Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sanjay Alias Sanjeet Son Of Rameshwar vs State Of Haryana on 15 December, 2010
Author: Ranjan Gogoi
Bench: Ranjan Gogoi
Criminal Appeal No. 465 DB of 2002 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. 465 DB of 2002
Date of decision: 15.12.2010
Sanjay alias Sanjeet son of Rameshwar, resident of Village Butana, District
Sonepat ................Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana ...................Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
Present: Ms. Sumanjit Kaur, Advocate,
Amicus curiae for the appellant
Mr.H.S.Sran, Additional A.G. Haryana
RANJAN GOGOI, J. : (Oral)
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.5.2002 and order dated 30.5.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak in Sessions Case No. 19 of 2001/2002 by which the accused- appellant has been convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month more. Aggrieved this appeal has been filed.
The prosecution case in short is that Bhupinder (PW-10), who is first informant, lodged an F.I.R. in the Police Station Rohak that one Yogesh alias Bittu is his nephew being the son of his cousin. In the aforesaid F.I.R. it was stated that Yogesh was the owner cum driver of jeep bearing registration No. HR-11-7591 which used to take passengers Criminal Appeal No. 465 DB of 2002 2 between Beri and Rohtak. According to the first informant in the morning of 23.11.2000 he alongwith one Pawan (PW-9) was going in a scooter towards the Sugar Mill at Rohtak and on the way and in front of a spinning mill they saw the jeep of the deceased Yogesh parked. They also found Yogesh lying on the road and the accused-appellant and one another person giving blows to Yogesh with iron rods. According to the first informant such blows were directed on the face and head of the deceased. The further case of the prosecution is that on seeing the incident PW-9 and PW-10 stopped and asked Sanjay and the other person the reason for the assault on the deceased Yogesh. On being so questioned, the accused-appellant and his accomplice fled away in another jeep bearing registration No. HR-36B-7136 which was standing on the spot with its engine on. Furthermore, according to the first informant, they gave a chase to the assailants who had fled away from the spot in the jeep but being unable to overtake the jeep, they returned to the place of the occurrence. However, by the said time the deceased Yogesh had been taken to the hospital at Rohtak. According to the first informant, the vehicle belonging to the deceased (HR-11-7591) and another jeep bearing registration No. HR-12E-0056 were standing at the spot.
In the hospital at Rohtak information was conveyed to the police out post regarding admission of an unknown person found lying injured near the Mohan Spinning Mill, Rohtak. One Ram Niwas Assistant Sub Inspector of police, Police Post Shivaji Colony, Rohtak was deputed to go to the hospital at Rohtak. Accordingly, the aforesaid Police Officer went to the hospital where he was informed by the Doctor that the injured was not in a fit condition to make his statement. According to the prosecution, ASI Ram Niwas waited in the hospital until Rajinder, father of Yogesh, came to Criminal Appeal No. 465 DB of 2002 3 the hospital at about 3.40 P.M. By that time the injured person Yogesh had died. Thereafter, first informant Bhupinder made a written complaint to ASI Ram Niwas who endorsed the same and sent it to the Police Station on the basis of which the formal F.I.R. was registered.
After registration of the formal F.I.R. in the case, investigation was carried out in the course of which site plan was prepared, inquest was held and dead body was sent for post mortem examination. On 28.11.2000 the accused-appellant was arrested. In the course of interrogation, on 2.12.2000, he made a disclosure statement on the basis of which the jeep bearing registration No. HR-36B-7136 was recovered alongwith an iron rod which was found under the seat of the said jeep. Thereafter at the conclusion of the investigation, challan was submitted against the accused- appellant and one Rajesh under Section 302 and 216 respectively of the Indian Penal Code. The offence under Sections 302 I.P.C. being exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the case was committed for trial to the learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak. In the Trial Court while charge under Section 302 I.P.C. was framed against the accused-appellant, the other accused Rajesh was charged for commission of the offence under Section 216 I.P.C. Both the accused-appellant and accused Rajesh pleaded not guilty to the charge framed and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial 15 witnesses were examined by the prosecution and none by the defence. The statement of the accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter by the impugned judgment dated 28.5.2002 and the order dated 30.5.2002 while convicting the accused-appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him as aforesaid the other accused Rajesh was acquitted of the offence under Section 216 I.P.C. Aggrieved by his Criminal Appeal No. 465 DB of 2002 4 conviction and the sentence imposed this appeal has been filed.
Of the 15 witnesses examined by the prosecution it will be necessary for the court to take specific notice of the evidence tendered by PW-4 Dr.R.P.Verma who had examined the deceased on his admission to the PGIMS, Rohtak at about 11.30 A.M. on 23.11.2000; the evidence of PW-5 Dr. Satish Ahuja Medical Officer, General Hospital, Rohtak who had conducted the post mortem of the deceased as well as the evidence of PW-6 Mehtab who had deposed about a quarrel between the accused-appellant and the deceased early in the morning of the day of the occurrence i.e. 23.11.2000. The evidence of PW-7, Rajender, father of the deceased and evidence of the two eye witnesses PW-9 Pawan Kumar and PW-10 Bhupinder alongwith the evidence of two Investigating Officers PW-14 Ram Niwas ASI and PW-15 Satyavir Singh, Inspector, will also require specific notice of the court. The court may, therefore, proceed to notice what has been stated by the aforesaid witnesses.
PW-4 Dr. R.P.Verma had deposed that while working as the Causality Medical Officer, PGIMS, Rohtak he had medico legally examined an unknown person who was brought to the hospital on being found lying infront of Mohan Spinning Mill. According to PW-4 he had noticed the following injuries on the person of the injured:-
1. 6x3 cm lacerated wound muscle deep at level of left eyebrow present horizontally on left side face.
2. 7 x 2 cm bone deep lacerated wound on right side forehead.
3. 4x2 cm muscle deep lacerated wound just lateral and above to right eyebrow.
4. Right eye black.Criminal Appeal No. 465 DB of 2002 5
5. Bleeding from both nostrils present.
6. Swelling right side face was present.
7. 2.5 x 0.5 cm lacerated wound just lateral to left angle of mouth was present vertically.
8. Bleeding from mouth was present.
In cross-examination this witness had stated that on the basis of the application filed by the police for permission to record the statement of the injured person he could come to know that the injured person was one Yogesh. However, according to PW-4, as the injured person was not in a fit condition to make any statement, permission to examine him was declined. In cross-examination, PW-4 has further stated that the police had shown him an iron rod and on being asked as to whether the same could have caused the injuries found on the body of the deceased, his opinion was in the affirmative. The said opinion, in writing, has been proved by the prosecution as Ex.P-8.
PW-5 Dr. Satish Ahuja had conducted post mortem of the deceased on 24.11.2000 in the General Hospital at Rohtak. This witness had deposed that the dead body of the deceased was identified by Rajender PW- 7 who is father of the deceased and one Parveen. The findings of the post mortem, as recorded in report thereof (Ex.P-12) are as follows:-
1. There as lacerated wound 6 x 3 cm, at the level of left eyebrow horizontally on the left side of the face, stitched.
2. Lacerated wound on right front of parietal region of scalp 7 x 1 cm, stitched.
3. Lacerated wound 3 x 5 cm, on left parietal region stitched.
4. Stitched lacerated wound 7 x 2 cm, on right side of forehead. Criminal Appeal No. 465 DB of 2002 6
5. Stitched 4x2 cm lacerated wound just lateral and above right eyebrow was present.
6. There was clotted blood on right eye.
7. There was clotted blood present on both nostrils.
8. There was swelling on right side of face.
9. There was stitched 2.5 x 5 cm lacerated wound just lateral to left angle of mouth.
PW-5 had deposed that the post mortem of the deceased had revealed that there was fracture of frontal bone, right parietal bone and left maxilla bones and that there were also certain internal injuries including hemorrhage of the brain of the deceased.
PW-6 Mehtab had deposed that in the morning on 23.11.2000 when he came to the Beri Bus Stand from his village he found the deceased Yogesh standing by his jeep waiting for the passengers. Thereafter, according to this witness, a quarrel took place between Yogesh and two other persons of another jeep over the issue of passengers. According to this witness, he separated the two groups and on being asked he was informed by the second group that their respective names were Sanjay and Vijay Pal.
PW-7, Rajender, is the father of the deceased who in his deposition has stated that on 23.11.2000 he was informed by Bhupinder (PW-10) and Pawan (PW-9) that his son Yogesh had been killed by Sanjay and his friends who had come near the crossing of the Spinning Mill in a jeep bearing registration No. HR-36B-7136. According to this witness on getting the said information he alongwith Bhupinder came to the Medical College at Rohtak and found his son lying in an unconscious state in the Emergency Ward.
Criminal Appeal No. 465 DB of 2002 7
PW-9 Pawan Kumar in his deposition had stated that he used to work as a conductor on jeep No. HR-11-7591 which was owned and driven by the deceased. PW-9 has further deposed that on 23.11.2000 at about 11 A.M. he alongwith Bhupinder PW-10 were going in the scooter towards the Sugar Mill at Rohtak. On reaching close to the Spinning Mill on the bypass road he could see jeep No. HR-11-7591 belonging to Yogesh lying parked on the road. According to this witness the accused-appellant and one Vijay Pal were assaulting the deceased with iron rods and at that time Yogesh was lying on the road. This witness has further stated that on seeing the incident they parked their scooter on the road and at that time they could see two other jeeps bearing registration No. HR-36B-7136 and HR-12E-0056 standing alongwith the jeep owned by the deceased i.e. HR-11-7591. The evidence of PW-9 Pawan has been corroborated by the evidence of PW-10 Bhupinder who had stated that after the incident they had chased the assailants in their scooter. However, being unable to overtake the assailants they had returned to the place of the occurrence where they found that the injured had already been taken to the hospital.
PW-14 and PW-15 are the Investigating Officers of the case who had deposed with regard to the different steps taken in the investigation of the case including the seizure of the Driving Licence of the accused- appellant from the place of the occurrence and also the recovery of jeep bearing registration No. HR-36B-7136 and an iron rod under the seat of the jeep on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the accused-appellant.
A scrutiny of the evidence of the main witnesses examined by the prosecution would indicate that apart from the version unfolded by PW- 9 and PW-10 who claimed to be eye witnesses to the occurrence, the Criminal Appeal No. 465 DB of 2002 8 prosecution case rests on the corroboration of the medical evidence of PW-4 and PW-5 by the eye witness account and also on the recoveries made at the instance of the accused-appellant including the seizure of his driving licence from the place of the occurrence.
Learned Amicus curiae who has placed before us all the materials on record has elaborately argued the case to point out that there is a material discrepancy between the evidence of PW-9 and PW-10 inasmuch as PW-9 did not state anything about what had happened after he alongwith PW-10 had chased the assailants in the scooter. This part of the case as pointed out from the deposition of PW-10, according to the learned Amicus Curiae, would introduce some amount of variation in the evidence of two eye witnesses to render the eye witness account doubtful. The learned counsel has also pointed out that the conduct of the witnesses in running after the assailants instead of taking care of the injured and not going to the hospital to enquire about the injured and instead going to inform the father of the deceased is unnatural conduct on the part of the said witnesses. That apart, learned Amicus Curiae has pointed out that the ownership of the jeep allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused-appellant has not been proved. It also appears from the evidence of MHC Rajender Singh PW-11 that the licence seized from the place of the occurrence was not handed over to him. All the aforesaid aspects of the case, according to the learned Amicus Curiae, make the prosecution version highly doubtful. It is also pointed out by the learned Amicus Curiae that the iron rod allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused-appellant did not have any blood stains on it which fact should be taken into account to determine the culpability of the accused-appellant.
Criminal Appeal No. 465 DB of 2002 9
On the other hand Shri H.S.Sran, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana has pointed out that there is nothing on the record to disbelieve the testimony of PW-9 and PW-10 who are natural witnesses to the occurrence. Learned State counsel has further pointed out that the minor discrepancies in the evidence of two eye witnesses as pointed out, in fact, would add to the authenticity of the prosecution version and in the present case no major discrepancy or variation is noticeable in the testimony of PW- 9 and PW-10. The learned counsel has pointed out that ownership of the jeep recovered (HR-36B-7136) as well as the evidence of PW-11 that the licence of the accused-appellant was not handed over to him, will not make any material difference to the authenticity of the prosecution case. Regarding the conduct of the eye witnesses in running after the assailants and not going to the hospital or not rushing to the aid of the injured, learned Amicus Curiae has pointed out that merely because the witnesses had acted in a particular manner the same would not be sufficient to discredit their evidence.
We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned Amicus Curie as well as by Shri H.S.Sran, learned Additional Advocate General Haryana. We have also read and considered the judgment under challenge as well as the evidence tendered by the prosecution witnesses.
The short question that has to be answered in the present appeal is whether the two eye witnesses (PW-9 and PW-10) should inspire the confidence of the court so as to enable the court to determine the culpability of the accused on the basis of their evidence. On the date of the occurrence PW-9 and PW-10 were travelling together in a scooter at about 11 A.M. and were going towards the Sugar Mill at Rohtak. Both the witnesses had Criminal Appeal No. 465 DB of 2002 10 given satisfactory reason for going together. On the way they saw the incident and immediately thereafter the accused-appellant had left the place in a jeep . The two witnesses gave them a chase on the scooter. However, they were not able to overtake the assailants and therefore, returned to the place of the occurrence when they found that the injured had already been taken to the hospital. Thereafter they went and reported the incident to PW- 7 father of the deceased and then came to the hospital.
There is nothing inconsistent or contradictory in the evidence of the eye witnesses. Nothing significant has been elucidated in the cross- examination of the either of the eye witnesses. The conduct of the eye witnesses in chasing the assailants and in first informing the father of the deceased and thereafter going to the hospital cannot be, per se, unnatural or opposed to the normal human conduct so as to throw any doubt on the veracity of the versions narrated by them in the court. If the eye witnesses are to be believed, the prosecution case would stand established. Added to the above, is the disclosure statement of the accused and the recovery made on the basis thereof which facts would be admissible in evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. In addition, the evidence of doctors who had initially examined the injured and had performed the post mortem fully corroborate the evidence of the eye witnesses with regard to the blows given on the head of the deceased. The evidence of the Doctor who had initially examined the injured and the report of the post mortem also are in harmony and consistent to each other. All the aforesaid facts which have been proved by the prosecution would lend further credence to the case brought against the accused-appellant.
For the aforesaid reasons we are inclined to hold that the view Criminal Appeal No. 465 DB of 2002 11 taken by the learned Trial Court in convicting and sentencing the accused- appellant is perfectly justified. The judgment dated 28.5.2002 and order dated 30.5.2002 passed by the learned Trial Court therefore, is affirmed and the appeal is consequently dismissed.
The accused-appellant is on bail. He be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence imposed on him by the present order.
(RANJAN GOGOI) JUDGE (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE December 15, 2010 RSK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? _____