Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rangi Ram vs State Of Haryana on 1 November, 2010
Author: Satish Kumar Mittal
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Jora Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Crl. A. No. 8-DB of 2002
DATE OF DECISION : 01.11.2010
Rangi Ram
.... APPELLANT
Versus
State of Haryana
..... RESPONDENT
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH
Present: Mr. Nand Lal Sammi, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. S.S. Randhawa, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
***
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J.
1. Appellant Rangi Ram and his two sons, namely Balbir alias Balli and Jogi Ram, were tried for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for committing the murder of one Karma, a co-villager. The court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, vide its judgment and order dated 5.11.2001, convicted and sentenced the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of ` 5,000/-, which has been challenged by the appellant by filing the instant appeal. However, by giving the benefit of doubt to the remaining two accused, namely Balbir alias Balli and Jogi Ram, they were acquitted by the trial court. Against their acquittal, no appeal has been filed by the State of Haryana.
Crl. A. No. 8-DB of 2002 -2-
2. In the present case, the prosecution was launched against the aforesaid three accused persons, on the basis of the statement (Ex.PB) made by Amar Ram alias Amra (PW.11), brother of deceased Karma, to ASI Sat Pal (PW.14) on 21.10.1997 at 3.30 PM. In that statement, he had stated that his brother Karma (deceased) and Sammat (PW.12) had jointly taken 12 acres of land on lease from one Mohinder, a resident of the village. After sowing the paddy crop in the said land, they had cut the crop and heap of paddy fiber was lying in the field and Karma was present in the field for its supervision. On 19.10.1997 at about 7.30 PM, when Sammat went to the field, he did not find Karma present there. Sammat called Karma several times by name in loud voice, but no response was received. Then Sammat slept over the heap of paddy. In the next morning at about 6.30 AM on 20.10.1997, Sammat came to home and told the family of Karma that he was not in the field since last night. On receiving this information, the complainant along with his nephew Parkash son of Karma, Kala, Suresh and many other residents of the village, went to village Parta and surrounding Deras, in search of Karma. On return, when they reached near tubewell kotha existing in the field of accused Rangi Ram, all the three accused were present there. On enquiry, accused Rangi Ram told them that Karma was lying in his kotha. When they saw in the kotha, they found that Karma was lying on cot in unconscious condition under the influence of intoxication. Then, the complainant, Kala, Parkash and Suresh took Karma along with cot to the Dera of Giani Kapoor Singh, a resident of the village, where they Crl. A. No. 8-DB of 2002 -3- arranged tractor of Giani Kapoor Singh and took Karma to Dr. Darshan Singh of village Samadha for treatment. After checking, the Doctor advised them to take Karma to Kaithal. Thereafter, they took him in the Gypsy of Angrej Singh Sarpanch of the village to Dr. Mathur at Kaithal for his treatment. Dr. Mathur, after checking Karma, advised them to take him to Chandigarh or Patiala. Thereupon, they took him in the private vehicle to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, where he was admitted at about 2.00 PM for treatment. On the next day i.e. on 21.10.1997 at about 6.45 AM, Karma succumbed to injuries in Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. He was declared dead by the Doctor. Thereafter, his dead body was taken by them to the village in private vehicle, from where the complainant went to the police to give information about the alleged offence. Then at T point, Kaithal Road in the area of Samadha, his statement (Ex.PB) was recorded by ASI Satpal (PW.14). In his statement, complainant Amar Ram had further stated that he suspected that all the three accused, namely Rangi Ram (appellant), Balbir alias Balli and Jogi Ram, gave poison to his brother Karma in liquor in the night of 19/20.10.1997 and killed him.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, FIR (Ex.PB/1) was registered against all the accused under Section 302/34 IPC, on 21.10.1997 at 4.45 PM. The special report was sent, which was received by the Ilaqa Magistrate at his residence on the same day at 7.45 PM.
4. On the same day, i.e. on 21.10.1997, Ashok Kumar, Inspector, CIA Staff, Kaithal (PW.13) reached the tubewell kotha of accused Rangi Crl. A. No. 8-DB of 2002 -4- Ram and prepared the rough site plan (Ex.PJ). Vide recovery memo Ex.PK, the cot was taken into possession and vide another recovery memo Ex.PH, the glass and Dolu, lying in the kotha, were taken into possession by him.
5. On 22.10.1997 at 10.00 AM, Dr. Ghansham Goel (PW.1) Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Kaithal, conducted post mortem examination of the deceased. He found two abraded injuries, one on the right cheek and the other on the right side of back of the deceased. The stomach, small and large intestine, liver, spleen and kidney were sent for chemical examination. On receiving the report of the Chemical Examiner (Ex.PA/3), it was opined that the cause of death in this case was due to organo phosphorus compound poisoning.
6. On 23.10.1997, accused Rangi Ram and Balbir alias Balli were arrested, whereas accused Jogi Ram was arrested on 27.10.1997.
7. After completion of investigation, the challan was filed against all the three accused and they were charge sheeted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
8. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses, out of whom only PW.1 Dr. Ghansham Goel, who conducted the post mortem examination of the deceased, PW.11 Amar (complainant), PW.12 Sammat, PW.13 Ashok Kumar, DSP, Kosli, who conducted partly investigation of the case, and PW.14 ASI Satpal, who conducted the initial investigation, are the material witnesses. The remaining witnesses, Crl. A. No. 8-DB of 2002 -5- examined by the prosecution, are formal in nature.
9. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., all the three accused denied the allegations appearing against them in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded innocence. In defence, they examined DW.1 Dr. S.S. Dalal, who gave the Chemical Examination Report (Ex. PA/3). He stated that the fatal period in case of this poisoning is half hour to three hours, which may extend to few hours depending upon the poison ingested.
10. The trial court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution and while placing reliance on the circumstantial evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has fully proved its case against accused Rangi Ram and convicted and sentenced him, as indicated above. However, while holding that the presence of accused Balbir alias Balli and Jogi Ram at the time of commission of the offence was doubtful, the trial court acquitted both these accused, by giving them benefit of doubt. Appellant Rangi Ram has challenged his conviction and sentence in this appeal.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that in the present case, the evidence led by the prosecution against all the three accused is the same and by giving the benefit of doubt, the trial court has acquitted two accused, namely Balbir alias Balli and Jogi Ram, whereas on the basis of the same evidnce, the appellant has been illegally convicted. Learned counsel further argued that case of the prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has failed to establish any Crl. A. No. 8-DB of 2002 -6- circumstance, which could justify the conviction of the appellant. PW.11 Amar and PW.12 Sammat have stated that on 20.10.1997, when they were returning to the village after searching Karma, appellant Rangi Ram told them that Karma was lying unconscious in the tubewell kotha of his fields, from where they took Karma, who was lying unconscious on the cot, to the Hospital. To corroborate the statements of these two witnesses, the prosecution did not examine any other witness, namely Kala, Parkash and Suresh, who were allegedly accompanying these two witnesses. Learned counsel further argued that the prosecution has not examined any witness, who had last seen the deceased in the company of the accused or who had seen the accused and the deceased consuming liquor together. Learned counsel further argued that in the present case, the evidence led by the prosecution that the deceased was lifted from the tubewell kotha of the accused in unconscious condition is also doubtful. Learned counsel further argued that in the FIR, no motive was alleged by the complainant, but lateron, in the court, it was alleged that due to the dispute between the parties over the irrigation water, accused Rangi Ram threatened that he will kill Karma by giving him poison in the liquor. But it has not been proved by the prosecution that before whom and when the said threat was given by accused Rangi Ram. Learned counsel further argued that one glass, and one Dolu as well as one cot were taken into possession from the spot by the police, but the same were not sent for chemical examination, therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the link evidence to the effect that the Crl. A. No. 8-DB of 2002 -7- residue of the wine in the glass and the Dolu was containing some poisonous substance. Learned counsel further argued that the entire version of the prosecution is false and concocted. It has not been established as to how the deceased went to the tubewell kotha of the accused and whether he was consuming liquor there or not. Except the statements of PW.11 Amar and PW.12 Sammat, there is no evidence to the effect that the deceased was found unconscious in the tubewell kotha of the accused. In the nutshell, learned counsel argued that in the instant case, the prosecution has miserably failed to lead sufficient circumstantial evidence, which may lead to the conclusion that within all human probabilities the crime was committed by the appellant and none else. Therefore, according to learned counsel, the judgment of the trial court is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
12. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, while supporting the reasoning recorded by the trial court, submitted that the prosecution has fully established its case against the appellant and he has been rightly convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 302 IPC.
13. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.
14. It has been established from the medical evidence (report of the Chemical Examiner - Ex.PA/3), led by the prosecution, that the deceased had died due to organo phosphorus compound poisoning, but there is no direct evidence that the said organo phosphorus compound poisoning was Crl. A. No. 8-DB of 2002 -8- given to the deceased by the accused. The case of the prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence. As per the prosecution version, on 19.10.1997, Karma (deceased) was looking after the heap of paddy in his field, which he along with Sammat (PW.12) of his village had taken on lease, and on that day at about 7.30 PM, when Sammat went to the field, Karma was not found present. Then Sammat slept over the heap of paddy. In the next morning at about 6.30 AM, he came to the house and told the family of Karma about his missing from the field. Thereupon, a search was made by complainant Amar Ram alias Amra and others. During the search, when they reached near the tubewell kotha of accused Rangi Ram, he told that Karma was lying in his kotha. Thereafter, Karma was found lying unconscious on a cot in the kotha, from where he was taken Dr. Darshan Singh of village Samadha for treatment and on the advise of the Doctor, Karma was taken to Kaithal and then to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, where he had died on 21.10.1997 at about 6.45 AM. The dead body was then taken to Civil Hospital, Kaithal, where Dr. Ghansham Goel (PW.1) conducted post mortem examination of the deceased on 22.10.1997 at 10.00 AM.
15. The aforesaid prosecution version is based upon the statements of two witnesses, namely PW.11 Amar and PW.12 Sammat. They had not seen the deceased in the company of the accused. They have not stated as to how the deceased had gone to the kotha of the accused. They have also not stated as to how and when, the deceased had taken liquor with the accused. Actually, in the initial statement (Ex.PB) made by complainant Amar Ram Crl. A. No. 8-DB of 2002 -9- to the police, he did not state even a word about the taking of liquor by the deceased in the company of the accused. In that statement, no motive of the alleged crime was alleged. Even in his statement while appearing before the court as PW.11, complainant did not state even a word about the taking of liquor by the deceased in the company of the accused in their tubewell kotha. It is only Sammat, who has stated in the court, while appearing as PW.12, that on their enquiry, accused Rangi Ram told that Karma had taken liquor with them. He has further stated that there used to be a dispute between Karma and the accused over irrigation water, as the accused party forcibly take water to their field. On that account, accused Rangi Ram had given a threat that he will kill Karma by giving him poison in the liquor. Except the aforesaid version given by this witness, which itself does not appear to be much convincing, the prosecution has not led any evidence of last seen of the deceased in the company of the accused or any evidence that he was taken liquor with the accused in the tubewell kotha of the accused. It has come in evidence that one glass and one Dolu were taken into possession by Inspector Ashok Kumar (PW.13) from the kotha. As per the prosecution version, the said glass and Dolu were used by the accused and the deceased for taking liquor. But it is the admitted case of the prosecution that neither the said glass and Dolu were sent for chemical examination nor any attempt was made by the prosecution to take finger prints from those articles. If the glass and Dolu would have been sent for chemical examination, the prosecution might have been able to establish that the Crl. A. No. 8-DB of 2002 -10- deceased had taken liquor in the company of the accused, while sitting in the kotha of the accused, but nothing was done in this direction. Further, PW.13 Ashok Kumar, DSP, Kosli, who while posted as Inspector, CIA Staff, Kaithal, partly conducted the investigation, has admitted that the cot, on which the deceased was lying, was taken into possession by him vide recovery memo Ex.PH. In his statement, he has also admitted that he felt some smell, and some vomiting might be lying on the cot, but he did not feel it necessary to send the cot for chemical examination. Therefore, again the prosecution has failed to prove the link evidence. This is one aspect of the matter.
16. Secondly, the version given by PW.11 Amar and PW.12 Sammat that the deceased was found unconscious lying on the cot in the tubewell kotha of the accused, where he had taken liquor in the company of the accused, is not only doubtful, but the same has also not been corroborated by any other evidence. As per the prosecution version, relations between the deceased and accused Rangi Ram were not cordial. There was a dispute between them over irrigation water. In that situation, it does not stand to reason that the deceased will go to the tubewell kotha of accused Rangi Ram to take liquor. It is not the case of the prosecution that accused Rangi Ram had forcibly taken the deceased to his kotha for giving poison in the liquor. No such evidence has been led by the prosecution. Even it is doubtful that the deceased was found unconscious in the kotha of accused Rangi Ram. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused Crl. A. No. 8-DB of 2002 -11- Rangi Ram has specifically denied this fact. The version of two alleged eye witnesses, namely PW.11 Amar and PW.12 Sammat, that the deceased was found unconscious in the kotha of the accused, could have been corroborated by two other independent witnesses, namely Kala and Suresh, residents of the village of the complainant, who were members of the searching party and were very much present, when the deceased was allegedly found unconscious in the kotha of the accused. They were cited as witnesses, but were not examined by the prosecution. There are two more witnesses, who could throw some light on this aspect of the matter. They are Giani Kapoor Singh, a resident of the village, on whose tractor the deceased was taken to Dr. Darshan Singh of village Samadha for treatment; and Angrej Singh Sarpanch of the village, on whose Gypsy, the deceased was taken to Dr. Mathur at Kaithal for his treatment. The prosecution has not examined these two witnesses in order to corroborate the version given by PW.11 Amar and PW.12 Sammat.
17. There is another aspect of the matter, which also needs to be high-lighted and which creates doubt in the prosecution version. As per the version given by PW.11 Amar and PW.12 Sammat, Karma was first taken to Dr. Darshan Singh of village Samadha for treatment, who advised them to take Karma to Kaithal. Thereafter, Karma was taken to Dr. Mathur at Kaithal. Dr. Mathur, after checking Karma, advised them to take Karma either to Chandigarh or Patiala. Then he was taken to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, where he was admitted on 20.10.1997 at about 2.00 PM, for Crl. A. No. 8-DB of 2002 -12- treatment. The prosecution has not examined any of the aforesaid two Doctors, who advised to take Karma to Kaithal and then to Chandigarh or Patiala. Only Dr. Iqbal Singh, who was posted as E.M.O. Emergency Department, Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, has been examined as PW.10. He has stated that he had admitted Karma in the Emergency Ward. In his cross- examination, he has stated that the complainant party did not want to inform the police. He had only admitted the patient and did not give him any treatment. The treatment record of Karma has been kept out of the scrutiny of the court. The said record might not have been supporting the prosecution version.
18. There is another important factor, which further creates doubt in the prosecution version. On 21.10.1997 at about 6.45 AM, when Karma was declared dead by the Doctor in Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, how his dead body was permitted to be taken away by the Hospital authorities, without any post mortem examination,and on the next day i.e. on 22.10.1997, at 10.00 AM, post mortem of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Ghansham Goel in Civil Hospital, Kaithal. This further creates doubt in the prosecution version. On 21.10.1997, in the morning, when the dead body was taken from Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, it might not have been told to the Hospital authorities that Karma was given some poisonous substance by the accused. It is only at T Point, Kaithal Road, in the area of village Samadha, at about 3.30 PM on that day, the complainant made statement to the police raising his suspicion that his brother Karma had been given some poisonous Crl. A. No. 8-DB of 2002 -13- substance by the accused in the liquor. Therefore, if the complainant and Sammat were having any suspicion that Karma was given some poisonous substance in the liquor by the accused, then they would have immediately informed the matter to the police in the morning of 20.10.1997 itself, when Karma was found unconscious in the kotha of the accused. But in the present case, the prosecution has failed to explain the delay in lodging the FIR against the accused. The complainant was having enough time to inform the police about the alleged crime, but he did not take any step in this record for more than 24 hours.
19. Further, in a case, based upon circumstantial evidence, motive of the alleged crime assumes great significance. In the present case, the alleged motive is very weak and the same has also not been proved. As per the prosecution story, due to dispute between the parties over the irrigation water, accused Rangi Ram had threatened that he will kill Karma by giving him poison in the liquor. However, the complainant neither in his initial version nor in his statement before the court has uttered even a word about the alleged motive, which has been introduced by PW.12 Sammat only during his deposition in the court. Thus, in the present case, the alleged motive has not been established.
20. In nutshell, the prosecution has miserably failed to lead cogent circumstantial evidence, from which an inference of guilt could have been drawn against the accused. In our opinion, from the circumstantial evidence led in this case, no definite opinion unerringly pointing towards the guilt of Crl. A. No. 8-DB of 2002 -14- the accused can be framed. It is well settled that in order to sustain conviction on the basis of the circumstantial evidence, it is essential that the circumstantial evidence so led by the prosecution must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. Such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused, but should be inconsistent with his innocence [see Gambir v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1982 Supreme Court, 1157, Tarsem Kumar v. Delhi Administration, 1994 (3) RCR (Crl.) 587 (SC) and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622]. In our opinion, the evidence led by the prosecution in this case does not qualify the said standard of proof.
21. There is one other aspect of the matter, where in our opinoin the trial court has committed an illegality. In the present case, on the basis of the same evidence, three persons, namely Rangi Ram, Balbir alias Balli and Jogi Ram, were tried for the alleged charge, but only Rangi Ram has been convicted by the trial court and the remaining two accused have been acquitted by giving them benefit of doubt. In our opinion, evidence against all the three accused were the same. But the trial court acquitted two accused by giving them benefit of doubt on the ground that accused Rangi Ram told that deceased Karma was lying unconscious in the tubewell kotha and only accused Rangi Ram gave a threat to Karma. In the initial version, given by the complainant in his statement before the police as well as in the statement before the court as PW.11, it has only been stated that in the Crl. A. No. 8-DB of 2002 -15- morning of 20.10.1997, all the three accused were present near the tubewell, kotha existing in the field of accused Rangi Ram and on enquiry, accused Rangi Ram told them that Karma was lying unconscious in the kotha. In our opinion, evidence against all the three accused were the same and in that situation, the trial court was not justified at all, while extending the benefit of doubt only to two accused and convicting appellant Rangi Ram on the basis of the same evidence. In Mahmood and others v. State of Bihar, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 1059, it was held that where some of the accused were acquitted by giving them benefit of doubt, conviction of the other accused, while relying upon the same evidence led by the prosecution, is not justified.
22. In view of the above, conviction of the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is not sustainable. Consequently, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court is set aside. The appellant, who is on bail, is acquitted of the charge framed against him.
23. The appeal stands allowed.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
JUDGE
November 01, 2010 ( JORA SINGH )
ndj JUDGE