Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sanjay vs State Of Haryana on 28 July, 2011
Author: Satish Kumar Mittal
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, A.N. Jindal
Crl.Appeal No.578-DB of 2005 and another -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Appeal No.578-DB of 2005
DATE OF DECISION: JULY 28, 2011
Sanjay
.....APPELLANT
Versus
State of Haryana
....RESPONDENT
Crl.Appeal No.662-DB of 2005
Jita Ram
.....APPELLANT
Versus
State of Haryana
....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL
---
Present: Mrs. Anju Arora, Advocate,
Amicus Curiae in Crl.Appeal No.578-DB of 2005.
Mr. Akshay Kumar Goel, Advocate,
Amicus Curiae in Crl.Appeal No.662-DB of 2005.
Mr. S.S. Randhawa Addl.A.G.,Haryana.
..
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.
This judgment shall dispose of Crl. Appeal Nos.578-DB of 2005 and 662-DB of 2005 as both are arising from the same judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Crl.Appeal No.578-DB of 2005 and another -2- Jind.
2. The ghost of honour killing has again swallowed three innocent teenagers, namely, Bodhi alias Vinod, Suman and Budha alias Satish. For their brutal murder, appellants Jita Ram, who is father of Suman (deceased) and Sanjay, who is first cousin of Budha alias Satish, were tried by the Court of Sessions Judge, Jind for the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.5.2005/1.6.2005 the trial Court convicted both the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default of payment of fine or a part thereof, they were to undergo further imprisonment for a term of six months.
Prosecution Version:
3. As per the prosecution version, Sita Ram, father of Budha alias Satish (belonging to Backward Class community) was residing in village Khera Khema Wati along with his family. On 24.1.2003 when he came to village Khera Khema Wati at about 6.00 p.m., after visiting his native village Uplana, the wife of his neighbour Rajinder told him that his son Budha alias Satish and Bodhi alias Vinod son of Tek Ram had enticed away Suman daughter of Jita Ram, and the family members of Suman were searching Suman, Bodhi and Budha. On the next day, i.e., the day of occurrence at about 5.00 p.m. when Sita Ram was sitting in his house with his neighbourers Daya Nand (PW7) and Sarupa (PW6), Goldi son of Jagpal (PW4) came and told him that his son Budha, Bodhi and Suman had been murdered and their bodies were lying in the street right in front of the house Crl.Appeal No.578-DB of 2005 and another -3- of Jita Ram. Immediately Sita Ram along with his brother Om Parkash (PW3) rushed to the spot and found that the dead bodies of Suman, daughter of Jita Ram (accused), Bodhi son of Tek Ram and his son Budha were lying drenched in blood within the area of village street. The blood stained gandasi and sword were also lying near their dead bodies. Accused Jita Ram and Sanjay, who were residents of the same village, were also standing near the dead bodies of Suman, Bodhi and Budha. On inquiry they told him that they had murdered these three because Bodhi and Budha had enticed away Suman (daughter of Jita Ram) and they had brought them after capturing from Sonipat, and since they had ruined their reputation, they had murdered Suman, Bodhi and Budha by inflicting injuries with sword and gandasi, and now they could do whatever they want.
4. Thereafter the complainant and his brother Om Parkash rushed to inform the police about the occurrence and in the meanwhile Ishwar Singh SI/SHO, P.S. Safidon met them on the way and recorded the statement (Ex.PA) of Sita Ram to above facts. The statement was read over and explained to Sita Ram word by word and thereafter he put his thumb impressions on it admitting the same to be correct. On the basis of the said statement, a case under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was registered against the aforesaid two accused.
Investigation:
5. After recording the statement and sending the case for registration to Police Station, SI Ishwar Singh (PW14) along with other police officials as well as Sita Ram (complainant) and his brother Om Parkash (PW3) immediately rushed to the spot. He found the dead bodies of Crl.Appeal No.578-DB of 2005 and another -4- Suman, Bodhi and Budha lying in the street having incised injuries, appears to have been caused by sharp edged weapons. He arranged a photographer who took the photos of the place of occurrence. He took the blood stained earth from the spot and put the same in a plastic dibbi and sealed with the seal of `ISR'. The blood stained sword and gandasi lying near the dead bodies, were also taken into possession vide recovery memos Ex.PB and Ex.PC. Rough site plan of the scene of the crime was prepared by the Investigating Officer in the presence of the witnesses and the dead bodies were sent for post mortem examination. SI Ishwar Singh (PW14) prepared the inquest report of all the three deceased and recorded the statements of Om Parkash and other witnesses. The recoveries of weapons and other articles were made in presence of Sita Ram and Om Parkash vide various recovery memos which were duly signed by them.
6. At 9.30 PM on the date of occurrence, both the accused surrendered themselves before SI Ved Pal (PW9). The blood stained clothes worn by them were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PL attested by Lehna Singh.
7. On 26.1.2003 Dr. R.N. Boora conducted the autopsy on the dead bodies of all the three deceased. On the body of Bodhi, the following injuries were found:-
"1. Incised wound present over occipital region 6 cm x 4 cm, with underline fracture and haemotoma.
2. Incised wound present over left side parietal region 6 cm x 4 cm with fracture of the under line bone area.
3. incised wound is present over left eyebrow 3 cm x 1 cm, underline fracture seen.Crl.Appeal No.578-DB of 2005 and another -5-
4. Incised wound is present over forearm 1 cm x 0.5 cm. No underline fracture seen.
5. Incised wound is present over left scapular region 6 cm x 1 cm. No underline fracture seen."
On the body of Budha, the following injuries were found:-
"1. Incised present on occipital region frontal right side, 6 cm x 4 cm. There is fracture seen with brain matter oozing out from the cut area.
2. Incised wound present over mouth and face, 12 cm x 4 cm, soft tissue sharply cut, mandible fracture present.
3. Incised wound present over chin 6 cm x 4 cm, all the soft tissue cut sharply.
4. Incised wound present over right occipital region near external ear 4 cm x 6 cm size, soft tissue sharply cut.
5. Incised wound is present over left hand 2 cm x 1 cm. No underline fracture seen."
On the body of Suman, the following injuries were found:-
"1. Incised wound present over left side of neck 4 cm x 6 cm, soft tissue sharply cut with fracture seen of the vertebra C- 3 to C-4.
2. Another incised wound present over neck left side just 1 cm below injury No.1, size 5 cm x 2 cm, soft tissue sharply cut.
3. Incised wound present over occipital region size 6 cm x 4 cm. There is underline fracture of occipictal bone. There is haemorrhage (Haemotoma) 100 cc with chemosis present brain matter.
4. Incised wound right side parietal region, size 6 cm x 2 cm. There is underline fracture of right parietal bone.
5. Incised wound present over the right side of skull, anterior aspect of this fracture seen frontal bone of skull 6 cm x 4 cm.
6. Incised wound present over left hand index finger, 2 cm Crl.Appeal No.578-DB of 2005 and another -6- x 1 cm at middle. No underline fracture seen."
8. The aforesaid post-mortem reports have been proved by Dr. Renu Aggarwal (PW15).
9. During investigation, the police recorded the statements of Sarupa, Daya Nand, Smt. Bhateri and Makhan Lal son of Mohan Lal. Makhan Lal (PW12), who belongs to village Paju Kalan, driver of the jeep bearing No.HR-39-A-0886, stated to the police that on 25.1.2003 Jita Ram son of Puran Chand, resident of village Khera Khema Wati hired his vehicle for one day. He along with his other family members went to Panipat and then to Sonipat, and from Sonipat they brought two boys and and one girl to their house in his vehicle, who were later on dropped to village Khera Khema Wati.
10. During investigation, the report of the blood stained clothes of the deceased and the accused, the blood stained earth taken from the spot and the blood stained weapons recovered from the spot were obtained from the Forensic Science Laboratory, which was later on proved as Ex.PG.
11. After completion of investigation, the challan was filed and the accused were charge-sheeted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Witnesses:
12. In support of its case, the prosecution examined the following witnesses:-
13. PW1-Narinder Kumar is the photographer who took 36 snaps from different angles. All those photographs have been proved on record as Ex.P1 to Ex.P36.
Crl.Appeal No.578-DB of 2005 and another -7-
14. PW2-Sita Ram (complainant) has not supported the prosecution case. He had stated that he had gone to the police station and narrated the story but the police obtained his thumb impressions on blank piece of papers. He stated before the police that on 24.1.2003 when he returned to his village, the wife of Rajinder told him that his son Budha, Bodhi and Suman had eloped from the village, but in the Court he had denied that he ever stated before the police that when he was sitting with Daya Nand and Sarupa where Goldi son of Jagmal came and informed him that his son Budha, Bodhi and Suman were murdered and their dead bodies were lying in front of the house of accused Jita. He had also denied that when he along with his brother Om Parkash reached the spot the dead bodies were lying stained with blood and the gandasi and sword were lying near the dead bodies. He had also denied that accused Jita and Sanjay had told him that they had killed these persons as they had brought bad names to their families. Regarding his thumb impressions on his statement (Ex.PA) and recovery memos Ex.PB and Ex.PC, he admitted that these bear his thumb impressions but according to him those were obtained on blank piece of paper.
15. PW3-Om Parkash, who is brother of Sita Ram, also did not support the prosecution case. Later on, this witness was recalled for further examination under the orders of the Court in light of an affidavit (Ex.PW) which was purported to have been executed by him at Panipat. In the said affidavit, this witness has averred that accused Jita, Mahavir, Krishna and Bola sons of Puran resident of Khera Khema Wati and Karamvir alias Kuradia had jointly murdered Vinod alias Bodhi son of Tek Ram on Crl.Appeal No.578-DB of 2005 and another -8- 25.1.2003 at 4.00 p.m. on the chowk in the middle of village by inflicting them injuries with weapons. He has further averred that he had also made a statement to this effect before the police but the police took action only against Jita and Sanjay and did not take any action against the other accused by taking bribe. He has further averred that he had given this evidence without any pressure and instigation. It has been further averred by this witness that the accused wanted to commit the murder of Nirmala, the mother of Vinod and one day they made a murderous assault on her at her house as the accused wanted to destroy the evidence of the case. The police had also registered a case under Section 452 IPC against the accused in which they had been bailed out by the Court. In the last, this witness has averred that the accused are very desperate persons and they had been giving threats to kill him and the other witnesses and were trying to win over the witnesses which is illegal. When Om Parkash (PW3) was re- examined on 13.4.2005, he informed the Court that his brother Sita Ram (complainant) had been murdered but he did not know if a case of murder had been registered by the police and the matter was under investigation. Regarding the affidavit Ex.PW given by him, he had stated that he did not execute the said affidavit. He has also denied his statement (Ex.PX) made before the police on 25.1.2003 and his signatures on various memos, which was earlier not confronted to him when he appeared in the witness box.
16. PW4-Goldi son of Jagmal does not support the prosecution case.
17. PW5-Constable Sita Ram is a formal witness.
18. PW6-Sarupa, PW7-Daya Nand and PW8-Bhateri also did not Crl.Appeal No.578-DB of 2005 and another -9- support the prosecution version.
19. PW9-SI Ved Pal, who registered the formal FIR (Ex.PA/1) and before whom both the accused surrendered at 9.30 PM on the date of the occurrence and confessed that they had committed the crime has fully supported the prosecution case. He took the blood stained clothes of both the accused in possession.
20. PW10-ASI Braham Parkash, who got conducted the post- mortem examination on the dead bodies of Suman, Bodhi and Bodha. He has proved that after conducting the post-mortem report, Dr. R.N. Boora gave him three separate parcels containing the belongings of the deceased and the swab of deceased Suman. These parcels were taken into possession vide recovery memos Ex.PN, PN/1 and PN/2. PW11-Constable Dilbag Singh, who prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PO on the demarcation of Sita Ram.
21. PW12-Makhan Lal, driver of vehicle bearing No.HR-39-A- 0886. This witness has partly supported the prosecution version. He told that one girl and two boys had travelled in his vehicle and he dropped them to Bus Stand Khera Khemawati. He did not support the prosecution version with regard to hiring of his vehicle by the accused and bringing the three deceased from Sonipat.
22. PW13 is Constable Ishwar Singh, who had delivered the special report (Ex.PA/1) to the Magistrate.
23. PW14-SI Ishwar Singh is the Investigating Officer, who conducted the investigation and proved the recoveries made by him. He has specifically denied the suggestion given by the defence that Sita Ram did Crl.Appeal No.578-DB of 2005 and another -10- not make any statement before him and his thumb impressions were obtained by him on blank papers. He has also denied the suggestion that no recovery of any sword or gandasi was made in the presence of Sita Ram and Om Parkash. He stated that on the day of the occurrence he recorded the statements of Goldi, Sita Ram, Daya Nand and Om Parkash.
24. PW15 is Dr.Renu Aggarwal, who proved the copy of the post- mortem reports of deceased Bodhi (Ex.PU), deceased Satish (Ex.PU/1) and deceased Suman (Ex.PU/2), which were prepared by Dr.R.N. Boora who by that time had left the service and went to England. Thereafter the evidence of the prosecution was closed.
25. After closing the prosecution evidence, the investigating agency came to know that the occurrence was witnessed by Poonam daughter of Tek Ram, who is real sister of one of the deceased, namely, Bodhi. The investigating agency was also able to lay its hands on the affidavit (Ex.PW) executed by Om Parkash on 31.5.2003 at Panipat which was duly attested by S.L. Ahuja, Advocate, Notary Public, Panipat. Therefore, an application was moved by the prosecution to examine Poonam, S.L. Ahuja, Advocate, Notary Public and for re-examination of Om Parkash. Vide order dated 14.2.2005 the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind allowed the said application and summoned all the three persons as witnesses and examined them in the interest of justice and for just decision of the case.
26. Thereafter, Shri S.L.Ahuja, Advocate, Notary Public appeared as PW16. He deposed that affidavit (Ex.PW) was executed by Om Parkash on 31.5.2003 and he had put his thumb impressions on the same at Panipat Crl.Appeal No.578-DB of 2005 and another -11- to whom he know personally.
27. Poonam, who was 11 years of age appeared as PW17. This witness has fully supported the prosecution case. She had stated that when she was playing in front of the house, at about 3.00 p.m. a jeep carrying Budha, Suman and her brother Vinod came and in her presence accused Sanjay and Jita first killed Budha by attacking him with a sword and a gandasi, and in fact Jita had pierced the sword through the mouth of Budha and Sanjay then struck a gandasa blow on his neck. In the meanwhile, Suman took shelter inside the house but Sanjay pulled her out and attacked her with a sword. Accused Jita then pierced the sword through her stomach. All the three died on the spot. In cross-examination, this witness fully supported the case of the prosecution.
28. After closing of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they pleaded innocence and stated that they were falsely implicated in this case. Except that, they did not take any defence.
Trial Court's decision:
29. The trial Court after relying upon the testimony of minor Poonam, which has been duly corroborated by the medical evidence, the FSL report, the testimonies of SL Ahuja, Advocate, Notary Public and Makhan Lal and other circumstantial evidence, has convicted both the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life, while coming to the conclusion that in order to salvage their honour, the accused had brutally murdered three teenagers in cold blood because they had ventured to step out of the social Crl.Appeal No.578-DB of 2005 and another -12- injunctions.
Arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants:
30. The appeals were filed by the accused through their Advocates, namely, Mr.Ajit Singh Virk and Mr. Sanjeev Sheokand, but later on when the appeals were listed for hearing, they did not appear. It was informed to the Court that the clients had taken away the brief from them and thereafter they did not instruct them to argue the case. Thereupon, vide order dated 26.7.2011 passed by this Court, Mrs. Anju Arora and Mr. Akshay Kumar Goel, Advocates, were appointed as Amicus Curiae in both the appeals and on their requests the appeals were adjourned for 27.7.2011 to enable them to prepare the case. Thereafter the arguments were heard.
31. Both the learned counsel for the appellants argued that in the instant case the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In this case none of the prosecution witnesses, who were joined in the investigation and cited as prosecution witnesses, supported the prosecution case. However, the learned trial Court, while relying upon the testimony of minor witness Poonam (PW17), who was never associated at the time of investigation and was later on produced by the prosecution as an eye-witness, has convicted the appellants for the offence of committing triple murder. It has been argued that the testimony of PW17 is neither reliable and trustworthy nor has been recorded validly. According to the learned counsel, the trial Court before recording the statement of the said minor witness did not record its satisfaction that the witness was competent to understand the questions put to her and to give rational answers thereto. Learned counsel argued that Poonam (PW17) was Crl.Appeal No.578-DB of 2005 and another -13- examined by the prosecution after a considerable delay. She was never associated by the investigating agency with the investigation as an eye- witness. According to the learned counsel, the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the prosecution introduced eye witness account of the alleged occurrence in the shape of testimony of child witness after more than two and a half years of the alleged occurrence. Learned counsel further argued that in the final report filed by the investigating agency under Section 173 Cr.P.C., minor Poonam (PW17) was not cited as a witness. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the said child witness has given no reasons for her long silence for two and a half years. Learned counsel argued that testimony of Poonam (PW17) is not reliable and trustworthy as she is related to one of the deceased and is an interested witness. Therefore, in this situation, the possibility of coaching and tutoring the said witness cannot be ruled out. Learned counsel further argued that in the facts and circumstances of the present case the testimony of a child witness, who was about nine years old at the time of the occurrence, is not sufficient to sustain the conviction of the appellants, particularly when her testimony has not been corroborated by any independent witness or evidence. Thus, the trial Court, committed grave illegality while convicting the appellants on the testimony of this child witness.
32. Learned counsel further argued that in the present case the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged motive as there is no evidence on the record which establish that the deceased Bodhi and Bodha had eloped with Suman (deceased). Once there is no evidence to that effect then it cannot be presumed that it is a case of honour killing. Learned counsel Crl.Appeal No.578-DB of 2005 and another -14- further argued that as per the prosecution version the occurrence had taken place in day light in the main street of the village. So many persons were available who had witnessed the occurrence, but the Investigating Officer, while appearing in the witness box, stated that there was no eye-witness found on the spot. In spite of that fact, later on Poonam (PW17) was cited as an eye-witness. This creates doubt in the prosecution case.
33. Learned counsel further argued that in this case the post- mortem reports of deceased Bodhi (Ex.PU), deceased Satish (Ex.PU/1) and deceased Suman (Ex.PU/2) have not been proved in accordance with law. Undisputedly, Dr. R.N. Boora, who conducted the autopsy on the dead bodies of all the three deceased, was not examined by the prosecution to prove the said post-mortem reports. Dr. Renu Aggarwal (PW15), who was associated in one of the post-mortem examinations, though cited as a witness, was not produced by the prosecution. Learned counsel further argued that the cause of death of three persons has not been proved by the prosecution. Learned counsel further argued that the opinion (Ex.PT/1) taken from Dr. R.N. Boora to the effect that the injuries on the bodies of the deceased were caused by the weapons, viz., sword (Ex.PB) and gandasi (Ex.PC) recovered in the case, have not been proved because the said doctor has not been examined. Learned counsel further argued that in this case no recovery was effected from the appellants. The sword (Ex.PB) and gandasi (Ex.PC) were stated to have been found on the spot, but the recovery of those two weapons from the spot has also not been established because both the independent witnesses, namely, Sita Ram (PW2) and Om Parkash (PW3), who are witnesses of the recovery, have not supported the Crl.Appeal No.578-DB of 2005 and another -15- prosecution case.
34. Learned counsel further argued that the FSL report (Ex.PG) also does not advance the case of the prosecution because this report does not establish that the blood groups found on the clothes of the accused and the weapons of the offence were of the same group as of the deceased. Learned counsel argued that the learned trial Court has erred in law while believing the testimony of SI Ved Pal (PW9) as in his testimony he had deposed that on 25.1.2003 in the late evening he had arrested both the accused as they had voluntarily surrendered in the police station. At that time, he had also taken into possession the blood stained clothes worn by both the accused. Learned counsel while referring to the recovery memos of clothes (Ex.PL and Ex.PM) argued that according to those recoveries the clothes were taken into possession on 26.1.2003, also belies the testimony of this witness that both the appellants were taken into custody on 25.1.2003.
Arguments of the learned counsel for the State:
35. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State argued that in the instant case three teenagers were brutally murdered by the appellants in broad day light in the open street in order to salvage the honour of the family. When PW2-Sita Ram and PW3-Om Parkash reached the spot after getting information from Goldi that Suman, Bodhi and Budha were lying dead in the pool of blood, they found the dead bodies lying in blood of pool. The blood stained sword and gandasi were also lying near the dead bodies. Both the accused were standing there and they confessed before them that they had killed these persons as they had brought bad Crl.Appeal No.578-DB of 2005 and another -16- names to their family. On the basis of the statement (Ex.PA) made by Sita Ram (PW2), FIR was registered. In their presence the police made recoveries of the blood stained sword, gandasi and other recoveries from the spot. They had signed all these documents and the inquest proceedings as an attesting witness. In spite of all, later on these witnesses turned hostile being won over under the pressure of the accused. The other witnesses, Goldi, Sarupa, Daya Nand and Bhateri, who during the investigation supported the prosecution version, also did not support the prosecution version because of social pressure. Learned counsel argued that in the case of honour killing generally in this region all the prosecution witnesses turned hostile under the pressure of the community and do not support the prosecution case. In light of these facts, learned counsel argued that the learned trial Court while relying upon the testimony of child witness Poonam coupled with other circumstantial evidence, which corroborates the testimony of Poonam, has rightly convicted both the accused for the heinous crime committed by them.
36. Learned counsel argued that the short-comings pointed out by the defence counsel in the testimony of child witness do not stand to close and careful scrutiny of the testimony of the said witness. According to him, the evidence of a child witness is not required to be rejected per se on such technicalities, but the Court as a rule of prudence considers such evidence with close scrutiny and only being convinced about the quality thereof and reliability, can record conviction, based thereon. The learned counsel argued that close scrutiny of the testimony of PW17-Poonam clearly reveals that the testimony of the said witness was quite natural and was consistent Crl.Appeal No.578-DB of 2005 and another -17- with other evidence available on the record, particularly with the medical evidence. The learned counsel argued that the presence of PW17-Poonam at the time of the occurrence was most natural. According to the learned counsel, in the instant case there was no opportunity to tutor her as none of the other prosecution witnesses were interested in the conviction of the accused as they did not support the prosecution case under the pressure of their community. In such situation, there was no scope for anybody to tutor the child witness. Learned counsel argued that in the instant case where the entire village, including the father and uncle of the deceased Budha have become blind even after witnessing the occurrence, the minor child has shown a rare and strong courage to come forward and depose against the accused. The testimony of this witness is truthful, natural and reliable, and the learned trial Court has committed no illegality while relying upon the testimony of this witness. The learned counsel argued that in the instant case the testimony of this witness corroborates the other circumstantial evidence available on the record which clearly and conclusively pointed out towards the guilt of the accused. Learned counsel argued that though specifically the trial Court has not recorded its satisfaction about the witness's intelligence or her capacity to distinguish between right and wrong, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge in his judgment has expressed clearly and unequivocally his satisfaction about the ability of the child witness to understand the questions and to answer them. Merely on such technicality the testimony of a child witness cannot be discarded, particularly when such witness has shown a courage to depose against the guilty persons in case of a honour killing.Crl.Appeal No.578-DB of 2005 and another -18-
Analysis:
37. Recently, there has been a spate of honour killing in this part of the country. Haryana is one of the worst hit as far as honour killing is concerned. Such killings result from the perception that the defense of honour justifies killing a person whose behaviour dishonours their own clan or family. The usual remedy to such murders is to suggest that society must be prevailed upon to be more gender-sensitive and shed prejudices of caste and class. But equally, it should be made clear that there is no escape for those who take justice into their own hands. So far, there is no specific law to deal with honour killings. The murders come under the general categories of homicide or manslaughter. Generally in such type of killings eye-
witnesses are not forthcoming to support the case of the prosecution. This is a biggest problem before the investigating agency and the Court while dealing with such type of cases. In such cases where the witnesses of honour killing become hostile, a heavy duty is cast on the Court to closely scrutinize the evidence in order to reach to the truth. It is the duty of the Court to separate the grain from the chaff. The Court is to ensure that no innocent person be punished. The Court is also equally has to take care that no guilty person escaped the punishment. It is further the duty of the Court to ensure fair trial. The witnesses may not depose in favour or against the prosecution under threats or they are being forced to give false evidence. In Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and Anr. Versus State of Gujarat and Ors., 2004 (4) SCC 158 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"........Time has become ripe to act on account of numerous experiences faced by Courts on account of frequent turning of Crl.Appeal No.578-DB of 2005 and another -19- witnesses as hostile, either due to threats, coercion, lures and monetary considerations at the instance of those in power, their henchmen and hirelings, political clouts and patronage and innumerable other corrupt practices ingenuously adopted to smoother and stifle truth and realities coming out to surface rendering truth and justice, to become ultimate casualties. Broader public and societal interests require that the victims of the crime who are not ordinarily parties to prosecution and the interests of State represented by their prosecuting agencies do not suffer even in slow process but irreversibly and irretrievably, which if allowed would undermine and destroy public confidence in the administration of justice, which may ultimately pave way for anarchy, oppression and injustice resulting in complete breakdown and collapse of the edifice of rule of law, enshrined and jealously guarded and protected by the Constitution. There comes the need for protecting the witness. Time has come when serious and undiluted thoughts are to be bestowed for protecting witnesses so that ultimate truth is presented before the Court and justice triumphs and that the trial is not reduced to mockery." (Emphasis added) It was further held in that case that:
".......The Trial/First Appellate Courts cannot get swayed by abstract technicalities and close their eyes to factors which need to be positively probed and noticed. The Court is not merely to act as a tape recorder recording evidence, overlooking the object of trial i.e. to get at the truth. It cannot be oblivious to the active role to be played for which there is not only ample scope, but sufficient powers conferred under the Code. It has a greater duty and responsibility i.e. to render justice, in a case where the role of prosecuting agency itself is put in issue and is said to be hand in glove with the accused, parading a mock fight and making a mockery of the criminal justice Crl.Appeal No.578-DB of 2005 and another -20- administration itself.
56. As pithily stated in Jennison v. Backer (1972) (1) All E.R. 1006), "The law should not be seen to sit limply, while those who defy it go free and, those who seek its protection lose hope". Courts have to ensure that accused persons are punished and that the might or authority of the State are not used to shield themselves or their men. It should be ensured that they do not wield such powers which under the Constitution has to be held only in trust for the public and society at large."
(Emphasis added)
38. In light of these principles, we will examine and analyze the evidence led by the prosecution and the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge who has convicted both the appellants on the basis of the said evidence.
Homicidal death amounting to murder of three persons has been established:
39. As per the prosecution case on the day of occurrence three teenagers, namely, Bodhi, Budha and Suman were killed by causing injuries on their bodies by sharp edged weapons. After getting the information of three murders, when SI Ishwar Singh (PW14) reached the spot, he found three dead bodies of the aforesaid persons lying in the street in a pool of blood. The blood was oozing. The huge blood was lying near the dead bodies. The post-mortem reports of deceased Bodhi (Ex.PU), deceased Satish (Ex.PU/1) and deceased Suman (Ex.PU/2), have been duly proved by the prosecution by examining SI Ishwar Singh (PW14) and Dr. Renu Aggarwal (PW15). According to these post-mortem reports, three persons had died due to various injuries caused to them. The evidence led by the prosecution clearly established the homicidal death amounting to murder of Crl.Appeal No.578-DB of 2005 and another -21- all the three persons. It has been argued by the defence counsel that the prosecution has not examined Dr. R.N. Boora who conducted the autopsy on the dead bodies of the aforesaid three teenagers, therefore, the cause of their death has not been proved. It has also been argued that the opinion (Ex.PT/1) taken from Dr. R.N. Boora to the effect that the injuries on the bodies of the deceased were caused by sword (Ex.PB) and gandasi (Ex.PC) recovered in this case, has also not been proved because the said doctor has not been examined. This contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is not acceptable. In this case, the post-mortem reports of deceased Bodhi (Ex.PU), deceased Satish (Ex.PU/1) and deceased Suman (Ex.PU/2), have been proved by Dr. Renu Aggarwal (PW15). Further SI Ishwar Singh (PW14) has proved on record that he had obtained the opinion (Ex.PT/1) from Dr.R.N. Boora. No question was asked to this witness that such opinion was not obtained by him. Merely because Dr. R.N. Boora, who conducted the autopsy on all the dead bodies of the aforesaid three teenagers and gave opinion (Ex.PT/1), was not examined as he had gone to England, it cannot be said that the prosecution has not established the cause of death or the homicidal death of three teenagers. In the present case, the defence has not denied the genuineness of the post-mortem reports. No suggestion was given to Dr. Renu Aggarwal (PW15) that the post-mortem reports (Ex.PU, PU/1 and PU/2) proved by her are not the genuine documents.
40. In Akhtar and others Versus State of Uttaranchal (2009) 13 SCC 722, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the genuineness of any document filed by a party is not disputed by the opposite party it can be read Crl.Appeal No.578-DB of 2005 and another -22- as substantive evidence under sub-section (3) of Section 294 Cr.PC. Therefore, in the present case the post-mortem reports (Ex.PU, PU/1 and PU/2), whose genuineness has not been disputed by the accused, can be read as substantive evidence to prove the correctness of its contents without the doctor concerned being examined. Thus, from the evidence led by the prosecution it has been clearly established that the homicidal death of the three teenagers, which amounts to murder, has been clearly established.
41. Now the question arises for consideration is who has caused the homicidal death of the three teenagers.
Prosecution version and the alleged motive of the crime:
42. According to the prosecution version, both the appellants had caused death of the aforesaid three teenagers in order to salvage the honour of their family. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased Budha son of PW2-Sita Ram and Bodhi son of Tek Ram had enticed away Suman daughter of accused Jita Ram. After search, the three teenagers were brought to the village from Sonipat in the jeep and then they were brutally murdered in the open street in front of the house of the accused by the appellants. It has been argued that PW8-Bhateri wife of Rajinder Singh did not support the prosecution case as she had stated that she did not tell Sita Ram that Suman daughter of Jita Ram had eloped with Budha and Bodhi and her family members were searching them. PW2-Sita Ram, however, in his examination-in-chief has stated that his son Budha and Bodhi son of Tek Ram had eloped with Suman. PW12-Makhan Lal, driver of the vehicle bearing No.HR-39-A-0886, though has not supported the prosecution case with regard to hiring of his vehicle by the accused, but he has categorically Crl.Appeal No.578-DB of 2005 and another -23- stated that on the day of occurrence three teenagers, one girl and two boys had travelled in his vehicle and he had dropped them at Bus Stand, Khera Khema Wati. From this evidence, it has been established that Budha and Bodhi had eloped with Suman and they had run away from the house together and on search later they were brought from Sonipat to the village where they were killed. Therefore, from this evidence, the prosecution has established that Bodhi and Budha had eloped with Suman and when they had left their house, they were searched, and later on brought from Sonipat to the village in the jeep where they were killed in the street.
43. Now the question arises for consideration is whether the evidence led by the prosecution is sufficient to establish that both the accused, namely, Sanjay and Jita Ram have committed the murder of Bodha, Bodhi and Suman. The statements of PW2-Sita Ram and PW3-Om Parkash before the police with regard to the confession made by both the accused when the witnesses immediately after receiving the information about the murder of the three teenagers went to the place of occurrence, are relevant. As per the prosecution case, on the day of occurrence PW2-Sita Ram with his neighbourers Daya Nand (PW7) and Sarupa (PW6), was sitting in his house when Goldi (PW4), a resident of the village, came and told him that his son Budha, Bodhi son of Tek Ram and Suman were murdered and their dead bodies were lying in the street in front of the house of Jita Ram. Immediately, Sita Ram (PW2) and his brother Om Parkash (PW3) rushed to the spot and found the dead bodies of his son Bodha, Budhi son of Tek Ram and Suman lying drenched in blood in the village street. Accused Jita Ram and Sanjay were standing near the dead bodies. The blood stained gandasi Crl.Appeal No.578-DB of 2005 and another -24- and sword were also lying near the dead bodies. On enquiry both the accused confessed before both the witnesses that they had murdered these three teenagers by inflicting injuries with sword and gandasi because they had ruined their reputation. After making the statement to the above effect, PW2-Sita Ram put his signatures on his statement in presence of PW14-SI Ishwar Singh after accepting it to be correct. On the basis of the said statement (Ex.PA), FIR (Ex.PA/1) was registered. Similarly, PW3-Om Parkash made the statement to the above effect before PW14-SI Ishwar Singh and put his signatures on recovery memos etc. They have signed various documents at the time of initial investigation. In presence of both the witnesses, the blood stained sword and gandasi were taken into possession vide recovery memos Ex.PB and Ex.PC. However, both the witnesses when appeared before the Court, have resiled from the earlier statements and did not support the prosecution case. It is to make clear here that PW2-Sita Ram is the father of deceased Budha and PW3-Om Parkash is his real uncle. The Investigating Officer SI Ishwar Singh (PW14), who had recorded the statements and effected the recoveries of the weapons of the offence and prepared those memos, has categorically stated that those documents were signed by these two witnesses. They had made the statements before him that when they reached the spot, both the accused confessed that they had killed the three teenagers as they had brought bad names to their family. These two witnesses, while appearing before the Court, though did not support the prosecution version, but have categorically admitted their signatures on their statements as well as various memos signed by them. In this regard they have given the explanation that Crl.Appeal No.578-DB of 2005 and another -25- their signatures were obtained on blank papers.
44. Now the question arises for consideration before this Court is whether these persons had voluntary made the statements before the Court without any pressure or fear. It has come in evidence that PW3-Om Parkash executed an affidavit (Ex.PW) on 31.5.2003 at Panipat which was duly attested by PW16-S.L. Ahuja, Advocate, Notary Public, Panipat. Though PW3-Om Parkash has also denied the execution of this affidavit but the prosecution has successfully proved the execution of the said affidavit by him by examining PW16-S.L. Ahuja, Advocate, Notary Public, Panipat, before whom the said affidavit was executed by Om Parkash. According to the said affidavit, after the occurrence the accused were giving threats to him and other witnesses, and tried to win over the witnesses. According to this witness accused Jita, Mahavir, Krishna and Bola sons of Puran resident of Khera Khema Wati and Karamvir alias Kuradia had jointly murdered Bodhi son of Tek Ram on 25.1.2003 on the chowk in the middle of village by giving them injuries with weapons. This witness has averred that in this regard he had also made a statement before the police but the police took action only against Jita and Sanjay and left the other accused in an illegal manner for extraneous consideration. It has been specifically averred that he had given this evidence of his own understanding and without any pressure and instigation. It has been further averred by this witness that an attempt to commit the murder of Nirmala was made by the accused as they wanted to destroy the evidence of the case. In this regard, the police had also registered a case under Section 452 IPC against the accused in which they had been bailed out by the Court.
Crl.Appeal No.578-DB of 2005 and another -26-
45. Further, when PW3-Om Parkash re-appeared as a witness on the Court's order, he has admitted one more fact that PW2-Sita Ram was murdered during the pendency of the case. When, during the course of arguments, this fact came to our knowledge and we have inquired from the State counsel whether any case with regard to murder of PW2-Sita Ram was registered, the State counsel informed that in that regard FIR No.26 dated 26.1.2005 was registered under Sections 302 and 201 IPC at Police Station Safidon and the said case is still pending under investigation. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that PW2-Sita Ram and PW3-Om Parkash had deposed contrary to their earlier statements made before the police under threat/pressure. Merely because under the threat to their lives, the witnesses were turned hostile, the Court cannot become a silent spectator and be compelled to rely upon the statements made by the hostile witnesses in the Court, which is contrary to their voluntary statements made before the police. It is the duty of the Court to evaluate the statement of such witness before the police and before the Court, and then reach to the truth. If the Court's conscious is satisfied that the statement made by the witness before the police was correct and the statement made by him before the Court was under threat or duress, then the Court can rely upon the statement made by such witness before the police. In Bhagwan Dass Versus State (NCT) of Delhi, AIR 2011 SC 1863, which was again a case of honour killing, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has relied upon the statement of a hostile witness which she had made before the police and her contrary statement in the Court was rejected because she wanted to save the accused. In our opinion, the statements of PW2-Sita Ram and PW3-Om Parkash to the Crl.Appeal No.578-DB of 2005 and another -27- police can be taken into consideration in view of proviso to Section 162(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the subsequent denial of the version given by them in the Court is not believable as the same was made under pressure and threat, as held in Bhagwan Dass's case (supra). Therefore, we accept the statements made by these two witnesses before the police and reject their statements before the Court.
46. The statements of these two witnesses made before the police clearly prove the extra-judicial confession made by the two accused before them about committing the murder of three teenagers by them. In their statements before the police, both the witnesses have categorically stated that after receiving the information when they went at the place of occurrence three dead bodies were lying in the street in a pool of blood. the weapons were lying nearby and both the accused were standing near the dead bodies. On asking who had killed them, they told that they had murdered Suman, Bodhi and Budha by inflicting injuries with sword and gandasi as they had brought bad names to their family.
47. Recently in State of Rajasthan Versus Raja Ram (2003) 8 SCC 180, which has been referred by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagwan Dass's case (supra), it has been observed as under:-
"An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the court. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession, like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made. the value of the evidence as to the confession depends on the reliability of the witness who gives the evidence. It is not open to any court to start with a presumption that extra- Crl.Appeal No.578-DB of 2005 and another -28- judicial confession is a weak type of evidence. It would depend on the nature of the circumstances, the time when the confession was made and the credibility of the witnesses who speak to such a confession. Such a confession can be relied upon and conviction can be founded thereon if the evidence about the confession comes from the mouth of witnesses who appear to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive of attributing an untruthful statement to the accused, the words spoken to by the witness are clear, unambiguous and unmistakably convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime and nothing is omitted by the witness which may militate against it. After subjecting the evidence of the witness to a rigorous test on the touch-stone of credibility, the extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a conviction if it passes the test of credibility."
Thus, in this case, this piece of circumstantial evidence proved by the prosecution pointed towards the guilt of the accused. Presence of blood stained on the clothes of the accused when they had surrendered before the police on the day of occurrence:
48. As per the prosecution case, the alleged occurrence had taken place about 5.00 PM in the street in front of the house of the accused. Both the accused were seen by Sita Ram (PW2) and his brother Om Parkash (PW3) standing near the dead bodies saying that they had murdered the three teenagers to salvage the honour of their family. As per SI Ved Pal (PW9), both the accused surrendered before him at 9.30 PM on the day of occurrence. At that time their clothes were stained with blood. When their blood stained clothes were compared, human blood was found on them. The Crl.Appeal No.578-DB of 2005 and another -29- accused in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. did not explain as to who has killed the three teenagers, including the daughter of one of the accused in front of their house and how and why their clothes were having the blood stained. This fact was in their knowledge which they were required to disclose in their defence, but they failed to do so. Thus, the said conduct of the accused, which goes against them, can be taken as an additional link to the circumstances which lead towards the guilt of the accused.
The testimony of child witness Poonam (PW17):
49. Poonam is the real sister of one of the deceased. She was about nine years old at the time of the occurrence. Initially she was not cited as a witness by the prosecution. After closing of the prosecution evidence, an application was filed by the prosecution for her examination as a witness as she was stated to have witnessed the occurrence. Thereupon, the trial Court vide its order dated 14.2.2005, permitted to examine her as a witness in the interest of justice and for just decision of the case. In her testimony before the Court she has fully supported the prosecution case. She stated that when she was playing in front of the house at about 3.00 PM, a jeep carrying Budha, Suman and her brother Bodhi had arrived. Both accused Sanjay and Jita were also present there. In her presence, they first killed Budha with sword and gandasi. Accused Jita had pierced the sword through the mouth of Budha. Jita then hit her brother on his arm and fingers of his hands with a sword. Accused Sanjay gave a gandasa blow on his neck. They kicked him into the drain in the street. Meanwhile, Suman took shelter inside the house but accused Sanjay by pulling her out attacked her with a sword. Accused Crl.Appeal No.578-DB of 2005 and another -30- Jita then pierced the sword through her stomach. All the three persons died at the spot. This witness further stated that the police came to the spot after a while and took the thumb impressions of Sita Ram and her mother Nirmal on a piece of paper. Her mother was not available at home in those days and she had narrated the story to her after her return on that very day. In cross- examination, this witness stood to lengthy cross-examination but nothing adverse could be elicited.
50. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently and seriously questioned the reliability and trustworthiness of this witness on three counts. Firstly that this witness was never associated by the investigating agency during the investigation as an eye-witness and secondly that her statement was recorded after about 2-1/2 years of the occurrence and the said period is enough for tutoring the said witness. Thirdly, it has also been argued that before recording the statement of this witness, the trial Court did not record its satisfaction about the competence and understanding of the questions put to her and her ability to give rational answers thereto. We have carefully and cautiously examined the statement of this witness vis-a-vis other evidence available on the record. It is well settled that the testimony of a child witness can be relied on for convicting a person if the Court is satisfied that the witness is giving true accounts of what he or she has seen and his or her testimony is reliable and trustworthy and there was no probability of his or her tutoring by any one. In Dattu Ram Rao & Ors. Versus State of Maharashtra, 1997(5) SCC 341, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"A child witness if found competent to depose to the facts and Crl.Appeal No.578-DB of 2005 and another -31- reliable one such evidence could be the basis of conviction. In other words even in the absence of oath the evidence of a child witness can be considered under Section 118 of the Evidence Act provided that such witness is able to understand the questions and able to give rational answers thereof. The evidence of a child witness and credibility thereof would depend upon the circumstances of each case. The only precaution which the court should bear in mind while assessing the evidence of a child witness is that the witness must be a reliable one and his/her demeanour must be like any other competent witness and there is no likelihood of being tutored."
51. Again, this principle was reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in Dalbir Singh & Ors. Versus The State of Haryana, 2003(1) RCR (Crl.) 727 and it was held as under:-
"18. The law regarding the testimony of a child witness is well settled. A conviction can be based on the basis of testimony of a child witness. His testimony can be relied on even in the absence of oath, if he understood nature of the questions and gave rational answers thereof. The only precaution, which the Court should bear in mind while assessing the evidence of a child witness is that the witness must be reliable and his or her demeanour must be like any other competent witness and there is no likelihood of being tutored. There is no rule or practice that in very case the evidence of such a witness be corroborated before the conviction can be allowed to stand, but as a rule of prudence the court always finds it desirable to have the corroboration to such evidence from other dependable evidence on record. Before recording the statement of a child witness, the learned trial Court has to satisfy itself that the witness was capable to depose. The testimony of a child witness cannot be rejected simply on the ground that because of his tender age, he was Crl.Appeal No.578-DB of 2005 and another -32- likely to be tutored. It is not the law that if a witness is child, his evidence shall be rejected even if it is found reliable. The law is that evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully and with greater circumspection because a child is susceptible to be awayed by what others tell him."
52. Further, in Ratansinh Dalsukhbhai Nayak Versus State of Gujarat, (2004) 1 SCC 64, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
".....Evidence Act does not prescribe any particular age as a determinative factor to treat a witness to be a competent one. On the contrary, Section 118 of the Evidence Act envisages that all persons shall be competent to testify, unless the Court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them or from giving rational answers to these questions, because of tender years, extreme old age, disease - whether of mind, or ny other cause of the same kind. A child of tender age can be allowed to testify if he has intellectual capacity to understand questions and give rational answers thereto. This position was concisely stated by BREWER, J. in Wheeler v. United States. The evidence of a child witness is not required to be rejected per se; but the Court as a rule of prudence considers such evidence with close scrutiny and only being convinced about the quality thereof and reliability can record conviction, based thereon."
53. Undisputedly, certain factors are required to be considered as regards reliability of the testimony of the child witnesses but it is also an accepted norm that if after careful scrutiny of their evidence the Court comes to the conclusion that there is an impress of truth in it, there is no obstacle in the way of accepting the evidence of child witnesses. In our opinion, the instant case is a case where PW17-Poonam has shown rare courage which her parents have failed to show. She has categorically stated Crl.Appeal No.578-DB of 2005 and another -33- that while playing in front of her house she had seen the occurrence and both the accused had killed the three teenagers. In her statement, she has given in detail how and who caused injuries to whom and with which weapon. The testimony of this witness is in full conformity with the medical evidence. The trial Court has considered this aspect of the matter in detail and then came to the conclusion that the testimony of this witness is reliable and trustworthy. We are also of the same opinion. Merely because this witness was not associated at the time of investigation and cited as a witness by the prosecution, her testimony cannot be discarded. It appears that in this case, as noticed by the trial Court also, the Investigating Officer did not conduct the investigation in a fair manner. The trial Court has observed that "a closer look at the facts and circumstances of this case would go to show that the Investigating Officer did not do complete justice to the most sensitive matter and that the police investigation has concealed far more than what it has actually opted to reveal." PW17-Poonam was present at the time of the occurrence. She had seen the occurrence also. Her presence at the place of occurrence was natural because she was living with her father and brother in the village, but the Investigating Officer did not make any effort to associate her. The ghastly occurrence had taken place in the street in the day time. It cannot be expected that nobody had witnessed the occurrence in which three teenagers were murdered in the day light. Therefore, merely because of the lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer if Poonam (PW17) was not associated and cited as a witness, no benefit can be given to the accused and the testimony of such natural witness cannot be taken to be surrounded by suspicion. It is true that the Crl.Appeal No.578-DB of 2005 and another -34- trial Court has not specifically recorded its satisfaction about witness's intelligence or her capacity to distinguish between right or wrong, but the learned Additional Sessions Judge in his judgment has expressed clearly and unequivocally his satisfaction about the ability of the child witness to understand the questions and to answer them. Merely on such technicalities the testimony of a child witness cannot be discarded. In Tehal Singh Versus State of Punjab, AIR 1979 SC 1347 it was held that where in a murder case the trial Judge expressed himself clearly and unequivocally that he was satisfied about the ability of the child witness, who was an eyewitness of the occurrence , to understand and distinguish between right and wrong and made a clear record of the witness's evidence in a narrative form, the High Court in appeal against the conviction would not be justified in taking a different view of the witness's intelligence or his capacity to distinguish between right and wrong merely because the questions and answers which enabled the trial Judge to say that he was satisfied about the witness's intelligence had not been recorded.
54. It is true that the child witnesses are easily susceptible to tutoring and to telling imaginative stories and their evidence must, therefore, be scrutinised with extreme care and caution before being acted upon as true and dependable. It is a fact that in this case the statement of the child witness Poonam (PW17) was recorded after about 2-1/2 years of the occurrence, but now the question is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case there was a chance of tutoring of the said witness during the said period. In our opinion, there is no such possibility in this case because neither the parents of this witness nor the parents of deceased Budha were Crl.Appeal No.578-DB of 2005 and another -35- interested in the conviction of the accused. They did not support the prosecution case under the threat and pressure of their community. In such situation, in our opinion, there was none who could have tutored this witness to depose against the accused. Many persons of the village might have seen the occurrence but they did not show any courage and come forward to depose against the culprits. PW17-Poonam is the only child who has shown a rare and strong courage to come forward and depose against the accused. We cannot discard the testimony of this natural and trustworthy witness on mere hypothesis and surmises. In our opinion, her presence at the time of place of occurrence was natural and her testimony is truthful and reliable. Therefore, the testimony of this witness is accepted as truthful, reliable and natural. In our opinion, the trial Court has committed no illegality while relying upon her testimony in convicting the appellants.
55. Thus, from the above discussion, it is clear that in the instant case the prosecution has fully established its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. We do not find any force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants that in the instant case the appellants were given moral conviction by taking the case as of honour killing without there being any legal evidence against them. The aforesaid evidence led by the prosecution is sufficient and consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, and does not lead to any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. Thus, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the conviction of both the appellants for the alleged offence. A perusal of the photographs (Ex.P1 to Ex.P36) reflects the gruesome murder of three teenagers in a brutal manner. In the facts and Crl.Appeal No.578-DB of 2005 and another -36- circumstances of the case, it can be a rarest of rare case and the life sentence awarded to both the accused can be debatable. But, since no appeal has been filed either by the State or by the complainant for enhancement of the sentence, we also affirm the life sentence awarded to the appellants by the trial Court.
56. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court. Hence, both the appeals are hereby dismissed.
(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL)
JUDGE
July 28, 2011 ( A. N. JINDAL )
vkg JUDGE
Refer to Reporter