Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jora Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana on 5 November, 2012
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Inderjit Singh
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
Criminal Appeal No.D-318-DB of 2008
.....
Date of decision:5.11.2012
Jora Singh and others
...Appellants
v.
State of Haryana
...Respondent
....
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Kumar Mittal
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
.....
Present: Mr. K.D.S. Hooda, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Additional Advocate General, Haryana
for the respondent-State.
......
Inderjit Singh, J.
This appeal has been filed by appellants-Jora Singh, Dilbag alias Bagga and Suresh against the judgment and order dated 19/20.12.2007 passed by Sessions Judge, Jind whereby they have been held guilty for the offence under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' - for short) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of `10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. However, accused-Chatra, Smt. Rani, Smt. Santro, Smt. Sudesh and Giani alias Satpal have been acquitted of the charges for which they were facing trial.
About two years back Satyawan was murdered by Balwan son Cr. Appeal No.D-318-DB of 2008 [2] of Deva Singh and others as stated by complainant Darshana Devi in her statement made to SI/SHO Babu Ram at 9.05 p.m. on 21.9.2005. In that case Balwan son of Deva Singh, Rajinder Singh son of Jora, Bansi son of Deva Singh, Jaipal son of Chattar Singh and Anil were challaned. After about one month of the murder of Satyawan, Satbir son of Chatra was murdered by the party of the complainant and case was registered against Baru and Ved Parkash sons of Bhale Ram and mother-in-law of the complainant, namely, Bhalian wife of Bhale Ram. The complainant further stated in her statement that on 21.9.2005 at about 5.30 p.m. she, her Jethani Sudhi wife of Ram Chander, her mother-in-law Bhalian were present at the house and her husband Ramphal was in the village for some domestic work. On hearing noise of her husband Ramphal of `Bachao Bachao' from the street, the complainant, Sudhi and Bhalian came out and saw Suresh son of Deva, Dilbag alias Bagga son of Chatra, Chatra son of Nihala, Jora son of Deva, Rani wife of Dilbag alias Bagga, wives of Suresh and Bansi and Giani of Hansawala were causing injuries to her husband Ramphal with `Gandasas', iron rod, `Lathis' and `Dandas' in front of the house of Hoshiara which is near to their house and were saying that he be taught a lesson for murdering Anil of Village Hansawala in Dhani Narwana by Rajesh and others. Suresh inflicted `Gandasa' blow on Ramphal which hit on his temple. Bagga gave a `Gandasa' blow which hit on Ramphal's head. Jora Singh also gave a `Gandasa' blow to Ramphal which hit on his head on the backside. Her husband fell down in the street. While lying down Rani and wives of Suresh and Bansi caused injuries to her husband with the `Dandas' while Giani caused injuries to her husband with iron rod. Suresh gave Cr. Appeal No.D-318-DB of 2008 [3] second `Gandasa' blow while her husband was lying down which hit on his chin. On hearing the noise many persons gathered there at the spot. On seeing them, the assailants ran away with their respective weapons. Ramphal was brought to Civil Hospital, Narwana where he succumbed to injuries after some times. After recording the statement, `Ruqa' was sent to the Police Station on the basis of which FIR was registered.
Then the Investigating Officer SI/SHO Babu Ram reached the spot and inspected the dead body of Ramphal and prepared inquest report. EHC Santokhi Ram and Constable Bahadur Singh were deputed to get conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of Ramphal. Then the Investigating Officer along with the Police officials went to Village Badanpur. He could not do investigation as at that time it had become dark. On the next day i.e. 22.9.2005, he inspected the spot and prepared the rough site plan Ex.P.25. He also lifted blood stained earth from the spot. Blood stained earth was taken into Police possession after preparing sealed parcel. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. On 23.9.2005, Jora Singh accused was arrested in another case FIR No.399 of 2004. Accused was arrested in this case. Jora Singh made disclosure statement regarding `Gandasa' and in pursuance of the disclosure statement he got recovered `Gandasa' which was taken into Police possession after firstly preparing sketch and then sealed parcel. On 19.10.2005, accused Dilbag and Chatra were arrested. Dilbag also made disclosure statement and got recovered a `Gandasa' in pursuance of his disclosure statement which was also taken into Police possession. Accused-Chatra got recovered an iron rod in pursuance of his disclosure statement. After necessary investigation, Cr. Appeal No.D-318-DB of 2008 [4] challan was presented.
On presentation of challan, the trial Court finding prima facie charge against the accused-appellants Jora Singh, Dilbag alias Bagga and Chatra, framed charges for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. On an application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C., accused Smt. Rani, Smt. Sudesh, Smt. Santro and Giani alias Satpal, who were placed in column No.2 in the challan, were summoned as accused vide order dated 3.7.2006 to face trial along with accused Jora Singh, Dilbag alias Bagga and Chatra. Accused-appellant Suresh, who was a proclaimed offender, was also arrested and supplementary challan was presented against him. Charges were framed against him for the commission of offences under Sections 148 and 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. The accused- appellants pleaded not guilty to above charges and claimed trial.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Dr. R.K. Sharma who mainly deposed regarding sending `Ruqa' Ex.P.1 to the Police. He also deposed that Ramphal was brought to hospital at 7.10 p.m. PW.2 Dr. Lalit Kumar mainly deposed regarding conducting of post-mortem on the dead body of Ramphal on 22.9.2005. He found the following injuries:-
"1. Incised wound 5 cm long over left eye brow. Clotted blood was present. Injury was 1.5 cm x ½ cm x bony deep.
2. Incised wound 7.5 cm x 1 cm x bony deep over left parietal region. The wound was parallel to the mid line.
3. Incised wound 8 cm x 1 cm x bony deep over occipital region. Bone was cut and clotted blood was present.
4. Incised wound 6 cm x 1 cm x bony deep over right front Cr. Appeal No.D-318-DB of 2008 [5] parietal region. Bone was cut.
5. Incised wound ½ cm x ½ cm x bony deep over left cheek.
6. Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x bony deep over lower lip towards right side. Mandible was found broken at angle of mandible.
7. Incised wound 6 cm long x 1/3 cm x 1/3 cm over lower part of left arm.
8. Multiple abraded contusions over back of right forearm."
In the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was multiple injuries over the head which were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death.
PW-3 Darshana, who is the complainant and also an eye witness mainly deposed as per prosecution version. PW-4 Sudhi is also another eye witness deposed as per prosecution version. PW-5 Kuldeep Gupta, Draftsman, deposed regarding preparing of scaled site plan. PW-6 Constable Sohan Lal, PW-7 EHC Balwan Singh and PW-8 MHC Bhag Singh are formal witnesses, who tendered in evidence their affidavits Exs.P.10, P.11 and P.12 respectively. PW.9 Constable Surender Kumar deposed regarding delivery of special report at 11.30 p.m. to the Illaqa Magistrate. PW.10 EHC Santokhi Ram, who joined the investigation and got conducted post-mortem examination, deposed regarding those facts. He also deposed regarding disclosure statement made by Jora Singh and recovery of `Gandasa' in pursuance of the disclosure statement. PW-11 ASI Rajender Singh joined the investigation. He also deposed regarding disclosure statement made by accused Dilbag and disclosure statement made Cr. Appeal No.D-318-DB of 2008 [6] by Chatra and then in pursuance of their disclosure statements recovery of `Gandasa' and iron rod respectively. PW-12 Babu Ram, SI/SHO is the Investigating Officer who mainly deposed regarding the investigation. PW- 13 SI Siri Bhagwan mainly deposed regarding accused Suresh and also regarding his disclosure statement and then in pursuance of the disclosure statement recovery of `Gandasa'. PW-14 Head Constable Jai Parkash also deposed the same facts as deposed by PW-13. PW-15 ASI Ram Niwas mainly deposed regarding scribing of the FIR. The Public Prosecutor closed the prosecution evidence.
At the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and were confronted with the evidence of the prosecution. Accused-Jora Singh deposed that he is innocent. It was a blind murder. He and three other youth persons were arrested on 21.9.2005 by SI Babu Ram from General Hospital, Narwana and a false case under Sections 399, 402 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act was foisted on him and those three young youths. SI Babu Ram had created false evidence against him and the other accused persons. Accused Dilbag alias Bagga and Suresh deposed that they are innocent.
In defence, DW-1 HC Roshan Lal mainly deposed that he had brought the summoned FIR Ex.DA as well as original FIR register. DW-2 Kishan Lal deposed that on the same day Anil was murdered by Ramphal.
From the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants for the offences as mentioned above and acquitted accused-Chatra, Smt. Rani, Smt. Santro, Smt. Sudesh and Giani alias Satpal of the charges.
Cr. Appeal No.D-318-DB of 2008 [7] At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that it is a blind murder case and the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case. No eye witness was present at the spot nor they have seen the occurrence. He also argued that only two `Gandasas' were sent to the FSL and the `Gandasa' recovered from Suresh has not been sent to the FSL. Learned counsel for the appellants next contended that even as per recovery memo `Gandasa' recovered from Dilbag was having Bamboo stick having 13 `Poris' whereas `Gandasa' recovered from Jora Singh as per recovery memo was having only five `Poris' but as per report of FSL these `Gandasas' were having the same length which shows that some another `Gandasa' was sent to the FSL. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the injuries as per doctor's opinion could have been caused with one `Gandasa' Ex.PE which means that the injuries were caused by one person only. He next argued that PW-3 Darshana- complainant in cross-examination has stated that the Police reached in the village when she was shifting injured Ramphal to Hospital. This fact also contradicts the prosecution version. He also argued that the investigation is tainted one. False recoveries have been shown. A reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution version. Therefore, the appeal be accepted accordingly.
On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana argued that it is a case of direct evidence. PW-3 Darshana and PW- 4 Sudhi, who are the eye witnesses and had seen the occurrence have consistently deposed regarding prosecution version. Their statements have been duly supported and corroborated by medical evidence and further by the recoveries of weapons in pursuance of disclosure statements. Learned Cr. Appeal No.D-318-DB of 2008 [8] Additional Advocate General further argued that there was motive for causing the occurrence as there was a long history of enmity between these two groups and on the same day about two hours earlier Anil, person from the accused side, had been murdered in separate incident as deposed by DW-2. Learned Additional Advocate General further argued that there is nothing on the record from which it can be held that the `Gandasa' recovered from Dilbag was not sent to the FSL or that some other `Gandasa' was sent. The PWs have deposed that the case property was sent to FSL in intact condition and the FSL before giving the report had also tallied the seals and found intact as per sample seals. Both `Gandasas' were found stained with human blood which also supports and corroborates the prosecution version. He further argued that the FIR is prompt one. The discrepancy as pointed out in the statement of complainant PW regarding reaching of the Police in the village cannot be held as a fatal to the prosecution case or creates any reasonable doubt. Such type of discrepancy occurs due to gap of time etc. and the witnesses being rustic villagers. Therefore, he argued that case of the prosecution has been duly proved beyond any reasonable doubt and the appeal should be dismissed.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully.
After carefully scrutinizing the evidence produced on record, we find no merits in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants. There is no evidence on the record to show that it is a blind murder case or the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case. It also cannot be held that there is no motive to cause the occurrence or motive has Cr. Appeal No.D-318-DB of 2008 [9] not been proved. There is long history of causing murders and as argued by learned counsel for the appellants himself it is the fifth murder in line. Even the particulars of four murders including this have come on record in this case. Even as per DW-2, Anil was stated to be murdered by Ramphal on the same day at about 4.00 p.m. i.e. just about 1.½/2 hours before this occurrence. Therefore, there was motive to cause the murder as admittedly Anil was related to accused party. PW-3 Darshana-complainant, who is wife of Ramphal and PW-4 Sudhi, who is complainant's husband's elder brother's wife, are the eye witnesses. They have deposed consistently regarding the occurrence and causing of injuries by Jora Singh, Dilbag, Suresh etc. There are no material contradictions or discrepancies in their statements which may go to the root of the case. There is also no material improvements in their statements. The occurrence was at 5.30 p.m. on 21.9.2005, the statement of the complainant was recorded at 9.05 p.m. on the same day and the FIR was registered at 9.20 p.m., which means that the FIR is prompt one. Whatever delay is in recording the FIR, that is due to the reason that firstly Ramphal was taken to hospital. As per PW-1 Dr. R.K. Sharma `Ruqa' Ex.P.1 was sent to the Police and as per his statement Ramphal was brought to hospital at 7.10 p.m. It is settled law that delay in recording the FIR itself is not fatal to the prosecution case and the only precaution in the case of delay is that the Court is to scrutinize the evidence more cautiously and carefully. Learned trial Court has already acquitted Smt. Rani, Smt. Santro, Smt. Sudesh, Chatra and Giani accused by giving benefit of doubt. The statements of both the eye witnesses are duly supported and corroborated by medical evidence. PW-2 Dr. Lalit Kumar Cr. Appeal No.D-318-DB of 2008 [10] who conducted the post-mortem on 22.9.2005 on the dead body of Ramphal found 7 incised wound and multiple contusions. The statement of two eye witnesses are duly supported and corroborated by the recoveries made by the accused. Jora Singh, Dilbag alias Bagga and Suresh got recovered 'Gandasas' Exs.PB, PC and PE respectively in pursuance of their disclosure statements. The 'Gandasa' got recovered by accused Suresh was not sent to the Chemical Examiner as argued. It may be the reason that the 'Gandasa' was not found blood stained at that time as accused Suresh was declared proclaimed offender and arrested after gap of time, therefore, there was no need to send the same to the FSL. The other two 'Gandasas' were found stained with human blood as per FSL report which further supports and corroborates the prosecution version. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that appellant-Dilbag did not cause any injury, as the 'Gandasa' which he got recovered as per recovery memo Ex.P.21 was stated to be having 13 `Pories' of bamboo whereas the 'Gandasa' which was got recovered by Jora Singh as per recovery memo was having only 5 `Pories', but the FSL has shown the length of both these 'Gandasas' as equal. On this argument, we find that no where the length of each `Pori' has been given in the recovery memo nor in the evidence. The 'Gandasa' having five `Pories' may have more length of each `Pori' than the other bamboo on which the blade was fitted and stated to have got recovered from Dilbag, therefore, only on this ground it cannot be held that the Police has substituted the 'Gandasa' or the same has not been got recovered from Dilbag. Otherwise also, there are affidavits of formal witnesses who have deposed that they have not tampered with the property. Again the FSL has compared the seals Cr. Appeal No.D-318-DB of 2008 [11] on the parcels before their examination and there is no evidence that the seals were tampered with. Therefore, from the evidence, it cannot be held that Dilbag did not cause any injury or the 'Gandasa' has been substituted. Again the opinion of the doctor in cross-examination that all these incised wounds can be caused by 'Gandasa' Ex.PE does not amount to a reasonable conclusion that the injuries were caused only with this 'Gandasa'. In cross- examination, he has also stated that in his opinion the chances are bit less for causing all these incised wounds by only 'Gandasa' Ex.PB or by 'Gandasa' Ex.PC. Further, we find that there is nothing on the record that the recoveries have been falsely planted upon the accused. As regards the discrepancy that PW-3 Darshana-complainant has stated that Police reached in the village when she was shifting injured Ramphal to hospital, we find that first of all this discrepancy itself cannot be held fatal to the whole of the prosecution case and on this point only, all evidence led by the prosecution cannot be disbelieved. Secondly, it is settled law that the statement of the witness is to be read as a whole. PW-3 Darshana in examination-in-chief has stated that they brought Ramphal to Civil Hospital, Narwana where he succumbed to his injuries. Police reached the hospital and recorded her statement Ex.P.6. In cross-examination, she stated that she had taken her injured husband Ramphal to Civil Hospital in a four wheeler. Bhalian and Sudhi had remained behind in the village. Police had arrived at the place of occurrence before she left the place for taking her husband to the hospital but a perusal of the cross-examination no where shows that the Police recorded statement of the complainant in the village or Police recorded statement of anybody else before the statement of the complainant. This Cr. Appeal No.D-318-DB of 2008 [12] may be the discrepancy due to short memory or the witness being a rustic villager, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case this discrepancy does not go to the root of the case and cannot be held as a material discrepancy or creates any doubt in the prosecution version.
Therefore, from the above discussion, we find no merit in the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants. The PWs are reliable and trustworthy witnesses. There is nothing in their cross-examination to disbelieve their statements. Their statements are duly supported by medical evidence and investigation of the case. The prosecution has duly proved its case by leading cogent evidence beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants.
Therefore, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(Satish Kumar Mittal) (Inderjit Singh)
Judge Judge
November 5, 2012.
*hsp*