Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This order will dispose of CRA No.853-DB of 2002 and CRA No.883-DB of 2002 as they arise out of the same judgment and CRA No.883-DB of 2002 order dated 24/26.10.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Court, Sonepat. CRA No.883-DB of 2002 has in fact been filed only by Rohtash son of Surja but he alongwith others has also filed CRA No.853-DB of 2002 in which he (Rohtash) is appellant No.4. Therefore, CRA No.883-DB of 2002 is surplusage.

The appellants have been convicted by the learned trial Court for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code ("IPC" - for short). They have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life; besides, pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat in terms of charges framed on 21.9.2000 charge-sheeted the appellants Anil son of Sultan Singh, Chand Singh alias Malha son of Dhan Singh, Durga alias Durga Nand son of Suraj Bhan and Rohtash son of Surja all residents of Salimsar Majra, District Sonepat on the allegations that on 14.5.2000 at about 12.00 p.m. (mid night) in the area of village Salimgarh Majra in furtherance of their common intention committed the murder of Surender alias Chinda and they all thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC. The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to establish its case examined 12 witnesses; besides, tendered documents in evidence including seizure memo, address information and postmortem report. The statements of the appellants in terms of Section 313 CrPC were recorded and the substance of evidence appearing against them was put to them. All the appellants stated that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. No CRA No.883-DB of 2002 evidence was led in defence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat vide order dated 24.10.2002 held that the prosecution had proved the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC framed against the appellants and all of them were accordingly held guilty and convicted for the said offence. By a separate order passed on 26.10.2002, the appellants were sentenced to imprisonment for life; besides, to pay an amount of Rs.2000/- as fine. Aggrieved against the same, the appellants have filed the present appeal.

 Sheo Karan                 Bujan @ Mool Chand            Kalu




Manphool            Daya Ram       Pat Ram (PW4)
(complainant-
 PW3)


Krishan (PW1)       Surender @    Narain Dutt (PW2)
                    Chinda
                   (Deceased)




                A perusal of the above shows that Sheo Karan and

Bujan alias Mool Chand are brothers. The deceased in the case is Surender alias Chinda son of Daya Ram son of Sheo Karan. Manphool, complainant (PW3) is the brother of Daya Ram and Krishan (PW1) is the son of Manphool, complainant (PW3). The other witnesses are Pat Ram (PW4) and his son Narain Dutt (PW2). Pat Ram (PW4) is the son of Mool Chand alias Bujan who is the brother of Sheo Karan. Narain Dutt (PW2) is the son of Pat Ram (PW4). Therefore, Surender alias Chinda (deceased) is the nephew of Manphool, complainant (PW3) and Pat Ram (PW4) and is the cousin brother of Krishan (PW1) and Narain Dutt (PW2). The complainant Manphool (PW3) in his deposition in Court has reiterated the version as given by him in his statement (Ex.PC) before the Police on the CRA No.883-DB of 2002 basis of which FIR (Ex.PC/2) was registered. According to Manphool Singh, complainant (PW3) on 14.5.2000 he was at night sleeping in his 'Gher' (outhouse) and at about 12 o'clock in the night, Pat Ram (PW4) came to him and stated that he had an upset stomach. He asked for a bottle of water. After taking the bottle of water from Manphool complainant (PW3), he went to ease himself in the fields. After sometime, a noise was heard that Bhai Anil, Bhai Durga, Bhai Rohtash and Bhai Malhe alias Chand Singh of do not kill me, what loss had he caused to you and that he was their black cow. Manphool (PW3) went to the road with a torch and a stick in hands. In the meantime, Pat Ram (PW4) also came there from the other side after easing himself. Pat Ram (PW4) asked as to whom they were killing as he had also heard a noise. He asked Manphool, complainant (PW3) to go and see as to whom they were killing. When they i.e. Manphool (PW3) and Pat Ram (PW4) proceeded towards the side from which the noise was coming, they found one person was being dragged after he had been given a beating. He was being beaten and being dragged by Anil, Malhe alias Chand Singh, Durga and Rohtash (appellants) who were present in the Court. When they i.e. Manphool (PW3) and Pat Ram (PW4) were at a distance of about 15 paces, that person stopped speaking. They threw that boy in the mud. They i.e. Manphool (PW3) and Pat Ram (PW4) asked the accused as to who was he and why were they beating him, but the accused ran away. They saw all the accused in the torch light and in the moonlit light. Anil accused boarded the tractor and the other accused boarded the CRA No.883-DB of 2002 trolley which was standing there and went towards the village. Manphool (PW3) and Pat Ram (PW4) went to that person. As per their assessment, he had died. The face of that person was smeared with mud and so they could not identify him. Besides, they were scared that they may not be suspected to be involved in the case and that the dead body may not be taken away so they sat there. When it was sun rise time and there was some light, they again decided to see the face of that person and at about 4.30 or 5.00 a.m. They put some water on the face of that person and found that the deceased was Surender alias Chinda. Thereafter, Manphool (PW3) left Pat Ram (PW4) at the spot and decided that he himself would go to the police to lodge a report. He started from the place of incident on foot. He thought that some vehicle would be available at village Bhatgaon. After sometime a three-wheeler/scooter came there. He boarded that scooter and started for Sonepat. He saw one ASI, one Head Constable and one Constable at the bridge of the canal at village Mehlana and he asked the scooter driver to stop there. It was around 7.30 or 7.45 a.m. that Manphool (PW3) lodged the report (Ex.PC) with the police at that place. After admitting his statement to be correct, he thumb marked the same. It is stated that the deceased was having injuries all over the body, but the major injuries were on his head. Besides, his hand was also fractured. Surender alias Chinda was murdered by the accused because around 5-7 days before the occurrence there was a dispute between Rohtash and Surender. Rohtash had asked Surender to pay Rs.60,000/- of his sister, CRA No.883-DB of 2002 otherwise he would be killed. It is further stated that on 19.5.2000, Manphool (PW3) and Om Parkash came to the Police Station Sadar Sonepat and Rohtash accused was in the Police Station at that time. He admitted his guilt and told them about the incident. This part of the statement regarding admission of the guilt was objected to by the defence counsel during recording of the statement. He also stated that he had concealed a rod in the south western corner of his room wherein fodder was stored and that none else was having knowledge of the same. He could get the rod recovered. The statement (Ex.PD) of Rohtash was reduced into writing which was thumb marked by Manphool (PW3) and signed by Om Parkash, an independent witness who has not been examined. Thereafter they went to the place as disclosed by Rohtash and he took out a rod from the place pointed out by him. The rod was stained with blood. Sketch (Ex.PD/1) of the rod was prepared and the rod (Ex.P1) was put in a parcel that had been prepared and taken in possession vide memo Ex.PD/2. The seal after use was handed over to Manphool (PW3). The accused, it is stated, are not related to each other and they are only friends. Manphool (PW3) was cross-examined at considerable length. It is stated by him that he served with the police department for about 31 years and he retired as a Constable. His eye-sight is proper and he does not use spectacles. His outhouse (Gher) is outside the village locality. The distance between his outhouse (Gher) and the village is around two acres (measurement of distance in acres). From his outhouse (Gher), Pat Ram (PW4) went towards the southern side to ease himself. The CRA No.883-DB of 2002 distance between his outhouse (Gher) and place of occurrence was around 30-35 paces. Manphool (PW3) himself and Pat Ram (PW4) came to the road at almost the same time. Pat Ram (PW4), it is stated, took about 10-15 minutes to ease himself after going from his (Manphool's) outhouse (Gher). They did not try to wash the face of the dead body during the night. It is stated that they saw the dead body after going near it, but its face was downward and they did not try to remove the same and that is why they did not feel any smell at that time. When they washed the face in the morning at that time even there was no smell of alcohol. The police reached the spot at about 9.30 a.m. and during night till his departure to lodge a report with the police, they did not tell anyone about the incident. Nobody accompanied him when he proceeded to inform the police. As far as he knew the accused Rohtash had 4-5 sisters but he did not know their names. He did not know where they were married. He was not present when a dispute had occurred between Rohtash and Surender alias Chinda (deceased) regarding the money. Surender alias Chinda (deceased) had told him about the same. It is accepted as correct that Surender (deceased) was his real nephew. It is also accepted as correct that before they sprinkled water on the face of the deceased, they did not know as to who he was. It is stated that he (Manphool - PW3) told the police when his statement (Ex.PC) was recorded that they washed the face of the dead body a little bit by sprinkling water and identified the same when there was some light. This portion is omitted in the statement (Ex.PC) where it is not so recorded. It is also CRA No.883-DB of 2002 stated that he told the police when his statement (Ex.PC) was recorded that Pat Ram (PW4) told him that he was suffering from loose motion. The fact that Pat Ram (PW4) was suffering from loose motion or the demand of water was made by him is not mentioned in the statement (Ex.PC) of Manphool (PW-3). It is further stated that he told the police that the deceased was calling each and every accused by referring him as 'Bhai' or that he attached 'Bhai' before the word (name) of every accused. In the statement (Ex.PC) the word 'Bhai' is not mentioned. It is also stated that he told the police that Pat Ram (PW4) also stated as to whom they were killing and that he had also heard that noise. In the statement (Ex.PC) this aspect is not recorded. Manphool (PW3) told the police that Pat Ram (PW4) asked that they should go and see as to whom they (accused) were killing. This aspect is not so recorded in Ex.PC. It is also stated that he told the police when they were at a distance of about 10-15 paces that the deceased stopped speaking. This part is omitted in the statement (Ex.PC) wherein it is not so recorded. It is further stated that he in his statement (Ex.PC) stated that they saw the accused in the light of the moon and the torch. In the statement (Ex.PC) this aspect is not so recorded that they saw the accused in the moon light. It is stated that he had shown the torch to the police but the police did not take the torch in its possession. He also told the police that the accused Anil had boarded the tractor and the other accused boarded the trolley. It is not so recorded in the statement (Ex.PC) that the accused had boarded the vehicle. It is also stated that he told the police that they CRA No.883-DB of 2002 tried to see whether that person had died or not. This aspect is not recorded in the statement (Ex.PC). It is further stated by Manphool (PW3) that in his statement (Ex.PC) he told the police that they suspected that the dead body may not be removed and they may not be involved in the case. This aspect is not so recorded in the statement (Ex.PC). It is further stated that he told the police that he went up to village Bhatgaon on foot and thereafter boarded a three- wheeler. This part is omitted in the statement (Ex.PC) wherein it is not so recorded. He also told the police that hand of that person was fractured at that time. This part is omitted in the statement (Ex.PC) wherein it is not so recorded. It is also stated that he told the police that they asked the accused as to why they were killing that person. This portion is omitted in the statement (Ex.PC) regarding as to whom they were killing. It is further stated that he told the police that Pat Ram (PW4) came from the southern side. This part is omitted in the statement (Ex.PC) wherein it is not so recorded.

Inspector Ram Kumar (PW-7) was posted at CIA Staff, Sonepat. On 16.05.2000 and he went to Police Station, Sadar, Sonepat in connection with the investigation of the present case. CRA No.883-DB of 2002 Surender and Rakesh met him there and they produced accused Chand and Durga before him. After interrogation, they were put in the lock up. On 17.05.2000, they were taken out from the lock up and interrogated separately. On the basis of the disclosure statement of Anil Kumar (Ex.PG), he got recovered the tractor and trolley from his 'gher' (outhouse). It was taken in possession vide memo (Ex.PG/1). It was a Mahindra tractor with registration No.HR-10A-2820. Anil accused also led the police party to the place of occurrence and memo Ex.PG/2 was prepared to that effect. Thereafter, Durga Dass was interrogated. His disclosure statement was recorded and he pointed out the place of occurrence and memo (Ex.PG/2) in this regard was prepared. Thereafter, the disclosure statement of accused Chand was recorded and he also pointed out the place of occurrence and memo (Ex.PG/2) was prepared to that effect. In cross it is stated by Raj Kumar, Inspector CIA Staff, Sonepat (PW-7) that he did not join any independent witness during interrogation. To a Court question, it is stated that he prepared rough site plan of the place of recovery, which is Ex.PG/3. The investigation of the case remained with Raj Kumar (PW-7) till 17.05.2000. He denied the suggestion that the accused did not give any disclosure statement and that they did not point out any place of occurrence and that he prepared the memo on his own. He also denied the suggestion that Anil did not get the tractor or trolley recovered as stated by him (Raj Kumar PW-7).