Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Parsad vs State Of Haryana on 15 October, 2010
Author: Rajan Gupta
Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, Rajan Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No.169-DB of 2007
DATE OF DECISION: October 15, 2010
Ram Parsad
.....Appellant
versus
State of Haryana
.....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr.Navjot Singh, Advocate for
Mr.Hemant Bassi, Advocate for the appellant
Mr.Pardeep Singh Poonia, Additional Advocate
General, Haryana
..
RAJAN GUPTA, J.:
This appeal emanates from a judgment and order dated 04.01.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, whereby appellant Ram Parsad was convicted for commission of offence under Sections 302/201 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- under section 302 IPC and three years R.I. with fine of Rs.5000/- under section 201 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for six months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
The prosecution case, in short, is that on 17.11.1999, SI-Lachhman Singh along with ASI-Jagat Singh, HC-Jagat Singh, UGC Phool Kawar, Constables Rakesh and Raj Criminal Appeal No.169-DB of 2007 - 2 - Pal were on patrol duty in the area of village Salarpur Majra in official jeep bearing No. HR01-1754 being driven by Constable Sher Singh. There Munshi Ram lodged complaint (Ex.PG) that on 16.11.1999 at about 5.30 p.m. when he reached in front of the fields of one Virender, he saw an iron box in the minor canal which was emitting foul smell. After observing carefully, he found some portion of iron box broken and noticed a dead body lying inside the box. He narrated the said incident to Phool Singh, Member Panchayat. A ruqa was then sent to the police station whereupon formal FIR Ex.PG/2 with regard to the occurrence was registered and investigation was carried out. On opening the box the police found dead body of a man whose neck was tied with a piece of cloth. After registration of case aforesaid, the police started investigation, visited the place of occurrence, held inquest over the dead body and prepared the inquest report. The wrist watch, underwear, lock and iron box were taken into possession by the police. A rough site plan of the place of recovery was also prepared and in the course of investigation statements of large number of persons were recorded. Thereafter, the dead body was sent to Civil Hospital for post mortem examination. Phoolo Devi, PW1 (wife of deceased) had lodged report Ex.PA at Police Station Kishan Pura, Panipat that her husband Chander Mohan (deceased) had left home alongwith accused Gulab Chand and since then her husband was missing. During the course of investigation, it was Criminal Appeal No.169-DB of 2007 - 3 - revealed that accused Ram Parsad and Gulab Chand had, in connivance with each other, killed Chander Mohan (deceased), put the dead body in iron box and threw the same in the canal.
On completion of the investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the accused Gulab Chand and Ram Parsad (appellant herein). Accused Gulab Chand, however, absconded and was declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 22.04.2005 whereas Ram Parsad (appellant herein) was arrested. The case being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Sonepat and charge under Sections 302/201 read with Section 34 IPC was framed against the accused vide order dated 01.06.2005.
The accused/appellant, however, pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. After closure of evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. He simply denied the allegations of prosecution and pleaded that he was innocent. The defence did not adduce any evidence. At the conclusion of trial, the trial court vide impugned judgment came to the conclusion that accused/appellant was guilty of offence as aforesaid and sentenced him accordingly.
Aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal impugning the judgment delivered by the trial court.
Criminal Appeal No.169-DB of 2007 - 4 -
Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the trial court has fell in grave error while appreciating the evidence and come to an erroneous conclusion that appellant was guilty. He submitted that merely on the basis of circumstantial evidence a finding of guilt was recorded against the appellant which is not sustainable. According to him, there was no corroboration of evidence of PW5-Pawan Kumar and thus, his testimony was not worthy of reliance.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, vehemently supported the findings arrived at by the trial court and submitted that prosecution had succeeded in proving its case beyond any manner of doubt and thus, the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant deserves to be maintained.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case with their assistance.
We now proceed to discuss the evidence as has come on record. PW1 Phoolo Devi, who is wife of deceased, stepped into the witness box and stated that she was living with her husband in Mohalla Kishan Pura, Panipat in a rented accommodation. While they were living on ground floor, accused Gulab Chand (who absconded) used to reside on first floor of the house. The said accused belonged to village Garara in Bihar. The deceased (husband of PW1) was running a readymade garments shop in Kishan Pura area of Panipat. On 5.11.1999, her husband had accompanied Gulab Criminal Appeal No.169-DB of 2007 - 5 - Chand for going somewhere and thereafter he did not return. On 9.11.1999, she reported the matter to police and DDR (Ex.PA) was recorded. This witness further stated that her husband was having good relations with Gulab Chand and both of them had purchased a plot measuring 140 sq. yards in Panipat. After her husband disappeared, she decided to sell the plot to move back to her native village in Bihar. When she made efforts to sell the plot, she came to know that same had already been sold. The person claiming to be the owner of plot showed a conveyance deed which bore photograph of accused Ram Parsad. It transpired that Ram Parsad had sold the said piece of land by impersonating as Chander Mohan. She also stated that one month prior to the date when her husband went missing, elder brother of Ram Parsad had come to Panipat and had a quarrel with her father-in-law. Phoolo Devi, thereafter, shifted to Bihar. After about 15 days she came to know from villagers that dead body of her husband had been recovered from Gohana- Mohana Minor in an iron box. She was summoned to police station where she identified the clothes, wrist watch and other belongings of her husband. All these articles, clothes, etc. belonging to deceased were taken into possession by the police as Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. Phoolo Devi handed over copy of report, Ex.PA, copy of agreement-Ex.PB pertaining to purchase of plot and photographs of accused Gulab Chand and Ram Parsad to the police. PW2-Vashishth Kumar, Head Constable and PW3--Jagdish Rai, ASI, are formal Criminal Appeal No.169-DB of 2007 - 6 - police witnesses who proved certain procedural aspects. PW4 is Munshi, who narrated the version as given in complaint, Ex.PG. He also proved recovery memo (Ex.PH) whereby iron box alongwith other articles were taken into possession. This witness had also deposed regarding lifting of earth from the canal as also hair of the head of deceased which were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PH/1. Pawan Kumar, who deposed before trial court as PW5, is the witness before whom extra-judicial confession was made by Ram Parsad (appellant). He stated that in February-2005, he was present in the village alongwith one Rajesh at about 11.00 A.M. when accused Ram Parsad had come to him in a perplexed condition and told him that he had committed the murder of a bihari named Chander Mohan, who used to reside in Panipat. He further asked him to produce him before the police which Pawan Kumar did. He disclosed to Pawan Kumar that there was a dispute regarding a plot due to which he had murdered Chander Mohan. PW6-Naresh Kumar and PW7-Satbir Singh, Head Constable are again formal police witnesses. Accused Ram Parsad was interrogated in the presence of PW7- Satbir Singh, Head Constable. HC-Satbir Singh deposed that during interrogation, the accused had disclosed that Gulab Chand and Chander Mohan used to reside in neighbourhood and they had purchased a plot measuring 140 sq.yards in Panipat. Gulab Chand was also in visiting terms with Ram Parsad. Later, Gulab Chand in collusion with Ram Parsad had sold away the plot where Ram Parsad had impersonated as Criminal Appeal No.169-DB of 2007 - 7 - Chander Mohan and also signed as Chander Mohan in Hindi. When Chander Mohan came to know about this, he had picked up quarrel with Gulab Chand. It was thereafter that Gulab Chand hatched a conspiracy to kill Chander Mohan. On 5.11.1999, Chander Mohan was called at the rented house of Ram Parsad where Gulab Chand was also present. Chander Mohan was made to lie on the cot. Ram Parsad caught hold of Chander Mohan by his feet while Gulab Chand throttled and murdered him. Thereafter both the accused put the dead body of Chander Mohan in an iron box and threw the same in the Yamuna Canal. The iron box was used for carrying and throwing the dead body in the canal. The disclosure statement of the accused was reduced into writing and taken on record as Ex.PM. On the basis of disclosure statement, the place of occurrence was demarcated by accused Ram Parsad and memo of demarcation (Ex.PM/1) was prepared. The accused thereafter led the police party to the place where the dead body was thrown in the Yamuna Canal and demarcation memo-Ex.PM/2 was prepared in this regard. Another prosecution witness PW8-Rajinder proved photographs Ex.P9 to P-12 along with negatives Ex.P13 to P16. PW9- Jagdish Chander is another prosecution witness who made certain depositions regarding identification of articles of the deceased by Phoolo Devi. Investigation was carried out by Inspector Laxman Singh, who stepped into witness box as PW10. He deposed regarding the inquest report, Ex.PQ, recovery memos, etc. He had also prepared a rough site Criminal Appeal No.169-DB of 2007 - 8 - plan of the place of occurrence and had recorded the statements of witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. Scaled site plan, Ex.PS was also got prepared by him through Ved Parkash, Patwari. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination stepped into witness box as PW11. He gave opinion that dead body was of an average built young adult male. The cause of death, according to him, was strangulation by ligature. The time elapsed between death and post-mortem was 3 to 5 days. This report (PMR) was taken on record as Ex.PT.
It is evident that the entire dispute revolves around a plot measuring 140 sq. yards, which was bought by Gulab Chand and deceased together. There is ample evidence on record to show that said plot was sold by accused Ram Parsad while impersonating as Chander Mohan (deceased). This fact came to light after the death of Chander Mohan when his wife tried to dispose of the plot in question. It transpired at that time the plot had already been sold by Ram Parsad while impersonating as Chander Mohan. Even conveyance deed bore the photograph of Ram Parsad. It is on this clue that the investigating agency started the investigation and arrived at a conclusion that deceased had been killed by Ram Parsad and Gulab Chand by hatching a conspiracy. Pawan Kumar before whom the extra-judicial confession was made clearly stated that Ram Parsad had told him that he had murdered one bihari, namely, Chander Mohan. After being produced before the police, the accused made Criminal Appeal No.169-DB of 2007 - 9 - certain disclosure statements whereby place of occurrence as well as the place where dead body was thrown in Yamuna Canal were described. The evidence that has come on record completes the chain of events. There can be no manner of doubt that there was strong motive behind the entire occurrence. After Chander Mohan had come to know about the clandestine sale of plot by Gulab Chand in connivance with accused-appellant Ram Parsad, he had started quarreling with both the accused as is evident from deposition of PW7- Satbir Singh, Head Constable. It was thereafter that the conspiracy to kill Chander Mohan was hatched. The manner in which the crime was committed is supported by medical evidence, according to which, the cause of death is strangulation by ligature.
Under these circumstances, this court is left with no manner of doubt that the accused-appellant has been rightly convicted by the trial court for commission of offence under section 302 and 201 IPC.
Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court against the accused-appellant is maintained.
( RAJAN GUPTA )
JUDGE
October 15, 2010
( RANJAN GOGOI )
pc JUDGE