-1- Criminal Appeal No.378-SB of 1999. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Appeal No.378-SB of 1999. Date of Decision: February 02, 2010. Hoshiar Singh ... Appellant VERSUS State of Haryana ...Respondent 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr. Onkar Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. Sushma Chopra, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. In this case, the appellant was put on trial for the charges under Section 302 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `the Code') for murdering Duli Chand and committing theft of cash and other articles belonging to said Duli Chand. -2- Criminal Appeal No.378-SB of 1999. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, vide judgment of conviction and the sentence order dated 9.2.1999 convicted the accused-appellant under Section 323 of the Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default whereof to undergo further imprisonment for two months. The amount of fine, if recovered, was ordered to be given to Smt.Chalti, wife of Duli Chand (deceased) as compensation. Hence this appeal by appellant Hoshiar Singh. The instant case was registered on the basis of statement given before the police by complainant Jagdish stating that Duli Chand, a cousin of Jagdish, had gone to the house of the appellant on 24.10.1994; that at that time, Duli Chand was having about Rs.15000/- with him besides a watch and golden ring etc.; that on 25.10.1994 around 11.30 P.M, Layak Ram, Deena, Inderaj and Bhim Singh brought Duli Chand to their house in a Maruti van; that the complainant and his neighbour Chander Bhan were woken up by them; that these persons told the complainant party that Duli Chand was having pain in his abdomen; and that thereafter these persons left the spot. The complainant further stated that Duli Chand was unconscious at that time. Some treatment was given to Duli Chand. After some time, Duli Chand told the complainant that he had some altercation with Hoshiar Singh and on account of that he was hit with fists and kicks in his abdomen and chest by -3- Criminal Appeal No.378-SB of 1999. Hoshiar Singh. Duli Chand was taken to Base Hospital, Delhi, on 26.10.1994 as he was retired Army man. After check up, the Doctor said that Duli Chand was having pain because of the injuries suffered by him in his abdomen and that he was also having injury in his chest. Duli Chand died on 26.10.1994 at about 9 P.M. During trial, both complainant Jagdish (P.W.1) and his neighbour Chander Bhan (P.W.2) supported the case of the prosecution, as narrated above. However, Ram Saran (P.W.3) and Rampal (P.Ws.10) did not support the case of the prosecution and were cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. The trial Judge, believing the statements of Jagdish (P.W.1) and Chander Bhan (P.W.2) that Duli Chand (deceased) had told them that he had been given kick and fist blows in his abdomen and chest, convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 323 of the Code, as mentioned above. For not holding the appellant guilty under Section 302 of the Code, the trial Judge was influenced by the fact that it did not stand proved on record that the deceased had died because of kick and fist blows given to him by the appellant. Admittedly, there is no medical evidence to corroborate the statements of Jagdish (P.W.1) and Chander Bhan (P.W.2) that Duli Chand had died because of the kick and fist blows given to him by the appellant. Therefore, no fault can be found with the reasoning adopted by the trial Court for not holding -4- Criminal Appeal No.378-SB of 1999. the appellant guilty under Section 302 of the Code. Similarly, there was no evidence on record to hold the accused guilty under the Section 379 of the Code. However, there is no reason to disbelieve the statements of Jagdish (P.W.1) and Chander Bhan (P.W.2) that the appellant voluntarily caused hurt to Duli Chand as was told by Duli Chand to Jagdish and Chander Bhan. Merely because Ram Saran (P.W.3) and Rampal (P.Ws.10) did not support the case of the prosecution, it cannot be said that the offence for which the appellant has been convicted is not proved against him. A verdict of acquittal cannot follow the moment the witnesses turn hostile and dispensation of justice is not dependant upon the witnesses who make efforts to hold the law to ransom. Once the prosecution case is established on record by the other cogent and trustworthy evidence led by the prosecution, non-supporting of its case by the witnesses who appeared to have been won over by the accused does not at all affect the prosecution case. Jagdish (P.W.1) and Chander Bhan (P.W.2) had no reason whatsoever to falsely implicate the accused in this case. No evidence was led by the appellant to show that there was any reason for Jagdish (P.W.1) and Chander Bhan (P.W.2) to falsely implicate him. Sufficient opportunity was given by the trial Court to the appellant to lead defence evidence. However, the appellant did not avail the said opportunity; meaning thereby there was no evidence available with the appellant to plead his innocence. -5- Criminal Appeal No.378-SB of 1999. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. February 02, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE