Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Jawahar vs State Of Punjab on 13 March, 2013
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Inderjit Singh
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
(1) Criminal Appeal No.D-177-DB of 2008
.....
Date of decision:13.3.2013
Ram Jawahar
...Appellant
v.
State of Punjab
...Respondent
....
(2) Criminal Appeal No.D-782-DB of 2009
.....
Varinder Sain alias Pappu
...Appellant
v.
State of Punjab
...Respondent
....
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
.....
Present: Mr. S.S. Rana, Advocate for both appellants.
Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the
respondent-State.
......
Inderjit Singh, J.
This judgment will dispose of above mentioned two appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal No.D-177-DB of 2008 filed by Ram Jawahar and Criminal Appeal No.D-782-DB of 2009 filed by Varinder Sain alias Pappu as these arise out of the same judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 6.2.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana.
Cr. Appeal Nos.D-177-DB of 2008 etc. [2] These two appeals have been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 6.2.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby both the accused-appellants, namely, Ram Jawahar and Varinder Sain alias Pappu have been held guilty for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of `5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the FIR in the present case was registered on the statement of complainant-Ram Preet, who got his statement recorded to SI Sandeep Kumar, SHO, Police Station, Focal Point, Ludhiana on 23.6.2003 at about 4.15 a.m. In the statement, Ram Preet stated that he along with his family is residing in the `Vehra' of Lala Dewan Chand, Phase 5, Focal Point for the last about ten years. His uncle, namely, Raj Bali was also residing there. On that night, the complainant and Rajinder Parsad had been sleeping on the roof of the house. The bulb was switched on in the `Vehra'. At about 1.00 a.m., the complainant woke- up after hearing `Raula' and noticed that Varinder Sain alias Pappu and his brother-in-law Ram Jawahar, to whom he already knew and who were also residing in his `Vehra', were beating to his uncle Raj Bali and were saying that they would teach him a lesson for catching woman. He got woke-up Rajinder Parsad, who was sleeping with him. His uncle was raising `Raula' of `being killed - being killed' and was asking for help. The complainant noticed that Ram Jawahar had caught hold of his uncle from his arms and his brother-in-law Pappu had given `Karad' (knife) blow, having hold in his Cr. Appeal Nos.D-177-DB of 2008 etc. [3] hand, on his uncle Raj Bali which hit on the left side of his neck. Resultantly, his uncle fell down on the ground. At this, the complainant and Rajinder Parsad got down from the roof of the house after making noise. At the same time, Varinder Sain alias Pappu and his brother-in-law tried to run away from the spot along with their weapon, however, they were overpowered by the complainant and his companion Rajinder Parsad. Thereafter, he saw Raj Bali, who had already expired. In the meantime, the other people of the `Vehra' also gathered there. After leaving Rajinder Parsad at the spot, when he was going to lodge report regarding the occurrence, the Police party met him on the way. The motive of the occurrence was that Ram Jawahar was blaming upon Raj Bali for forcibly catching his wife. `Ruqa' was sent to the Police Station, on the basis of which formal FIR was registered.
Then SI/SHO Sandeep Kumar along with Police officials reached at the spot and inspected the spot. The dead body of Raj Bali was lying in the courtyard and both the assailants were in the custody of public. He took `Karad' (knife) from the right hand of the accused Varinder Sain and prepared rough sketch Ex.PF and then took it into Police possession after preparing sealed parcel vide recovery memo Ex.PG. Rough site plan Ex.PK was prepared. Inquest report Ex.PL regarding Raj Bali was prepared and the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. The accused were arrested. The statements of witnesses were recorded. After necessary investigation, the challan was filed in the Court.
On presentation of challan, the trial Court finding prima facie case against accused-appellants Ram Jawahar and Varinder Sain alias Cr. Appeal Nos.D-177-DB of 2008 etc. [4] Pappu, framed charges for the offences under Sections 302 read with Section 34 IPC, to which the accused-appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Dr. U.S. Sooch, Medical Officer, who mainly deposed regarding conducting of post- mortem examination on the dead body of Raj Bali on 23.6.2003 at 1.30 p.m. and found the following injury:-
"1. Incised wound 3/4" x 1/4" x chest cavity deep on the left sub clavicular area 2¼" from mid line."
As per the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death in this case was haemorrhage and shock as a result of stab wound on the heart caused by injury No.1 which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and injury was ante-mortem. The time between injury and death was immediate and time between death and post-mortem was about 12 hours.
PW-2 Constable Ram Saran mainly deposed regarding preparing of scaled site plan Ex.PC. PW-3 Ram Preet-complainant and eye witness to the occurrence mainly deposed as per prosecution version. PW-4 HC Amarjit Singh is a formal witness, who tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PE. PW-5 Rajinder Parsad is another eye witness in this case. He also deposed on the same line as deposed by complainant Ram Preet PW-3. PW-5 Rajinder Parsad further stated that the motive behind the occurrence was that accused Ram Jawahar was alleging that Raj Bali (deceased) had caught hold of his wife due to which both the accused- appellants present in the Court had murdered Raj Bali. PW-6 Constable Gurwinder Singh is a formal witness, who tendered in evidence his affidavit Cr. Appeal Nos.D-177-DB of 2008 etc. [5] Ex.PH. PW-7 ASI Manjinder Singh was also with the Police party and he deposed regarding the investigation conducted by SI/SHO Sandeep Kumar. PW-8 SI/SHO Sandeep Kumar, is the Investigating Officer. He deposed regarding the investigation conducted by him in this case. PW-9 ASI Rajwinder Singh also deposed regarding the investigation of the case as he was also with the Police party of SI/SHO Sandeep Kumar.
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. They denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded themselves as innocent. They also stated that they had been falsely implicated by the PWs on the basis of misguided suspicion. In fact, Raj Bali (deceased) flirted with the wife of Ram Jawahar and sister of Varinder Sain alias Pappu one and half months prior to the murder. Due to that a quarrel had taken place between Ram Jawahar and Raj Bali, Ram Preet, Rajinder Parsad and Varinder Sain alias Pappu. That matter was patched up at that time on the intervention of respectable and a written apology was tendered by Raj Bali (deceased). Raj Bali was murdered on the road by some unknown persons but due to above said suspicion, the PWs had falsely implicated them in the present case.
In defence, no evidence was produced on behalf of the accused- appellants After going through the evidence and material produced on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused- appellants for the offences as mentioned above.
At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants Cr. Appeal Nos.D-177-DB of 2008 etc. [6] argued that presence of PWs on the spot is doubtful. He further argued that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. The defence version is more probable. In the alternative, learned counsel for the appellants argued that the case of the prosecution falls under Section 304, Part I IPC and not under Section 302 IPC.
On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the respondent-State argued that the case of the prosecution has been duly proved by the eye witnesses, whose statements have been duly corroborated by medical evidence. The appellants were present at the spot. Blood stained weapon was recovered from the appellants on the spot. There being no merit in the appeals, these should be dismissed.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the respondent-State and with their assistance have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully.
From the record, we find that it is a case of direct evidence. As per statement of PW-3 Ram Preet-complainant, he has his house in the same compound. We have seen the site plan. There are so many rooms in the `Vehra' of Lala Dewan Chand. As per PW-3, he was sleeping on the roof of his room along with PW-5 Rajinder Parsad. Both these PW-3 Ram Preet and PW-5 Rajinder Parsad have consistently deposed regarding the prosecution version. There are no material improvements nor material contradictions in their statements which may go to the root of the case. The appellants were apprehended on the spot and when the Police reached, these Cr. Appeal Nos.D-177-DB of 2008 etc. [7] appellants were handed over to it and were arrested by the Police at the spot. The weapon of offence `Karad' (knife) was also recovered from the spot. The statements of the PWs are duly supported and corroborated by medical evidence and further investigation of the case.
The FIR in the present case is prompt one and there is no unnecessary delay in recording it. The occurrence took place at 1.00 a.m. and the statement of Ram Preet-complainant was completed at 4.15 a.m. on the same day. Even the post-mortem examination was conducted almost within 12 hours on the dead body of Raj Bali (deceased). As per FSL report the `Karad' was found to be stained with human blood which further supports and corroborates the prosecution version. There is also motive for causing the occurrence. It is in the statement of PW-5 that Ram Jawahar was alleging that Raj Bali (deceased) had caught hold of his wife. The other accused Varinder Sain alias Pappu is brother-in-law of Ram Jawahar. From the evidence on record, the presence of PWs on the spot cannot be doubted. Rather, the presence of the PWs on the spot is natural one. There is nothing on the record to show that injuries were caused somewhere else in the street by unknown persons especially when the accused-appellants were apprehended on the spot and handed over to the Police. Therefore, from the evidence on record, we find that the prosecution has duly proved its case by leading cogent evidence beyond any reasonable doubt.
As regards the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the case falls under Section 304 Part-I IPC, we find merit to that extent. Only one blow had been given by one of the accused-appellants with a vegetable `Karad' (knife). From the facts and circumstances, it looks Cr. Appeal Nos.D-177-DB of 2008 etc. [8] that in the heat of passion occurrence took place and the appellants have not acted in cruel manner. There is also evidence regarding eve-teasing of wife of Ram Jawahar and sister of Varinder Sain by Raj Bali (deceased). Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, we find that the appellants have not acted in cruel or unusual manner.
Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find that the case of the appellants falls under Section 304, Part I IPC instead of under Section 302 IPC.
In view of the above discussion, both the appeals are partly allowed. Both the appellants are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of `2,000 each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each.
(Jasbir Singh) (Inderjit Singh)
Judge Judge
March 13, 2013.
*hsp*