused were not named in DDR Ex. PH is no ground to disbelieve story of the prosecution. It is virtually proved on record that PW9 had intimated the Police on telephone, regarding the alleged occurrence, from the house of PW8 Smt. Sheela. May be at that time he failed to disclose names of all the accused. Perusal of the document (Ex. PH) indicates that after mentioning names of CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 933-DB OF 2007 -11 some of the accused, it was said that others were also present. The names of all the accused were disclosed in the statement Ex. PG, the inquest report and other necessary documents. Motive to commit crime is also proved on record. There is nothing on record to show that PW9 and PW13 had any occasion / reason to falsely implicate the appellants - accused in this case. The trial Court had already acquitted some of the accused named in the FIR.
In view of above, Criminal Appeal No. 933-DB of 2007 abates qua Kripa Ram, who had died during pendency of the appeal. Qua others, Criminal Appeal No. 933-DB of 2007 fails and the same is dismissed.
Criminal Appeal No. 973-DB of 2007 also fails and the same is dismissed.
( Jasbir Singh ) Judge ( Sabina) Judge December 07, 2011 DKC