Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranbir vs State Of Haryana on 21 March, 2013
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Inderjit Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No.D-1070-DB of 2010
Date of Decision: March 21, 2013
Ranbir
...Appellant
VERSUS
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Ms.Aditi Girdhar, Advocate
Legal Aid Counsel,
for the appellant.
Mr.G.S.Chahal, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana
for the respondent-State.
****
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment of conviction dated 30.07.2010 and order of sentence dated 31.07.2010, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohtak, whereby he was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ` 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. He was further convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of ` 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months. Appellant was further convicted under Section 309 IPC and sentenced Crl. Appeal No.D-1070-DB of 2010 -2- to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.
The brief facts of the prosecution case are that during the course of investigation of report No.22 dated 07.09.2005, ASI Ajit Singh, Incharge P.P. City Meham along with other police officials reached Ward No.3 of PGIMS, Rohtak and after seeking the opinion of the doctor, filed written application before the Duty Magistrate Sh.Vimal Sapra for recording the statement of Nidhi. The Magistrate reached PGIMS, Rohtak and recorded statement of patient Nidhi and copy of the same was handed over to ASI Ajit Singh, Investigating Officer. In her statement, Nidhi daughter of Ranbir, aged 12 years made to JMIC (Duty) on 07.09.2005 at 10.10 P.M. stated that her father is serving in a Bank at Rohtak and he had obtained loan for purchase of a tractor. But her father could not repay the loan and he told them that since he could not repay the loan, there was no use of living in debt and therefore, he asked them to kill themselves by consuming pills. Thereafter, he gave one tablet to her, one to her brother Anuj aged 8 years and he himself also consumed one tablet. She and her brother refused to consume the tablet. Her father asked them as to who would take care of them after his death and thereafter, put the tablets in her mouth as well as in the mouth of her brother. She also stated that her mother had died due to burn injuries and at that time no body was present in the house. She, her brother and her father had gone to Hisar and they were coming back from bus stand, Meham and on way they had consumed tablets which were meant for being used to preserve the wheat. Her maternal uncle lives in Baliana Crl. Appeal No.D-1070-DB of 2010 -3- and he did not come present on that day. His uncle had gone to the fields. The occurrence took place on 06.09.2005 at 4.00 P.M. After taking tablets, they were lying in GHER (enclosed Plot) but the owner of that plot had asked them to leave. When they were going then some one on seeing them conveyed telephonically to the house and brought them to PGIMS. She is making statement on her own will.
On receiving copy of the statement by ASI Ajit Singh, it disclosed case under Section 307 and 309 IPC. Thereafter, ruqa was sent to the police station, on the basis of which FIR was registered.
On 07.09.2005, Ranbir got recorded his statement to ASI Karan Singh which was recorded in the DDR No.22 dated 07.09.2005. Suspecting the statement of Ranbir, the Investigating Officer went along with other police officials to Ward No.3, PGIMS, Rohtak, where they made enquiries from Nidhi regarding this case. The Investigating Officer then moved application for obtaining the opinion of the doctor regarding injured Ranbir but doctor told that Ranbir has absconded from the ward. Then the Investigating Officer sought the opinion regarding fitness of Anuj and the doctor gave the opinion that Anuj is unfit for making statement. On 08.09.2005 Anuj expired. The Investigating Officer reached Ward No.16 and made enquiry regarding dead body of Anuj from Dr.Mukesh, who informed him that after preparation of chit of dead body of Anuj Ex.P6, the same was handed over to Ram Kumar s/o Gehnu Ram, grandfather of deceased Anuj. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer reached Mortuary where Prem Singh, Lab Technician told that no dead body was received in the Crl. Appeal No.D-1070-DB of 2010 -4- mortuary and no post-mortem was conducted on the dead body. On the same day, the Investigating Officer reached village Nindana at the house of accused Ranbir, where Ram Kumar S/o Gehnu Ram told him that he did not get conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Anuj and had brought the dead body in the village for cremation. Chit Ex.P6 was taken into police possession vide recovery memo Ex.P21. The spot was got inspected and on the demarcation of Nidhi, the Investigating Officer prepared rough site plan Ex.P28. Two pieces of white paper which contain powder of Sulfas used in the wheat were lifted and converted into sealed parcel. Then the investigation was handed over to SHO Hawa Singh. On 10.09.2005, accused Ranbir, on interrogation, made disclosure statement and demarcated the place. Statements of witnesses were recorded. After necessary investigation, challan was presented against the accused- appellant.
On presentation of challan, copies of challan and other documents were supplied to the accused-appellant under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Finding prima facie case, the appellant was charge-sheeted under Sections 302, 307 and 309 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In support of its case, prosecution examined PW-1 Prem Singh, Lab Technician, who mainly deposed that dead body of Anuj was not received in the mortuary for the purpose of autopsy as per record brought by him. PW-2 Darbara Singh, Patwari, mainly depose regarding preparing of scaled site plan Ex.P1. PW-3 Constable Kulbir Crl. Appeal No.D-1070-DB of 2010 -5- Singh and PW-4 Constable Rajbir Singh, are the formal witnesses, who tendered into evidence their affidavits Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 respectively. PW-5 Constable Ashok Kumar deposed that on 06.09.2005, he was posted at police post, PGIMS, Rohtak. On that day, a ruqa was received about poison case of Ranbir, Ajaypal and Nidhi. There were three MLRs. There were three vials containing the sample of vomit in the shape of parcel with three envelops. He handed over those articles to HC Karan Singh on that very day, which were taken into police possession vide memo Ex.P4. PW-6 Dr.Mukesh mainly deposed that on 07.09.2005, Anuj was admitted in his ward in the morning and was referred from Casualty. He was under his treatment. He had consumed poisonous substance. He further deposed that on 08.09.2005 at about 12.05 A.M., Anuj expired. He handed over the dead body to Ram Kumar, grandfather of Anuj, for taking to dead house. In the morning, he sent ruqa regarding the death of Anuj to Incharge, P.P., PGIMS, Rohtak which is Ex.P5. Transport certificate which he handed over to Ram Kumar is Ex.P6. He further stated that on 09.12.2005, Dr.Geeta Gathwala gave written opinion regarding cause of death. PW-7 Dr.Geeta Gathwala mainly deposed that she has seen FSL report Ex.P11 which confirms aluminium phosphate (sulfas poisoning) which was present in the gastric lavage fluid of the child. She gave her opinion on police request dated 07.12.2005. PW-8 Dr.Asha Sehrawat mainly deposed regarding medico legal examination of Anuj aged 10 years on 06.09.2005. She stated that patient was referred from Shiva Nand Crl. Appeal No.D-1070-DB of 2010 -6- Dharma Chikitsalaya from where he was brought to Casualty at 6.50 P.M on that day with alleged history of consumption of some sulfas tablets at 1.00 P.M. Patient was given poison possibly by some relative. History was given by the father of the patient. She further deposed that on the same day, at 6.50 P.M., patient Nidhi d/o Ranbir aged 15 years was also referred from Shiva Nand Dharma Hospital, who was also brought by a relative with alleged history of consumption of sulfas dissolved in water given forcibly by some relative. History was given by the patient's father. She further deposed that on the same day and same time, patient Ranbir was also referred from Shiva Nand Dharma Hospital and he was brought with relatives with alleged history of consumption of sulfas dissolved in water given forcibly by some relative in Meham Anaj Mandi at about 1.00 P.M. PW-9 Nidhi mainly deposed as per prosecution version. PW-10 Manjit Singh, maternal uncle of PW-9 Nidhi, mainly deposed that on 08.09.2005, they went to village Meham Wali Kheri and near the road, two pieces of papers of white colour were lifted. He along with Nidhi, were with the police party. These papers were lifted and Nidhi told them that these papers are of Sulfas. She further told that both of them were forced to eat Sulfas at that point. PW-11 Inspector Hawa Singh, mainly deposed regarding partly investigation conducted in the present case. PW-12 Head Constable Karan Singh mainly deposed that on receiving V.T. message from PGIMS, Rohtak, he came to PGIMS and took into police possession ruqa sent by the doctor, three vials, sample seals and envelope vide recovery memo Crl. Appeal No.D-1070-DB of 2010 -7- Ex.P4. Then, he moved applications Ex.P19, Ex.P20 and Ex.P7. The doctor declared Ranbir to be fit to make statement, whereas Nidhi and Anuj to be unfit. He recorded the statement of Ranbir but his statement was found to be suspicious. Statement of accused was recorded in DDR at Meham. PW-13 Constable Sombir also deposed regarding investigation of the case. PW-14 Ramdhan, Operation Theatre Attendant mainly brought short stay file of Anuj. PW-15 ASI Ajit Singh, who is the Investigating Officer, deposed regarding investigation conducted in the present case. PW-16 Sh.Vimal Sapra, ACJM, Faridabad, mainly deposed regarding recording of statement of Nidhi.
At the close of prosecution evidence, the accused- appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded himself as innocent. He also stated that he has been falsely implicated. He has not committed any offence. The poison had been taken in the food accidentally, which he, his son and his daughter had consumed. He further stated that they all three were shifted to PGIMS, Rohtak by his father. In defence, accused examined DW-1 Ravinder Rathi, who mainly deposed that father of Ranbir came to him and asked him to accompany him to his house. After going to his house, when DW-1 Ravinder Rathi enquired from Ranbir, he told him that some poisonous substance had fallen in the meal which was consumed by him and his children. He further deposed that accused Ranbir and his children were taken to PGIMS, Rohtak by them in a private jeep. Crl. Appeal No.D-1070-DB of 2010 -8-
On the basis of the evidence produced by the prosecution, accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated above by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Rohtak.
At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant argued that accused in the present case is innocent and has been falsely implicated at the instance of Manjit Singh, maternal uncle of the complainant. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that no post-mortem examination was conducted on the dead body of Anuj. She further argued that statement of PW-9 Nidhi is tutored one and given under the influence of her maternal uncle PW-10 Manjit Singh. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that appeal should be allowed and accused should be acquitted.
On the other hand, learned Addl. Advocate General, Haryana for respondent-State has argued that case of prosecution has been duly proved. There is no reason or ground that why PW-9 Nidhi will depose against her own father. There is nothing on the record that statement of PW-9 Nidhi was tutored one. When the statement of PW-9 Nidhi was recorded, PW-10 Manjit Singh was not present. He further argued that dead body of Anuj was given to grand-father Ram Kumar to deposit it in the mortuary but he had taken the dead body to his village for cremation without getting conducted post-mortem examination. He further argued that oral statements are duly supported and corroborated by medical evidence and FSL report. Learned State counsel, therefore, argued that there being no merit, the appeal should be dismissed.
Crl. Appeal No.D-1070-DB of 2010 -9-
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Addl. Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State and with their assistance, have gone through the evidence on record minutely and very carefully.
From the evidence on record, we find no merits in the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant. In the present case, PW-9 Nidhi is injured witness and she had made statement on 07.09.2005 at 10.20 P.M. before PW-16 Sh.Vimal Sapra, JMIC (Duty). There is suggestion to PW-16 Sh.Vimal Sapra that she had given statement under pressure and not voluntarily. Similarly, there is no suggestion to PW-16 Sh.Vimal Sapra that PW-9 Nidhi was tutored and she gave tutored version. Therefore, from the evidence on record, we find that there is no record to show that statement of PW-9 Nidhi was tutored one. There is also nothing came out from the cross-examination of PW-9 Nidhi, which may show that she had given statement under any influence, pressure or as a result of tutoring. The mere fact that in cross-examination she stated that police had recorded her statement prior to the recording of her statement by the JMIC, Rohtak or her statement that occurrence took place on 08.09.2005, cannot be held fatal to the prosecution version. PW-9 Nidhi when appeared in the Court was of about 14 years. Such type of minor discrepancies can occur in the statements of witnesses and these are not fatal to the prosecution case. Admittedly, the occurrence took place on 06.09.2005 and PW-9 Nidhi, her brother Anuj aged about 8 years and Ranbir Singh, who is the accused in the Crl. Appeal No.D-1070-DB of 2010 -10- present case, were admitted in the hospital on the same day at the same time. Otherwise also, there is nothing on the record why the minor daughter will depose falsely against her father. In cross- examination she stated that after the death of her mother, her father Ranbir Singh used to do all the household work and look after them. They were sent to school by their father. She and her brother were kept nicely with all love and affection by her father. This cross- examination shows that there was no motive for PW-9 Nidhi to depose falsely against her father. She had no ill-will of any type against her father. Otherwise, she would not have given above-said statement in the cross-examination that they have been properly looked after with love and affection by their father. The motive given for the occurrence as per prosecution version is that accused Ranbir Singh was under
debt and for that reason he gave poisonous substance to minor children and had also taken himself. This statement of PW-9 Nidhi is duly supported and corroborated by medical evidence. All the injured as per PW-8 Dr.Asha Sehrawat were referred from Shiva Nand Dharma Chikatsalaya. PW-8 Dr.Asha Sehrawat, medico legally examined Anuj deceased, PW-9 Nidhi and accused Ranbir Singh at about 6.50 P.M. on 06.09.2005. The alleged history given by Ranbir Singh himself is that patients had been given some poisonous substance by some relative and at that time in the alleged history itself, it is written that "consumption of some Sulfas Phosphate at 1.00 P.M." As per PW-9 Nidhi, these tablets were consumed at about 4.00 P.M. and they were taken to Shiva Nand Dharma Chikitsalaya from Crl. Appeal No.D-1070-DB of 2010 -11- where they were referred to PGIMS, Rohtak and they were medico legally examined at 6.50 P.M. The alleged history which accused himself had given as per record, is of administering poison by some relative. There is now no case of the accused that any other person has administered poison to them. The perusal of the cross- examination of PW-9 Nidhi shows that she is truthful, trustworthy and reliable witness. Her statement is duly supported and corroborated by medical evidence. Recovery of two pieces of white paper from the place of occurrence further supports and corroborates the prosecution version. The FSL report also supports and corroborates the prosecution as the vials which were taken into police possession had shown Aluminium Phosphate (Sulfas Phosphate) in the contents. Aluminium Phosphate was also found on those two pieces of paper which were got recovered from the place of occurrence. Further, we find that Investigating Officer has stated that when he went, after recording the FIR, for recording statement of Anuj and Ranbir Singh and filed application for seeking opinion of the doctor regarding fitness of the injured Ranbir Singh, then doctor reported that aforesaid Ranbir Singh has absconded from the ward. This conduct of the accused further shows his guilt. As regarding post-mortem examination, the dead body was handed over to Ram Kumar grand-father of Anuj deceased for depositing the same in the Mortuary but Ram Kumar without getting the post-mortem conducted on the dead body, brought the dead body to the village for cremation. Even the slip given by doctor Ex.P6 was recovered from Ram Kumar.Crl. Appeal No.D-1070-DB of 2010 -12-
We further find that accused has examined DW-1 Ravinder Rathi. We have perused his statement. He had not given any statement to the police. He had not filed any complaint or representation to the higher authorities against false implication of the accused. He is otherwise, related to the accused in the village relation. Otherwise also, no reliance can be placed on his statement in view of the statement of PW-9 Nidhi.
Therefore, from the evidence on record, we find that prosecution has duly proved its case by leading cogent evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The accused-appellant has been rightly convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence are upheld.
In view of the above, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
(JASBIR SINGH ) (INDERJIT SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
March 21, 2013
Vgulati