Crl.A. No.319-DB of 1999 & -1- Crl.A. No.559-DB of 1999 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.A. No.319-DB of 1999 DATE OF DECISION: May 4, 2010 RANBIR SINGH S/O SILAK RAM ...APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA ...RESPONDENT Crl.A. No.559-DB of 1999 STATE OF HARYANA ...APPELLANT VERSUS RANBIR SINGH S/O SILAK RAM ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. PRESENT: MR. P.C. CHAUDHARY, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT. MR. G.S. CHAHAL, ADDL.A.G., HARYANA. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. This judgement shall dispose of Crl.A. No.319-DB of 1999 and Crl.A. No.559-DB of 1999, as both these appeals arise out of common impugned judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.6.1999, passed by the Sessions Judge, Jind. The sole appellant Ranbir has filed this appeal impugning the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.6.1999, vide which he was convicted under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of Crl.A. No.319-DB of 1999 & -2- Crl.A. No.559-DB of 1999 payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 1 year. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 6.4.1997, Hoshiar Singh S.I./SHO Police Station Julana alongwith 4/5 other Constables was going towards village Deorai for excise checking, when Inder Singh, complainant met them at Lajawana Octroi Post turning and made a statement (Ex.PO), wherein it was stated that they were 6 brothers including Vishnu (since deceased). All of them were living separately from each other. Vishnu was working as driver for the last 15/16 years whereas, the complainant Inder Singh was running a parchoon shop located near his house. Vishnu had returned to the village on 4.4.1997, from Gauhati. On 6.4.1997, at about 11.30 a.m. Inder Singh was present at the turning of the street near Girls Secondary School, Julana whereas, Vishnu came from the side of mandi on foot. Both of them started talking with each other. In the meantime, the accused who was earlier known to the complainant came on cycle and asked Vishnu as to when he would return his Rs.1000/- back to him. Upon this, Vishnu replied that he would return it within the next 5-7 days. The accused got enraged and he picked up a kulhari from his cycle's carrier and gave a blow on the left side of the Vishnu's neck who fell down. The complainant raised an alarm 'Maar diya-Maar diya'. However, in the meantime, the accused gave two more 'kulhara' blows on the neck and head of Vishnu. On hearing the noise, Balbir S/o Kiru Ram, Nai by caste, resident of Julana also came there and saw the occurrence. In the meantime, the accused fled away on the bicycle with his kulhara. The complainant and Balbir tried to catch Ranbir, but he succeeded in running away. Thereafter, the complainant and Balbir attended Vishnu and it was noticed that Vishnu had already died. Later on, the complainant, Inder Singh, came to know that Crl.A. No.319-DB of 1999 & -3- Crl.A. No.559-DB of 1999 the accused had also murdered his wife Sudesh in the fields and had also caused numerous injuries on the head of Patel with the kulhari on the same very day. While he was going to lodge the report, he met Hoshiar Singh and other Police officials and got his statement recorded which was reduced into writing. The statement made by the complainant (Ex.PO) was sent to the Police Station for registration of the case through Constable Budh Singh. S.I. Hoshiar Singh went to the spot and got it photographed. On receipt of the ruqqa, he deputed ASI Lakhpat Singh alongwith other Police officials to PGI, Rohtak where Patel had been referred. He also deputed UGC Dharampal and Constable Rajbir Singh to guard the dead body of Sudesh which was lying in the field of the accused. Thereafter, he conducted the investigation of the Vishnu's murder and prepared the inquest report and recorded the statements of PWs. He also went to the field of the accused where Jai Kishan and Somdutt, father and brother, respectively of the Sudesh were present near the dead body. Somdutt told him that Sudesh was married to the accused about 6 years ago and that the accused used to suspect her fidelity and often used to beat her. She had also stayed at her parental house for about a year. When Somdutt came to village Julana a month prior to the occurrence, she told that that the accused was still doubting her character and was also giving her beatings. On 6.4.1997, he had come to Julana to enquire about the well being of Sudesh. He came to know that she had gone to the fields and he proceeded towards the fields. At about 11.15 a.m., when he was about 1 killa away from the fields of the accused, he saw the accused giving kulhari blows to Sudesh. He ran towards the accused and raised alarm, but Crl.A. No.319-DB of 1999 & -4- Crl.A. No.559-DB of 1999 the accused ran away with his kulhari. On coming near to Sudesh, he found that she has been inflicted with injuries on the head , neck, hand and hips and she had already expired. He went to his village Muwana and brought back his father Jai Kishan to the spot. His statement was recorded by the Sub Inspector Hoshiar Singh who also completed inquest proceedings. Hoshiar Singh also sent the dead bodies of Vishnu and Sudesh to G.H., Jind for post mortem examination and took into possession the blood stained earth from both the sites. On 6.4.1997, Patel also expired in PGI, Rohtak. Lakhpat Singh conducted the inquest proceedings and also got the post mortem examination conducted. During inquest proceedings, Balwan Singh resident of Julana made a statement on 6.4.1997 that at about 11.00 a.m. Patel came and sat near him. In the meantime, the accused came from the side of the village and after parking his cycle on the road he took out a kulhari from the carrier of his cycle and gave two blows on the head of Patel. While giving the third blow, he told Patel that he would teach him a lesson for having illicit relations with his wife. On receipt of injuries, Patel was removed to PGI, Rohtak where he expired on the same day on account of kulhari injuries received by him at the hands of the accused. The accused was arrested on 7.9.1997, by Daya Nand, Police Inspector. On completion of the investigation, challan was filed against him. The accused pleaded not guilty to three separate charges against him under Section 302 IPC in respect of murders of Vishnu, Sudesh and Patel. Evidence, oral as well as documentary was led by the prosecution to prove its case. As far as Sudesh's murder is concerned, Somdutt was the only Crl.A. No.319-DB of 1999 & -5- Crl.A. No.559-DB of 1999 person who stated that he had seen the accused giving kulhari blows to her in his fields. However, while appearing in the witness box as PW, he did not support the case of the prosecution. According to him, he did not see the accused or anyone else while causing injuries to Sudesh (deceased). This witness was declared hostile. As there was insufficient evidence to connect the accused with the commission of murder of Sudesh, therefore, the accused was given the benefit of doubt and was acquitted of the murder of Sudesh. As far as Patel's murder is concerned, it was observed by the trial Court that no one had lodged any report with the Police. As per the case of the prosecution, PW12 Balwan Singh was the eye witness to the occurrence and Balbir PW had reached the spot soon after the occurrence. The prosecution had cited Balbir as their witness, but he was given up as unnecessary. Baljit PW who had removed Patel in his tractor to CHC, Julana was also not examined and was given up as unnecessary. The trial Court held that PW12 Balwan Singh ought to have reported the matter, specially, when he had allegedly seen the accused causing kulhari injuries to Patel, but said conduct of Balwan Singh, PW12 was unnatural. On the basis of the aforementioned evidence, the accused was given the benefit of doubt, as far as the murder of Patel is concerned and was acquitted. However, as far as the murder of Vishnu is concerned, the occurrence was witnessed by PW13 Inder S/o Risal Singh who was the complainant. He stated that Vishnu was his brother. At about 11.30 a.m. on 6.4.1997, the accused came on a cycle and was having a kulhari. He demanded money from Vishnu and when he was told by Vishnu that money would be returned to him in the next few days, the accused got enraged and Crl.A. No.319-DB of 1999 & -6- Crl.A. No.559-DB of 1999 gave a kulhari blow on the neck of Vishnu. Thereafter, he gave two more blows with his kulhari on the neck of Vishnu. PW13 raised alarm and on hearing the noise, Balbir reached the spot. However, the accused managed to run away. On checking Vishnu, it was found that he had already expired. This witness was examined at length, but his testimony could not be shaken. His statement (Ex.PO) was recorded promptly at 12.30 p.m. on the same day, i.e. within an hour of the occurrence. The prosecution also examined Balbir s/o Kiru Ram as PW17. He also deposed in the same manner as Inder PW13. This witness has also clearly stated that Ranbir accused had given a kulhara blow to Vishnu in his presence and that Vishnu died immediately on the receipt of the kulhara blow. The Police lifted the blood stained earth from the spot which was witnessed by this witness. Apart from the above, Dr. (Mrs.) Sheela Kharab was examined as PW10 who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Vishnu and found 2 injuries. This Doctor opined that injuries were sufficient to cause death. The case was also corroborated by producing the FSL Report, accordingly to which the blood stained earth contained human blood. On the basis of the aforementioned evidence, the trial Court convicted the accused Ranbir Singh for having committed the murder of Vishnu. Mr. P.C. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that as per FIR and the statement of Inder PW13, the accused is alleged to have given three injuries with the kulhari whereas, the post mortem report shows that the deceased Vishnu had suffered only two Crl.A. No.319-DB of 1999 & -7- Crl.A. No.559-DB of 1999 injuries in his neck. Learned counsel has further submitted that the presence of the eye witnesses is doubtful and that the FIR has been recorded after the investigation. Counsel for the appellant has lastly submitted that Vishnu was murdered in a sudden heat of the moment and the accused had merely demanded his money back from the deceased and on refusal by the deceased, kulhari blows were given by the accused. Learned counsel submits that in these circumstances, the conviction of the appellant be converted from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC. The arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant have been controverted by the counsel appearing for the State. Learned counsel for the State submits that murder of Vishnu was witnessed by PW13 Inder and PW17 Balbir. Both of them have categorically stated that it was accused Ranbir who had inflicted kulhari blows upon the head and neck of deceased Vishnu. The FIR in the present case was lodged promptly, i.e. within 1 hour of the occurrence which lends credence to the testimony of PW13 Inder and PW17 Balbir. Learned counsel has further submitted that the ocular version is also fully supported by the testimony of Dr. Sheela Kharab, PW10 who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Vishnu. The ocular evidence is also corroborated by the FSL Report, according to which, the blood stained earth contained human blood. We have gone through the entire record of the case and heard the counsel for the parties at length. A perusal of the aforementioned facts clearly shows that on 6.4.1997, at about 11.30 a.m. the deceased was sitting with his brother Inder Singh and were talking with each other. At that time, the accused came on his cycle and was having a kulhari with him. The accused demanded back Crl.A. No.319-DB of 1999 & -8- Crl.A. No.559-DB of 1999 Rs.1000/- which he had lent to Vishnu and when Vishnu (deceased) told him that the money would be returned to him in 5-7 days time, the accused got enraged and inflicted kulhari blows on the neck of the deceased, as a result of which the Vishnu died instantaneously. The entire occurrence was witnessed by PW13 Inder singh who was sitting near the deceased. On an alarm raised by Inder Singh PW13, Balbir Singh PW17 came there and also witnessed the occurrence. The FIR in the present case was got recorded by PW13 Inder Singh at 12.30 p.m. on 6.4.1997, i.e. within one hour. The FIR was prompt and it cannot be said that there was any attempt by the complainant to falsely implicate the accused. The ocular evidence is fully corroborated by the medical evidence which shows that the deceased had suffered kulhari injuries on his neck. Moreover, in addition, the blood stained earth which had been taken into possession from the spot and was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory was found to have contained blood stains of human origin vide report Ex.PK/1. All the aforementioned facts clearly show that the deceased Vishnu was murdered by the appellant Ranbir. Coming to the last argument made by the counsel for the appellant that conviction of the appellant be converted Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC, as there was no pre-planning or pre-meditation while committing the murder of Vishnu, we find that the accused had given two severe blows with the kulhari on the neck of the deceased. The intention to commit the murder of Vishnu is clear from the nature of injuries inflicted upon the deceased. The murder was witnessed by PW13 Inder, who is the complainant and by Balbir PW17, who have given a detailed account of the Crl.A. No.319-DB of 1999 & -9- Crl.A. No.559-DB of 1999 manner in which Vishnu was killed by the accused. Apart from the above, the accused is also alleged to have committed two other murders on the same day, one of his wife Sudesh and other of Patel, who was alleged to be the paramour of his wife, but the accused was acquitted of their murders because of lack of evidence. The accused is a desperate criminal and he has rightly been convicted and sentenced under Section 302 IPC. The State of Haryana has filed Crl.A. No.599-DB of 1999 for enhancement of sentence of appellant Vishnu. A perusal of the aforementioned facts shows that this case does not fall in the category of rarest of rare cases and hence there is no ground to enhance the sentence of the appellant, specially, when the accused has been acquitted of the charges of murder of Sudesh and Patel. For the aforementioned reasons, we find no merit in the appeals filed by the accused-appellant as well as by the State. Accordingly, both the appeal are dismissed. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE May 4, 2010 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) Gulati JUDGE