Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunil Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 28 January, 2013
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Inderjit Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No.D-259-DB of 2008
Date of decision : 28.01.2013
Sunil Kumar
.... Appellant
VERSUS
State of Haryana
.... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
***
Present : Ms.Aditi Girdhar, Advocate, Legal Aid Counsel, for the appellant.
Mr.Pardeep Singh Poonia, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State.
*** INDERJIT SINGH, J The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 18.02.2008 and order of sentence dated 20.02.2008, passed by the Sessions Judge, Karnal, vide which appellant Sunil Kumar has been held guilty for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Appellant has also been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC and convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. Both the sentences were ordered to run Criminal Appeal No.D-259-DB of 2008 [2] concurrently.
Brief facts of the prosecution case are that FIR in the present case has been registered on the statement of Mohinder Singh, which he got recorded to Sub Inspector Chand Singh, Incharge, Police Post Ballah on 19.05.2006 at 1:30 p.m. The complainant, in his statement, stated that his father Badan Singh and one Rangi Ram were real brothers. Rangi Ram had expired about 10-11 years ago. Rangi Ram and Badan Singh were residing separately from each other for the last about 15 years. They have constructed dera in their fields. Sunil son of Raj Singh, grand son of Rangi Ram is a vagabond. Complainant further stated that their land was partitioned in a proper manner but Sunil was not satisfied with this partition. On 18.05.2006, Sunil had returned to his dera after remaining out of his house for 4-5 days. On 19.05.2006 in the morning, complainant was ploughing the field of his neighbour Sewa Singh with the help of tractor. Badan Singh reached there in the field while roaming. Complainant's son Pankaj reached there in the field and took the tractor from the complainant and left for ploughing the field owned by Ajmer Singh. At about 10:00 a.m., complainant and his father Badan Singh returned to their dera from their fields on foot. Badan Singh was sitting on a cot lying under the 'pilkhan' tree standing in a vacant place in front of the dera. Complainant was talking with his wife in the verandah of the dera. Then Sunil while standing near the 'pilkhan' tree, having 'gandasa' in his hand, was Criminal Appeal No.D-259-DB of 2008 [3] hurling abuses on his father Badan Singh. Hearing the noise, complainant alongwith his wife ran towards the gate of the dera. Sunil inflicted number of 'gandasa' blows upon complainant's father Badan Singh. Complainant and his wife Geeta tried to apprehend Sunil, whereupon Sunil threatened them to put to death. Badan Singh succumbed to his injuries on the spot, which were caused by Sunil with gandasa on his throat, chest and right ear. Sunil committed the murder of Badan Singh by inflicting injuries with 'gandasa' on account of the grudge nurtured regarding partition of the land. When the complainant, after leaving Om Pal Singh and Pankaj near the dead body, was going to report the matter to the police, police party met him and he got recorded his statement. After making endorsement on the statement, ruqa was sent to the police station on the basis of which formal FIR was registered. Then Sub Inspector Chand Singh, Investigating Officer, alongwith complainant reached at the place of occurrence. Dead body of Badan Singh was lying on a cot. Investigating Officer prepared inquest report Ex.PB/1. Blood stained earth was lifted and taken into police possession after preparing sealed parcel. Blood stained warp and woof of the cot were also taken into police possession after preparing sealed parcel. Dead body was sent for postmortem examination. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. Pardeep Singh, DSP, also reached the place of occurrence and verified the investigation. On 20.05.2006, accused Criminal Appeal No.D-259-DB of 2008 [4] Sunil was arrested. On interrogation, he suffered disclosure statement regarding concealing of weapon of offence i.e. 'gandasa' and in pursuance of his disclosure statement, he got recovered the same, which was taken into police possession after preparing sketch and sealed parcel. Rough site plan regarding the place of recovery was also prepared. After necessary investigation, challan against the accused was presented before the Court.
On presentation of challan, copies of challan and other documents were supplied to accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Finding a prima facie case against the accused, he was charge- sheeted for the offence under Sections 302 and 506 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution, in support of its case, examined PW1 Dr.Piyush Sharma, who alongwith Dr.Umesh Mehta conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Badan Singh on 19.05.2006 and found the following injuries:-
1. An incised wound spindle shape vertically oblique on the right side of face bone deep cutting facial muscles, parotid gland, ramus of right mandible, right frontal bone. Clotted blood was present in the bone. On further dissection, there was a large EDH (extra dural haemorrhage) in right frontal region of brain.
2. An incised wound 16 cm x 3 cm on the right side of face horizontally oblique just above lower angle of Criminal Appeal No.D-259-DB of 2008 [5] mandible cutting facial muscles and mandible.
3. An incised wound 14 cm x 3 cm on the right side of face starting just anterior to lower part or right ear going posteriorly and downwards, cutting ramus of mandible. Clotted blood was present in the wound.
4. An incised wound 10 cm x 3 cm on the right side of neck at upper end cutting muscles carotid vessels and part of third cervical vertebrae. Clotted blood was present in the wound.
5. An incised wound 17 cm x 6 cm on the upper part of chest in middle horizontally oblique cutting upper part of sternum right clavicle trachea and oesophagus.
Clotted blood was present in the wound.
6. An incised wound 11 cm x 2 cm at the chest on upper right side 5 cm below injury No.5 muscle deep. On dissection, there was fracture of third and fourth rib.
7. An incised wound 6 cm x 1 cm on the right shoulder at upper end muscle deep.
In the opinion of the doctors, the cause of death in the case was due to haemorrhage and shock due to injuries on vital organs. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of life. The time interval between injuries and death was within minutes and between death and postmortem was within 24 hours. The weapon was also Criminal Appeal No.D-259-DB of 2008 [6] produced before the doctors in a sealed parcel. After giving the opinion, the doctors handed over that 'gandasa' back in a parcel. PW2 Constable Balbir Singh and PW3 MMHC Mahi Pal Singh are the formal witnesses, who tendered into evidence their affidavits Ex.PD and Ex.PE respectively. PW4 Gurpreet Singh, Patwari, mainly deposed regarding preparing of site plan Ex.PF. PW5 Vinod Kumar, photographer, mainly deposed regarding photographs Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 of dead body and negatives Ex.P8 to Ex.P14. PW6 Mohinder, complainant and eye witness to the occurrence, deposed as per prosecution version. PW7 Geeta Devi wife of Mohinder Singh is another eye witness, who also deposed as per prosecution version. PW8 Sub Inspector Ram Mehar mainly deposed regarding preparing of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. PW9 Head Constable Salinder Kumar mainly deposed regarding recording of formal FIR Ex.PH on the basis of ruqa EX.PG. PW10 Constable Daljit Singh mainly deposed regarding delivery of special report to Ilaqa Magistrate etc. PW11 ASI Raj Kumar, who joined the police party headed by Sub Inspector Chand Singh, mainly deposed regarding the investigation of the case and the disclosure statement suffered by accused and also regarding recovery of 'gandasa' in pursuance of disclosure statement. PW12 Sub Inspector Chand Singh is the Investigating Officer, who deposed regarding the investigation of the case.
At the close of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and confronted with the Criminal Appeal No.D-259-DB of 2008 [7] evidence of prosecution. The accused denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded himself as innocent. He also pleaded that he has been falsely involved in the case.
In defence, the accused examined DW1 Pankaj son of Mohinder Singh, complainant, who mainly deposed that Badan Singh was his grand-father. Badan Singh used to reside with them and he was hale and hearty. As the teeth of his grand-father were weak, therefore, he used to take light diet. He used to take meals three times a day. DW1 Pankaj also stated that police had recorded his statement on the day when Badan Singh died. Many deras are situated near their dera. The cremation and last rites of deceased were performed on 20.05.2006. He (DW1) also stated that accused is handicapped since birth because one of his legs is polio sticken. DW2 Dr.Umesh Mehta, who alongwith Dr.Piyush Sharma conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Badan Singh, proved the copy of postmortem report Ex.PB. He stated that in the small intestine of deceased contained chyme and gases which is the normal digestion process and is the last stage of digestion. He also stated that he cannot say that the murder of deceased had taken place during night time.
The trial Court, after appreciation of evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated above.
At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the case of the prosecution is doubtful as Criminal Appeal No.D-259-DB of 2008 [8] PW1 Dr.Piyush Sharma has stated that the injuries are possible with two weapons. He further contended that Raj Pal Singh, independent witness, was not examined by the prosecution, therefore, recovery of weapon is not proved beyond doubt. Learned counsel for the appellant next contended that no finger print was taken and no independent witness was examined in the present case. Witnesses are only related and interested witnesses. He further contended that the accused is handicapped which fact also creates doubt in the prosecution version. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the presence of witnesses at the place of occurrence is doubtful and the defence version that some unidentified person committed the murder of Badan Singh is probable version. Therefore, he contended that accused should be acquitted accordingly.
On the other hand, learned Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, contended that eye witnesses Mohinder Singh (PW6), complainant and his wife Geeta Devi (PW7) have duly supported and corroborated the prosecution version. There are no material discrepancies or contradictions in their statements. The version of these eye witnesses is further supported and corroborated by DW1 Pankaj, who in cross-examination has stated that accused has committed the murder of Badan Singh. Learned Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, further contended that oral evidence of PWs is duly supported by medical evidence. Blood stained gandasa has been recovered from the accused. Forensic Science Laboratory Criminal Appeal No.D-259-DB of 2008 [9] reports further support and corroborate the prosecution version. Therefore, learned Addl. Advocate General, Haryana, contended that appeal having no merit should be dismissed.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Addl. Advocate General, Haryana and with their assistance we have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully.
From the record, we find no merit in the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant. The occurrence took place outside the dera of the complainant. The dera of the accused is also adjoining. As per evidence, no other independent person was present at the time of occurrence, therefore, question of joining and examining independent witness in the present case does not arise. PW6 Mohinder, complainant, who is son of Badan Singh (deceased) is supposed to be present in his house at the time of occurrence. PW7 Geeta Devi wife of Mohinder Singh, complainant, also supposed to be present in the house at the time of occurrence. The presence of PW6 Mohinder Singh, complainant and PW7 Geeta Devi on the spot cannot be doubted. Both the PWs have consistently deposed regarding the prosecution version. There is no material contradictions or improvements in their version which may go to the root of the case. Both the PWs have deposed consistently as per prosecution version. The statements of both these PWs are duly supported and corroborated by medical evidence i.e. statement of PW1 Dr.Piyush Sharma. The mere fact that in the cross- Criminal Appeal No.D-259-DB of 2008 [10] examination PW1 Dr.Piyush Sharma has stated that injuries are possible with two weapons will not itself prove that injuries were given by two persons with two weapons. Therefore, on this ground, no reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution version. Again the mere fact that finger prints were not taken or sent to Finger Print Expert for examination also cannot create doubt in the prosecution version. At the most, it can be held as a defect in the investigation. Now it is settled law that due to some defect in the investigation, prosecution case cannot be disbelieved. PWs have given the motive regarding the occurrence as accused Sunil was dissatisfied with the partition of the property. Further, we find that recovery of weapon as per disclosure statement of the accused also supports and corroborates the prosecution version. The mere fact that the independent witness Raj Pal Singh was not examined will not create doubt regarding the recovery of weapon of offence. There is nothing on the record to disbelieve the statements of police officials as they have no motive or enmity to depose falsely against accused or to falsely implicate him in the present case. The Forensic Science Laboratory reports Ex.PN and Ex.PN/1 further support and corroborate the prosecution version as human blood was found on the gandasa. There is also no unnecessary delay in recording the FIR. The occurrence took place after 10:00 a.m. on 19.05.2006 and the statement of complainant was completed at 1:30 p.m. on the same day. Otherwise also, there is only one accused in the present Criminal Appeal No.D-259-DB of 2008 [11] case and there is no reason or ground to falsely implicate accused Sunil Kumar in the present case and to let off the actual culprit. The defence version that some unidentified person has committed the murder of Badan Singh cannot be believed and there is no evidence to disbelieve the statements of eye witnesses. Even DW1 Pankaj, who has been examined by the accused, has stated in cross- examination that accused Sunil 'langra' had committed the murder of his grand father. Accused was annoyed because he had got less share as compared to them.
As regarding the fact that the accused is handicapped, we find that it is in the FIR that when complainant and his wife tried to apprehend Sunil, he threatened them to put to death. Therefore, even if the accused is handicapped, he could not be apprehended on the spot.
Therefore, from the evidence on record, we find no merit in the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant. The prosecution has duly proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant are upheld.
Therefore, from the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.
(JASBIR SINGH) (INDERJIT SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
28.01.2013
mamta