Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manga @ Mangi And Another vs State Of Punjab on 4 August, 2011
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta
Crl. Appeal No.900-DB of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision : 04.08.2011
Crl. Appeal No.900-DB of 2008
Manga @ Mangi and another ...Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALK
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present : Mr. Vikas Behl, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr. K.D.S.Sidhu, Addl. AG, Punjab,
for the respondent-State.
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
Manga @ Mangi and Raj Kumar are in appeal aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.11.2008 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nawanshahr, vide which both the appellants were convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each. In default of payment of fine, the appellants shall required to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five months.
The prosecution case was initiated on the statement of Ramesh Chand son of Nathu Ram, an employee with Karnail Singh-deceased at his liquor vend made to ASI Ram Saroop on 15.08.2006. In his statement Crl. Appeal No.900-DB of 2008 2 (Ex.PA), Ramesh Chand stated that today i.e. 15.08.2006 at about 8.30 pm, Karnail Singh went towards minor canal from his shop for urinating. At that time, he was busy in selling liquor to the customers. In the meantime, he heard a voice from outside that Karnail Singh met with an accident with some unknown vehicle and that driver of vehicle had run away. He alongwith Manjit, owner of STD and some other shop-keepers reached at the place of occurrence and noticed that Karnail Singh was lying in the centre of the road and blood was oozing out. He further stated that they sent a person for bringing the ambulance and when the ambulance reached there, the officials disclosed that Karnail Singh has died. On the basis of such statement, ruqa (Ex.PA/1) was sent to the Police Station for registration of an FIR. On receipt of ruqa, formal FIR (Ex.PA/2) for the offences under Sections 279/304 A IPC was recorded on the same day.
Thereafter, ASI Ram Saroop went to the spot and after completing inquest proceedings, he sent the dead body of Karnail Singh for post-mortem examination. The post-mortem on the dead body of Karnail Singh was conducted by the board consisting of Dr. Kashmir Singh, Dr. J.P.S. Cheema and Dr. Gurpal Singh on 16.08.2006 at about 2.30 pm. The Medical Board found as many as 11 injuries. All the injuries were found to be ante mortem in nature and the weapon used for all injuries was sharp. It was found that injury Nos.10 & 11 were sufficient to cause death in an ordinary course of nature.
It was on 18.08.2006, statement (Ex.PB) of Ravi Sharma was recorded to the effect that the present appellants have made extra judicial confession before him. He stated that on 17.08.2006, Manga Ram son of Bahadur Ram alongwith his cousin brother Raj Kumar @ Raju son of Crl. Appeal No.900-DB of 2008 3 Chanan Ram came to him and told that they have committed a blunder and now are repenting for their guilt. It was stated by them that Karnail Singh, who was running an Ahata, was having bad eye on his mother Bhiro and he restrained him on several occasions. They were feeling insulted, when he used to come to their house after consuming liquor, but he did not mend his ways. On 15.08.2006 at about 8.00 pm, they noticed that Karnail Singh was standing on the back side of the door of Ahata towards their house. They told him to do the work in his shop and why he is seeing towards their house. On this, Karnail Singh abused them and said that whatever power they have, they can use. Then both of them got angry and Manga Ram took an axe, whereas Raj Kumar brought a knife to give injuries to Karnail Singh. Manga Ram inflicted two/three blows of axe on his back and Raj Kumar inflicted various blows with knife on his person due to which Karnail Singh received injuries and fell down. Then they pushed Karnail Singh in the middle of road and fled away from the spot with their respective weapons. On the basis of such statement, both the appellants were arrested on 19.08.2006. During interrogation on 20.08.2006, Manga Ram and Raj Kumar suffered their disclosure statements Ex.PH and Ex.PJ and in pursuance of such statements got recovered the axe and knife (churri) respectively from the disclosed place.
It was on 24.10.2006, Karnail Singh son of Mohinder Singh got recorded his statement in respect of illicit relations of the deceased with the mother of Manga Ram and that Rs.30,000/- were borrowed by the accused from Karnail Singh-deceased, which were not returned. Jagjit Kaur wife of Malook Singh also got recorded her statement in respect of borrowing a sum of Rs.30,000/- by the accused.
Crl. Appeal No.900-DB of 2008 4
On completion of necessary investigations, both the accused were made to stand trial. During trial, apart from examining the formal witnesses, the prosecution has also examined PW-1 Ramesh Chand, author of FIR and PW-2 Ravi Sharma, before whom the accused said to have made extra judicial confession. However, PW-2 Ravi Sharma has not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile. After going through the evidence on record, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced both the appellants, as mentioned above.
Though from the post-mortem report (Ex.PK) Karnail Singh- deceased has received multiple injuries, but in our opinion the prosecution has miserably failed to link the appellants with the commission of crime. PW-2 Ravi Sharma, before whom the accused are said to have made extra judicial confession, has resiled from his statement Ex.PB. Therefore, such extra judicial confession cannot be taken into consideration to prove the allegations against the appellants.
The other evidence is of PW-7 Karnail Singh and PW-3 Jagjit Kaur. The statements of both the witnesses were recorded on 24.10.2006 by SI Gurdev Singh i.e. two months after the occurrence. PW-7 Karnail Singh has deposed that he has seen accused Manga Ram and Raj Kumar quarrelling with Karnail Singh and that on enquiry, they told him that Karnail Singh used to visit their house in their absence, as he was having illicit relation with the mother of Manga Ram. The stand of Karnail Singh- deceased was that the accused have borrowed Rs.30,000/- from him and for that reason, he used to visit their house. In his cross-examination, it has come on record that he attended the funeral of Karnail Singh, but he has not disclosed his conversation with the appellants to the police on that day. We Crl. Appeal No.900-DB of 2008 5 do not find that the testimony of such witness is that of a reliable and trustworthy witness. Kulwant Kaur, wife of the deceased is his cousin. He was present at the time of cremation of the body of Karnail Singh, but kept quite for more than two months before disclosing that the accused had a quarrel with the deceased on 15.08.2006. The conduct of the said witness is improbable, unnatural and does not satisfy the judicial conscious of this Court regarding trustworthiness of the aforesaid witness.
PW-3 Jagjit Kaur is the mother of the deceased. Her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was also recorded on 24.10.2006. She has deposed that her son has paid Rs.30,000/- to Bhiro. Even PW-3 Jagjit Kaur has improved her statement in Court than what was stated by her on 24.10.2006 Ex.DA. Such story of loan of Rs.30,000/- was not raised soon after the occurrence, but became part of the investigations two months later. Her statement also does not inspire confidence as that of a reliable and trustworthy witness.
The only evidence is that of recovery of axe and knife from Manga Ram and Raj Kumar on 20.08.2006 in pursuance of their disclosure statements Ex.PH and Ex.PJ respectively. Such weapons have been recovered from an open place i.e. cremation ground. None of the weapon was stained with blood. Such recovery of weapons at the instance of the accused does not lead to an inference that the same are the weapons of offence used by the appellants in causing death of Karnail Singh.
In view of the above, we find that there is no convincing material on record by which an irresistible conclusion can be reached that the prosecution has able to complete the chain of circumstances, which led to commission of crime by the appellants and the appellants alone. There is Crl. Appeal No.900-DB of 2008 6 no other evidence to support the prosecution case that it is the appellants, who have taken life of Karnail Singh.
In view of the above, by granting benefit of doubt, we acquit both the appellants of the charges framed against them. They shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
04.08.2011 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK)
Vimal JUDGE