Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jitender Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana on 20 March, 2012
Author: Sabina
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Sabina
Crl. Appeal No. 910-DB of 2007 and - 1-
Crl. Appeal No. 229-DB of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
(1) Criminal Appeal No. 910-DB of 2007
Date of Decision: 20.3.2012
Jitender Singh and others .........Appellants
Vs.
State of Haryana .......Respondent
(2) Criminal Appeal No. 229-DB of 2008
Trilok and another .........Appellants
Vs.
State of Haryana .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Ms. Adity Girdhar, Advocate as
Amicus Curiae for the appellants.
(In Criminal Appeal No. 910-DB of 2007)
Mr. Vinod Ghai, Advocate and
Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate
for the appellants.
(In Criminal Appeal No. 229-DB of 2008)
Mr. G.S.Chahal, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate
for the complainant.
.....
SABINA, J.
Vide this judgment, the above mentioned two appeals would be disposed of as these have arisen out of the same Crl. Appeal No. 910-DB of 2007 and - 2- Crl. Appeal No. 229-DB of 2008 judgment/incident.
On 25.7.2004, Sub Inspector Rattan Singh received an information in the Police Station Israna from Hari Ram that firing had taken place in the house of Karambir. He reached the spot along with other police officials and recorded the statement of complainant Hari Ram.
Complainant Hari Ram stated in his statement that at about 9.00 A.M., he was returning back from his plot after tethering buffaloes. He saw Partap son of Bichha, Jitender, Suresh, Dharender, Balraj sons of Partap, Ram Dia son of Hardeva, Trilok son of Bichha, Bija alias Bijender son of Trilok and Jitender son of Ram Kishan armed with pistols and knives passing through the street raising lalkaras that in case anybody tried to intervene, he would be shot dead. Partap, Jitender and Suresh sons of Partap and Ram Dia armed with pistols entered the baithak of Karambir. An altercation took place between them. He (complainant) also reached the baithak of Karambir to rescue him (Karambir). Partap, Jitender, Suresh and Ram Dia fired shots from their respective pistols at Karambir. Dharender, Balraj, Trilok, Bija alias Bijender armed with pistols and Jitender armed with knife reached the chaubara (room on the first floor) of Karambir. He followed them to the chaubara along with Kamlesh and Poonam. Dharender, Balraj, Trilok and Bija fired shots from their respective pistols at Parveen and Arvind. Jitender gave knife blows on the person of Arvind. In the meantime, Partap, Jitender, Suresh and Ram Dia also reached the chaubara and they pointed their pistols towards him and Poonam and asked them to run away. All the assailants then left the spot with their Crl. Appeal No. 910-DB of 2007 and - 3- Crl. Appeal No. 229-DB of 2008 respective weapons. An old property dispute was going on between the parties. Civil litigation was also pending between the parties in the court. Karambir and Parveen died at the spot due to receipt of fire arm injuries. Injured Arvind was removed to the hospital by Jasbir and Ashok. Partap and others had murdered Karambir and Parveen and had caused injuries to Arvind due to old enmity regarding property dispute.
On the basis of the statement of the complainant, formal FIR No. 77 dated 25.7.2004 was registered at Police Station Israna under Section 148, 149, 452, 506, 307, 302, 323 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
Thereafter, Sub Inspector Rattan Singh inspected the spot. A photographer was summoned to the spot and the dead bodies were got photographed. He prepared inquest reports qua the dead bodies of Karambir and Parveen. The dead bodies were sent for post mortem examination. Rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. An application was moved before Doctor PGI, Rohtak qua fitness of injured Arvind but he was declared unfit to make a statement. On 27.7.2004, injured Arvind was again declared unfit to make a statement on an application moved by Sub Inspector Rattan Singh. On 2.8.2004, when Sub Inspector Rattan Singh visited PGI, M.S.Rohtak, he was told that injured Arvind was not available there.
On 30.7.2004, accused Jitender and Ram Dia surrendered in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat. The accused was formally arrested on 31.7.2004. Accused Jitender during interrogation on 4.8.2004 suffered a Crl. Appeal No. 910-DB of 2007 and - 4- Crl. Appeal No. 229-DB of 2008 disclosure statement and got recovered one 12 bore pistol and cartridge and a motor cycle from the disclosed place. Accused Ram Dia also suffered a disclosure statement on 4.8.2004 and got recovered one pistol, two cartridges and an empty from the disclosed place.
On 10.8.2004, Sub Inspector Rattan Singh recorded the statement of injured Arvind under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short).
On 16.8.2005, accused Suresh was arrested by Assistant Sub Inspector Satpal Singh.
On 17.8.2004, accused Partap, Dharender and Balraj were arrested and during interrogation they suffered disclosure statements and on the basis of the same they got recovered .315 bore country made pistols from the disclosed places. The said three pistols were taken in possession.
On 20.8.2005 accused Suresh suffered a disclosure statement and got recovered one .315 country made pistol of black colour from the disclosed place and the same was taken in possession.
On 1.11.2004 accused Trilok and Bija were arrested. The said accused during interrogation suffered disclosure statements and got recovered .315 bore country made pistols from the disclosed places.
After completion of investigation and necessary formalities challan was presented against the accused.
In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 22 witnesses during trial.
After the close of prosecution evidence, appellant Crl. Appeal No. 910-DB of 2007 and - 5- Crl. Appeal No. 229-DB of 2008 Jitender when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. pleaded as under:-
"I am innocent. I cam to know of the incident after sometime that in the wee hours of the day, some unknown persons had committed the aforesaid crime. The complainant and the PWs have falsely named us on account of the strained relationship between us and the complainant party out of vengeance."
Similar pleas were taken by appellants Dharender, Suresh and Ram Dia when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
Appellants Trilok and Bija alias Bijender when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. pleaded that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case.
The accused examined one witness in their defence. During trial, accused Partap and Balraj had died and proceedings qua them were dropped.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case. There was unexplained delay in recording of the statement of injured Arvind. The accused had no motive to commit the crime. Although the witnesses had stated orally that some property dispute was pending between deceased Karambir Singh and accused Partap Singh but no document had been produced on record in this regard. Assuming that there was any property dispute between Karambir and Partap, the other accused Trilok, Ram Dia or Bijender had no concern with the same. No specific role had been attributed to accused Ram Dia. Partap Singh and Crl. Appeal No. 910-DB of 2007 and - 6- Crl. Appeal No. 229-DB of 2008 his sons as well as Trilok and his son had been falsely involved in this case. Accused were in custody for the last more than eight years. In the inquest reports, the witnesses had only stated that they had heard that Karambir and Parveen had been murdered by Partap and his sons. No allegation was levelled against Trilok, his son and Ram Dia.
Learned state counsel, who is assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, has submitted that prosecution had been successful in proving its case. The eye witnesses had no reason to falsely involve the appellants in this case. The statement of the injured had been recorded soon after he was fit to make the statement. The FIR had been promptly got registered in this case.
Complainant, while appearing in the witness box as PW-1, has deposed as per the contents of the FIR. The complainant has specifically deposed that Jitender son of Partap, Partap, Suresh son of Partap, Ram Dia son of Hardeva had fired shots from their pistols at Karambir. Partap had fired a shot from his pistol which hit on the neck of Karambir. The shot fired by Jitender had hit on the head of Karambir whereas shot fired by Suresh had hit the chest of Karambir. Ram Dia had also fired a shot but he could not tell as to which body part of the deceased was hit by the said shot. Due to the injuries Karambir fell down and died at the spot. In the meantime, Trilok son of Bichha, Bijender son of Trilok, Balraj son of Partap, Dharender son of Partap and Jitender son of Ram Kishan went upstairs. He followed them along with Poonam and Kamlesh. Arvind and Parveen were present there in the room and the shots were fired Crl. Appeal No. 910-DB of 2007 and - 7- Crl. Appeal No. 229-DB of 2008 at Parveen by Trilok, Bijender and Dharender. Balraj fired a shot at Arvind which hit him on his chest. As a result of fire arm injury Arvind fell on the ground and then Jitender inflicted knife blows on his person. Thereafter, all the assailants fled away from the spot. The statement of the complainant is duly corroborated by PW-2 injured Arvind qua the occurrence which had taken place in the chaubara.
PW-4 Dr. K.L.Chopra deposed that on 25.7.2004 he had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Karambir at about 4.00 P.M. along with Dr. Y.P. Singhmar and they had found following injuries on his person:-
1. There was a lacerated wound 5 cm x 4 cm on the right side of head just behind hair line and on the right side of mid line. There was a round hole of 3 cm diameter in the underling bone. The wound track on probing was going laterally and downwards. A bullet was found in the brain matter at the level of right ear. Margins were inverted.
There was no blackening and clotted blood was present.
2. There was a lacerated wound 4 cm x 3 cm oval in shape on the right side of neck with inverted margins. There was no blackening. On probing the wound, the track was going medially and downwards up to the level of vertebral column. Clotted blood was present.
3. There was a lacerated wound 4 cm x 1 cm on the left side of chest at the level of left nipple just Crl. Appeal No. 910-DB of 2007 and - 8- Crl. Appeal No. 229-DB of 2008 lateral to sternum. There was no blackening. On dissection track was going to after piercing sternum to pericardium and right atrium, which was injured and then to lower part of right lung. Bullet was embeded in the lung tissue which was removed and sealed. Margins were inverted and clotted blood was present.
4. There was a lacerated wound 4 cm x 3 cm on the lateral side of left elbow with inverted margins. Clotted blood was present.
Cause of death in their opinion was haemorrhage and shock and injury to vital organs i.e. brain, heart and lungs. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Injuries had been caused with fire arm.
He further deposed that on the same day they had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Parveen at about 5.05 P.M. and found following injuries on his person:-
1. A lacerated wound 3 cm x 2 cm with inverted margins on the left margin of occipital region of head on its back. There was no blackening. Clotted blood was present. On probing the wound the probe was going laterally and upwards up to the level of left ear and 5 cm above the level of ear. It communicated with a lacerated wound 4 cm x 3 cm with everted and irregular margins. Clotted blood was present. There was no blackening.
2. There was a lacerated wound 3 cm x 2.5 cm in the Crl. Appeal No. 910-DB of 2007 and - 9- Crl. Appeal No. 229-DB of 2008 centre of occipital region on back of head. Clotted blood was present in the scalp. Underlying bone was fractured. The track was going anteriorily.
Few pellets were removed from the brain tissue, which were sealed. A foreign material, part of cartridge was found in brain tissue, which was removed and sealed separately. Clotted blood was present.
3. There were multiple around (40) round to oval lacerated wounds 3 mm x 3 mm to 3 mm x 2 mm in size with inverted margins and slight blackening. These were present on the middle of lower part of back of chest and upper part of back of abdomen in an area 10 cm x 8 cm. Few similar wounds were present on the upper part of back of chest. Some pellets were removed from muscles and sub cutaneous tissue. There was no injury to internal organs.
4. There was an incised wound 4 cm x ½ cm just above the left eyebrow. Clotted blood was present.
5. There was diffused swelling of right upper eyelid. Cause of death in this case in their opinion was haemorrhage, shock and injury to brain. The injuries were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
PW-8 Dr. S.P.Chugh deposed that on 25.7.2004, he had medico legally examined Arvind and had found following Crl. Appeal No. 910-DB of 2007 and - 10- Crl. Appeal No. 229-DB of 2008 injuries on his person:-
1. An incised wound 1 x .5 cm over right side of lower chest, 1 cm from mid line. Fresh bleeding was present.
2. An incised wound 1 x .5 cm, 2 cm lateral to the injury No.1.
3. Incised wound 1 x .5 cm over left lower abdomen,
6 cm lateral to umvilicus. Fresh bleeding was present.
4. Incised wound 1 x .5 cm over the left upper chest, 4 cm below the lateral part of clevical.
5. Incised wound 1 x .5 cm over left lateral side of the chest in the middle portion of the chest.
6. Incised wound .5x.2 cm over the dorso lateral aspect of left forearm. Fresh bleeding was present.
7. Incised wound .5x.5 cm over the ventral aspect of left upper arm.
8. Incised wound .5x.2 cm over left upper eye lid.
9. Multiple punctured wounds over the right forearm and lower half of upper arm. Blackening and singing was present.
10. Multiple punctured wounds over the middle part of front of chest. Blackening was present around the wounds.
11. Multiple punctured wounds over left forearm wrist and hand.
12. Incised wound 1 x .5 cm over right upper chest. Crl. Appeal No. 910-DB of 2007 and - 11- Crl. Appeal No. 229-DB of 2008 Injuries No. 1 to 8 and 12 could be a result of sharp edged weapon like knife whereas injuries No. 9 to 11 had been caused by a fire arm. Injury No. 10 could prove dangerous to life. As per the Forensic Science Laboratory reports Ex. PD and Ex. PJ, the pistols recovered from the accused were in working condition and they had been fired through. Pellets and wads recovered from the dead body of Parveen were opined to be of 12 bore cartridge.
The present case rests on eye witness account. So far as injured Arvind is concerned, his presence at the spot cannot be doubted as he had himself suffered injuries in the occurrence and he is the son of deceased Karambir. Although the statement of the said witness was recorded on 10.8.2004 but that fact in itself cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case as the FIR in the present case was lodged immediately after the occurrence on the basis of the statement of complainant Hari Ram. Moreover, the fact that the statement of injured eye witness Arvind has been recorded after some delay by the investigating agency cannot be made a ground to disbelieve his statement. The lapse on the part of the investigating officer cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution case which is otherwise duly established. PW-2 Arvind has withstood the test of cross examination and his statement qua the manner of occurrence could not be shaken. Complainant Hari Ram had informed the police qua the occurrence and Sub Inspector Rattan Singh had reached the spot along with other police officials and statement of Hari Ram complainant was recorded at 11.30 A.M. Hari Ram is resident of village Gawalra where the occurrence had taken Crl. Appeal No. 910-DB of 2007 and - 12- Crl. Appeal No. 229-DB of 2008 place and his presence at the spot cannot be doubted. Both Hari Ram as well as injured Arvind have deposed in a natural manner and their statements inspire confidence. The fact that Hari Ram has not suffered any injury in the occurrence is not sufficient to disbelieve his testimony. All the accused had come to the spot to the house of Karambir armed with deadly weapons with a view to commit the crime. The assailants had no ill will against PW-1 and had not caused any injury to him. The ocular version is duly corroborated by medical evidence.
The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the assailants had no motive to commit the crime is liable to be rejected as the eye witnesses have categorically deposed that some property dispute was pending between Partap Singh and deceased Karambir. Karambir is the son of Bichha from his first marriage whereas Partap, Trilok and Fateh were the sons of Bichha from his second wife. Karambir had been given 3-4 Kanals of land in excess out of his ancestral land and due to this reason there was dispute between Karambir and Partap. The said fact is also evident from the cross examination of DW-1 Partap Singh son of Ram Sarup.
From the statements of the eye witnesses, it is evident that Trilok and his son had also accompanied Partap and his sons to the spot at the time of crime armed with pistols. Merely because there was no litigation pending between Karambir and Trilok does not lead to the inference that he (Trilok) could not have joined hands with his brother Partap to commit the crime. The eye witnesses have categorically deposed that Trilok, Dharender and Bijender had fired shots at Parveen. Balraj had Crl. Appeal No. 910-DB of 2007 and - 13- Crl. Appeal No. 229-DB of 2008 fired a shot at the complainant. Thereafter, accused Jitender son of Ram Kishan had given knife blow on the person of Arvind. Thus, it cannot be said that Trilok and Bijender had been falsely involved in this case. Rather, their participation in the crime is duly established by the eye witnesses.
So far as accused Ram Dia is concerned, he is not related to the other co-accused but his participation in the crime cannot be doubted. PW-1 Hari Ram has categorically deposed that Ram Dia had also fired a shot at Karambir along with other co-accused. PW-1 had no ill will or enmity against accused Ram Dia to have falsely involved him in this case.
We have carefully gone through the inquest reports of deceased Karambir and Parveen. Jasbir and Randhir had identified the dead body of Karambir and in their statement under Section 175 Cr.P.C. they have stated that they had reached the spot and came to know that Partap and his sons had murdered Karambir with knife and fire arms. A perusal of the statement of Suresh recorded under Section 175 Cr.P.C. reveals that he had identified the dead body of Parveen and has further stated that on reaching the spot he came to know that Partap and his sons had murdered his brother-in-law Karambir and nephew Parveen with knife and fire arms. The said witnesses were not the eye witnesses to the occurrence and the fact that they have not mentioned the names of the other accused would not render the statements of the eye witnesses qua the participation of the accused in the crime doubtful. Further, the statements of the said witnesses are hearsay and were recorded only with a view to identify the dead bodies of the deceased. The Crl. Appeal No. 910-DB of 2007 and - 14- Crl. Appeal No. 229-DB of 2008 statement of Hari Ram complainant also forms part of the inquest proceedings. Hence, merely on the basis of the statements of Suresh, Jasbir and Randhir under Section 175 Cr.P.C. it cannot be said that accused Trilok, Bijender and Ram Dia were innocent. Thus, in the present case prosecution had been successful in proving its case. The statements of the eye witnesses are trustworthy and are corroborated by medical evidence. The conviction and sentence of the appellants as ordered by the trial court are liable to be upheld.
Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed.
(JASBIR SINGH) (SABINA)
JUDGE JUDGE
March 20, 2012
Gurpreet