Crl. A. No. 422-DB of 2003 --1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Appeal No.422-DB of 2003 Date of Decision : 13.01.2011 1. Jai Singh s/o Dariya r/o village Bharan, Tehsil Meham, District Rohtak. 2. Ishwar s/o Dariya r/o village Bharan, Tehsil Meham, District Rohtak. 3. Surender s/o Jai Singh r/o village Bharan, Tehsil Meham, District Rohtak. ... Appellants Versus The State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL. Present: Mr. Vinod Ghai, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. S.S. Randhawa, Addl. A.G., Haryana, for the respondent-State. -- M.Jeyapaul, J. Introduction: All the three accused were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of the Crl. A. No. 422-DB of 2003 --2- Indian Penal Code, 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- to each of the accused was imposed for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/- to each of the accused was imposed for the offence under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- to each of the accused was imposed for the offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. On realisation of amount of fine, 80% thereof was ordered to be given to the legal representatives of the deceased Ranbir Singh and 10% to the injured Jasbir. Case in brief of the Prosecution: 2. a) The 1st accused Jai Singh,and the 2nd accused Ishwar and the deceased Ranbir Singh are brothers.The 3rd accused Surender is the son of the 1st accused.PW-9 Kamlesh is the widow of the deceased Ranbir Singh.PW-10 is the brother of PW-9 Kamlesh. There was civil litigation between accused nos.1 and 2 and the deceased Ranbir Singh.Dariya, the father of accused nos.1 and 2 and the deceased had given good quality of land to the 1st accused Jai Singh and 2nd accused Crl. A. No. 422-DB of 2003 --3- Ishwar. A land of an inferior quality was given to Ranbir Singh and his another brother Balwan. Though the partition dispute between the brothers was compromised in panchayat, the ill-will was subsisting. (b) On 06.06.2002 Jasbir, PW-8 had gone to village Bharan for harrowing the field of his brother-in-law Ranbir. When he was harrowing the fields at about 3.30 PM on the said day, Balwan, the other brother of the deceased Ranbir and PW-9 Kamlesh, the wife of the deceased Ranbir were working in the nearby sugarcane fields. All the three accused present in their adjoining field were watering the field. All the three accused were armed with Jellies. (c) The deceased Ranbir Singh informed the 1st accused Jai Singh that he was going to irrigate his field as it was his turn. All the three accused attacked Ranbir Singh with Jellies. Ranbir Singh fell down to the ground. Even thereafter all the three accused kept on attacking Ranbir Singh all over his body. (d) Jasbir, PW-8 having stopped his tractor, rushed to rescue Ranbir Singh, but the 1st accused Jai Singh gave a jelly blow lathiwise on his right hand. The 2nd accused Ishwar gave a jelly blow from its lathi side on the back of his head. The 3rd accused Surender gave a jelly blow from its lathi side on the Crl. A. No. 422-DB of 2003 --4- back of his head. Kamlesh, Joginder and Balwan rushed to the scene of occurrence on hearing the alarm raised by Jasbir, PW-8. Thereafter, all the three accused ran away from the scene of occurrence with their respective weapons. e) Jai Parkash alongwith other villagers came down to the scene of occurrence and took Jasbir, PW-8 and Ranbir Singh to PGIMS, Rohtak in a jeep. The duty doctor declared that Ranbir Singh was brought dead. PW-8 was medicolegally examined by the doctor. PW-8 has sustained fracture injuries. As the doctor, who medicolegally examined PW-8 was not available, Dr. Amarjit Singh, PW-14 was examined and the medicolegal report concerning PW-8 was marked as Ex.PAC. f) Inder Singh, Sub Inspector, PW-13, attached to Civil Lines, Rohtak, having received communication through wireless message about the admission of Jasbir Singh, PW-8 at PGIMS, Rohtak, rushed to the hospital and having ascertained the fit condition of PW-8 to give statement from the duty doctor vide endorsement Ex.PAE/1, recorded the statement of PW-8. A formal First Information Report Ex.PF was recorded on the basis of the said statement given by PW-8. He conducted inquest and preferred inquest report Ex.PC about the dead body of Ranbir Singh. He also sent the dead body of Ranbir Singh for post-mortem examination with Crl. A. No. 422-DB of 2003 --5- the request Ex.PB. PW-13 prepared a rough site plan Ex.PAF with correct marginal notes. Chappal Ex.P7 and Parna Ex.P8 belonging to the deceased were recovered from the scene of occurrence. Blood stained earth was also lifted under memo Ex.PZ. g) In the presence of Sanjay, PW-12, Inder Singh, Sub Inspector, PW-13 arrested the accused, obtained individual disclosure statements from them and recovered the Jellies from their residence at their instances. h) Jagpal Singh, PW-3 is the Canal Patwari. He produced the records from his custody to show that accused no.1 Jai Singh and accused No.2 Ishwar and the deceased had the turn for watering their fields between 2.04 PM to 4.40 PM on 06.06.2002. i) Dr. Giriraj, Medical Officer, PW-1 conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Ranbir Singh on 07.06.2002 and found the following injuries:- “1) Two lacerated wounds one above each other measuring 2 cm x ½ cm and 1-1/2 cm x ½ cm 2 cm wound was 1-1/2 above the right pinna. On penetration, both wounds were penetrating type going obliquely, anteromedially and above downward, lacerating, the brain tissue upto 8 cm Crl. A. No. 422-DB of 2003 --6- deep. Ecchymosis was present. 2) Lacerated wound 1.5 x 1.5 cm behind the right ear just above the mastoid. The ecchyomis was present. 3) On dissection, fracture right cranium was present extending horizontally from anterior aspect of right temporal bone to the junction of parieto occipital junction . Ecchymosis was present. Underlying brain tissue was lacerated. 4) Back of right chest was almost wholly bruised, reddish, having small multiple linear abrasions of the size from 4 cm to 8 cm, underlying structures were ecchymosis. On dissection, fracture of 4,5,6,7, and 8th ribs was present. Right lung was lacerated and thoracic cavity was full of blood. 5) Reddish, bruise 18 cm x 3 cm was present on the back of left chest, obliquely present. Underlying tissue was ecchymosed. 6) Reddish abrasion 1-1/2 x 1-1/2 cm was present on the mid of left shin. Ecchymosis was present. 7) Reddish abrasion 3 cm x 1.5 cm was present, horizontally, on right tibial tubercle. Ecchymosis was present. Crl. A. No. 422-DB of 2003 --7- 8) Reddish abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm was present on the posterior aspect of left elbow. Ecchymosis was present.” j) PW-1 opined in the post-mortem examination report Ex.PA that Ranbir Singh died due to shock and haemorrhage and also due to the injuries on vital organs namely brain and lung , which were sufficient to cause his death in the ordinary course of nature. He has also opined that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. PW-13 Inder Singh,SI having completed investigation, filed final report against the accused. Statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 3. The accused pleaded that they have been falsely implicated on account of previous land dispute between the brothers. Some unknown persons murdered Ranbir Singh and caused injuries to Jasbir Singh. They had nothing to do with the offences alleged against them. Verdict of the Trial Court. 4. The trial Court rested its conclusion on the unimpeachable evidence of injured witness PW-8 and another eye witness PW-9. The medical evidence also lent corroboration to the evidence of ocular witnesses. The trial Crl. A. No. 422-DB of 2003 --8- Court also considered the motive part of the case and the recovery of the weapons of offence in the aftermath of the respective disclosure statements given by the accused. Ultimately the trial Court recorded conviction against all the accused. Submissions made by Mr. Vinod Ghai, learned counsel for the appellants: 5. The occurrence had allegedly unfolded in the fields of Jai Singh, 1st accused. The accused, who had gone to the field of Jai Singh, had neither committed aggression nor invited the quarrel. The accused were not armed with deadly weapons. They had only agricultural implements in the ordinary course of nature when they were standing in the fields. Therefore no motive to cause the death of Ranbir Singh could be attributed to them. At least there would have been no common intention to cause the death of Ranbir Singh. The evidence of Kamlesh, PW-9 would go to show that she was not an eye witness to the occurrence. Therefore the case of the prosecution does not squarely fall under the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State: Crl. A. No. 422-DB of 2003 --9- 6. The evidence of the injured witness PW-8 establishes the case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offences charged against them. He would further submit that Kamlesh, PW-9 is also a quite natural witness as she had every reason to be present in her fields. Therefore, her evidence also cannot be disbelieved. The medical evidence supports the case of the prosecution. The deadly weapons used by the accused in the crime were recovered only on the basis of disclosure statements given by them in the presence of PW-12. Therefore, it is his submission that the trial Court has rightly returned the verdict of conviction against the accused. Discussion:- motive and immediate cause of attack: 7. PW-8 and PW-9 have cogently spoken to the fact that there was civil litigation pending between the brothers. It appears that the brothers were not satisfied with the partition effected by their father Dariya. Of course panchayat intervened and made a sincere attempt to amicably settle the partition dispute between the brothers, but as per the version of PW-8, the ill-will amongst the brothers persisted. PW-8 has spoken to the fact that the deceased Ranbir Singh approached 1st accused Jai Singh and informed him that he Crl. A. No. 422-DB of 2003 --10- had proposed to water his fields as it was his turn. The same was found to be the immediate cause for the attack, launched by the accused. Jagpal Singh, PW-3, who is none other than the Canal Patwari, has deposed that both the accused and the deceased Ranbir Singh had their turn of water from 2.04 PM to 4.40 PM on 6.6.2002 to irrigate their lands. As per the evidence of PW-8, the occurrence had taken place at 3.30 PM on 6.6.2002 . The prosecution has established the motive for the murder of Ranbir Singh by examining PW-8 and PW-9 and the immediate cause of attack, launched by the accused against Ranbir Singh through the evidence of PW-3, PW-8 and PW-9. Though Jasbir Singh, PW-8 and Kamlesh, PW-9 are related to the deceased Ranbir Singh, they are the most competent witnesses to speak about the motive. PW-8 being the injured witness cannot be ignored by the Court of law. PW-3, Canal Patwari has also corroborated the evidence of PW-8 and PW-9. Therefore, it is held that the prosecution has established clearly that there was a motive behind the murder of Ranbir Singh and the immediate cause of attack launched by the accused against Ranbir Singh was the sharing of water during their common turn. Crl. A. No. 422-DB of 2003 --11- Ocular testimony:- 8. Ex.PAB, the Medico-legal Report (MLR) qua Jasbir Singh, PW-8 has been spoken to by Dr. Amarjit Singh, PW-14. MLR would establish that PW-8 has sustained grievous as well as simple injuries in the occurrence. It is only the statement given by him when he was taking treatment, that set the law in motion. There is no delay in lodging the report to the police. The presence of an injured witness in the scene of occurrence cannot at all be doubted. PW-9, who is none other than the wife of the deceased Ranbir Singh and sister of PW-8, would admit that the deceased had got inferior quality of land in partition dispute and the same was located close by the fields of 1st and 2nd accused. PW-8 had been invited by his sister and brother-in-law to harrow the fields. Though PW-8 and PW-9 are closely related to the accused, we find no reason to disbelieve their evidence as they have spoken in one voice that all the three accused attacked Ranbir Singh with their respective weapons i.e. Jellies. All the accused in furtherance of their common intention had attacked Ranbir Singh all over his body and caused his unfortunate death. PW-8 who made an attempt to rescue Ranbir Singh, was also attacked and as a result of which, he received not only a simple injury but also a grievous Crl. A. No. 422-DB of 2003 --12- injury, as per the MLR, Ex.PAB issued to him by the duty doctor. 9. The ocular evidence of PW-8 and PW-9 clinches the case of the prosecution. We do not entertain any doubt as to their veracity, though they are related to the deceased. The coherent evidence given by PW-8 and PW-9 in a natural way inspires confidence. In fact the evidence of PW-8, who is an injured witness in this case, requires no corroboration at all. But in this case the prosecution has come out with supportive evidence of PW-9 to give strengthen to the evidence of PW-8. 10. True it is that PW-9 has stated during the course of cross-examination that when she reached the occurrence proper, the accused-persons took to their heels. Her husband had already been assaulted by them. No injury was given to her husband after she reached by the side of her husband, she has further deposed. If we closely examine the above testimony of PW-9, it would go to show that before ever she arrived by the side of her husband, he had been mercilessly attacked by the accused and as a result of which he had fallen down to the ground. After she reached her husband who had fallen to the ground, the accused had not caused any injuries to him. In fact they had taken to their heels. The evidence of PW-9 does not give any impression that she was away and she Crl. A. No. 422-DB of 2003 --13- did not witness the occurrence at all. She was engaged for the agricultural operation in the nearby fields. While rushing to her husband, who was attacked by the accused, she could not have closed her eyes to avoid seeing anything. She had witnessed everything which took place within her vicinity. Even as per the prosecution, no attack was launched by any of the accused on Ranbir Singh after PW-9 reached her husband. Therefore, we do not have any doubt about the presence of PW-9 at the scene of occurrence. Medical Evidence 11. PW-1 Dr. Giriraj, Medical Officer, has found as many as eight injuries on various parts of the body of the deceased Ranbir Singh. The first two lacerated wounds had penetrated deep into the brain. It is the opinion of the doctor that the vital organs namely brain and lung had received lethal injuries and as a result of which there had been shock and haemorrhage which caused the death of Ranbir Singh. The eye witness account is completely supported by the medical evidence. Recovery of Weapons 12. The disclosure statements, made by all the three accused in the presence of PW-12 were duly proved. As per the disclosure statements, the hidden places were shown by Crl. A. No. 422-DB of 2003 --14- the accused to PW-13, who had recovered the respective Jellies from the places exclusively known to the accused. The recovery of the material objects based on the disclosure statements given by the accused also supports the case of the prosecution. Common Intention 13. The common intention would not be patent. The common intention will have to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the individual case. To establish the fact that the accused shared a common intention, it is not necessary to prove that there was any prior meeting between the accused or any prior pre-arranged plan was hatched by them. All that is required to be established by the prosecution is that there was a meeting of minds of the accused before the offence was committed. Common intention is basically a question of fact. As it is subjective, Court has to infer from the facts and circumstances the common intention which activated the accused to act in unison. 14. The motive part of the case has been established by the prosecution. All the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, had launched the attack with deadly weapons on various parts of the body of the deceased Ranbir Singh indiscriminately. Ranbir Singh, who received the first Crl. A. No. 422-DB of 2003 --15- two lethal injuries, which penetrated into the brain and lung was not spared even after he fell down to the ground. The doctor, who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, had opined that the death had occasioned within about few minutes of the attack launched by the accused on the vital parts of the body of the deceased. The above facts and circumstances would go to establish without any pale of doubt that all the accused had shared the common intention to cause the death of Ranbir Singh. During the course of occurrence, each one had attacked Jasbir Singh, PW-8. All the accused had also shared the common intention to cause simple as well as grievous injuries on the person of PW-8. We are not convinced by the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants that Ranbir Singh, who went totally unarmed to seek permission of his brother to take water to his fields and received lethal injuries from all the three accused who were armed with Jellies, was the aggressors. Conclusion 15. We find that the prosecution has established the charges against all the three accused beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment of conviction and sentence has been recorded by the trial Court based on proper appreciation of Crl. A. No. 422-DB of 2003 --16- evidence and the principles of law on the point. The same does not warrant any interference. The judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court is upheld and the appeal filed by the appellants stands dismissed. 16. Since the 1st accused / 1st appellant Jai Singh and the 2nd accused/2nd appellant Ishwar are on bail, their bail bonds stand cancelled. They are directed to surrender themselves before the jail authorities immediately for completing remainder of sentence, failing which the concerned authority shall proceed against them in accordance with law. ( M. Jeyapaul ) ( Satish Kumar Mittal) Judge Judge 13.01.2011 dinesh Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? ( Yes/No )