Criminal Appeal No.405-DB of 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Ved Parkash and others APPELLANTS VERSUS State of Punjab RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHTAB S.GILL HON'BLE JUSTICE (MRS.) DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Shri Jasjit Singh Bedi, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Satinder Singh Gill, Additional A.G. Punjab. MEHTAB S.GILL, J. This is an appeal against the judgment/order dated 7.8.2000 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur whereby he convicted Ved Parkash son of Amru Ram, Ram Kumar son of Ved Parkash, Sumitra daughter of Ved Parkash and Daulat Ram son of Hari Ram under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, or in default, to further undergo RI for one year. The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement of Bhajan Lal Ex.P7 given to SI Sangram Singh at Civil Hospital, Fazilka. Bhajan Lal stated that they are five brothers. Three brothers are living separately. He along with Criminal Appeal No.405-DB of 2000 -2- Subhash Chander, who was employed as J.E. in the S.Y.L. at Ropar, were in joint cultivation. A dispute arose between his brother Subhash Chander and Sumitra daughter of Ved Parkash resident of Village Fatuhi (Rajasthan) and civil/criminal cases were pending in the courts at Fazilka. Ram Kumar son of Ved Parkash, Ved Parkash son of Amru Ram all residents of Village Fatuhi were not on good terms with Subhash Chander. Subhash Chander was not willing to give his property to Sumitra. On 19.7.1998 at 12.30 p.m., Bhajan Lal, Subhash Chander and Dalip Kumar were coming towards the village from their fields. When they reached near the house of Subhash Chander son of Nanak Chand, they saw Ved Parkash coming in a Jeep No.DDD-9653. Ram Kumar son of Ved Parkash was armed with a Kappa, Sumitra daughter of Ved Parkash was armed with a Kulhari, Ved Parkash son of Amru Ram was armed with a Gandasa, Daulat Ram son of Hari Ram was armed with a Kulhari, Mohinder son of Teja Ram was armed with a Lathi and Mool Chand alias Meli son of Jaswant Ram was armed with a Lathi. Sumitra raised a lalkara that Subhash Chander should be taught a lesson for not giving her share of property. All the accused then got down from the jeep. Ram Kumar gave a Kappa blow to Subhash Chander which hit him on his head. Sumitra gave a Kulhari blow on the head of Subhash Chander. Ved Parkash gave a Gandasa blow on the head of Subhash Chander, as a result of which Subhash Chander fell on the ground. Daulat Ram gave Kulhari blows on the arms of Subhash Chander when he was lying down. Mohinder Kumar and Mool Chand also gave blows with their respective Lathis to Subhash Chander. Bhajan Lal and others raised a hue and cry. All the accused then fled away from the spot with their respective weapons. The motive for the commission of the offence was that Sumitra was claiming herself to be the wife of Subhash Chander and was demanding her share Criminal Appeal No.405-DB of 2000 -3- from his property. Subhash Chander was not willing to give any property to her. Subhash Chander was taken to Civil Hospital, Fazilka, in a jeep. As his condition was serious, he was referred to D.M.C., Ludhiana, but on the way he succumbed to his injuries. Subhash Chander was then taken back to Fazilka. On the basis of this statement F.I.R. Ex.P7/B was recorded on 19.7.1998 at 6.05 p.m. at Police Station Khuian Sarwar and the special report reached the J.M.I.C., Fazilka on the same day at 8.15 p.m. The prosecution to prove its case, brought into the witness-box Dr.Rajesh Kumar Sharma PW-1, Dr.I.M.Challana PW-2, Bhajan Lal PW-3, Subhash Chander PW-4, Avtar Singh Copyist PW-5, Jangsher Bahadur PW-6, SI Sangram Singh PW-7, HC Ranjit Singh PW-8, Constable Nirmal Chand PW-9, Constable Jagtar Singh PW-10 and Constable Krishan Lal PW-11. Rajinder Kumar DW-1 and Som Pal DW-2 were examined as defence witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued, that both Bhajan Lal PW-3 and Subhash Chander PW-4 have not witnessed the occurrence. As per the site plan Ex.P11, the occurrence had taken place at point A. No blood or any other article of the deceased or accused was recovered from point A. Recovery of Chappal and blood stained earth was from point G and F. Point G and F are situated in the house of one Jai Mal Ram. As per site plan Ex.P11, the walls of the house of Jai Mal Ram are 8 to 10 feet high, meaning thereby that Bhajan Lal PW-3 and Subhash Chander PW- 4 could not have witnessed the occurrence from point A. The place of occurrence i.e. point A which is on the Phirni (outer road of the village) has been falsely shifted from point G, so that Bhajan Lal PW-3 and Subhash Chander PW-4 could be made eye-witnesses. Both the eye-witnesses have stated that there is a door in the house of Mohan Lal which opens on the Phirni. Criminal Appeal No.405-DB of 2000 -4- In the site plan Ex.P11, presence of appellants has not been shown. The distance between point A where Subhash Chander deceased was injured and point F from where the blood-stained earth was collected, is about 47 feet. No trail of blood was found by the Investigating Officer, from point A to point F. In fact, the occurrence had taken place at point G where the Chappals of the deceased were lying. The Investigating Officer SI Sangram Singh PW-7 has stated in his testimony before the Court that he did not see any trail of blood from point A to point F. The motive for the commission of the offence is false. Motive is a double-edged weapon. In this case, Bhajan Lal PW-3 brother of deceased Subhash Chander has falsely implicated the appellants to usurp the property of the deceased. It has come in evidence that Bhajan Lal PW-3 and Subhash Chander were in joint cultivation. Bhajan Lal PW-3 was apprehensive that Subhash Chander deceased may give his share of property to appellant Sumitra his wife. It is he (Bhajan Lal PW-3) who has got Subhash Chander his brother implicated. It is a case of blind murder. Appellants have been falsely implicated. There is a delay in lodging of the F.I.R. The occurrence had taken place at 12.30 p.m. on 19.7.1998, but the F.I.R. Ex.P7/B came into existence at 6.05 p.m. This delay of six hours has gone unexplained. Learned counsel for the State has argued that the occurrence took place at point A and the trail of blood could not have been traced, as the Investigating Officer SI Sangram Singh PW-7, came to the place of occurrence at 6 p.m. A number of persons must have walked over from point A to point F. As the Phirni was not metalled, the blood must have got mixed in the mud. It has come in evidence of both Bhajan Lal PW-3 and Subhash Chander PW-4 that Subhash Chander deceased after being injured, fell down at a distance. It was natural for him to run for a cover, to save himself after he had been injured and Criminal Appeal No.405-DB of 2000 -5- thus he went to the house of Jai Mal Ram. It is there where he finally fell down and that is the reason that there was blood in the house of Jai Mal Ram and Chappal of the deceased was also lying there. Both Bhajan Lal PW-3 and Subhash Chander PW-4 are natural witnesses. There houses are close-bye and they had come from the fields after doing agriculture work. It was the month of July when weather is very hot and agriculturists come home to take rest at noon time. The motive for the commission of the offence is very strong. There was a dispute between appellant Sumitra and Subhash Chander deceased. He was not giving any maintenance to her, nor was he giving any property to her. There was litigation going on. Appellants were apprehensive that Subhash Chander deceased would give his share of the property to Bhajan Lal PW-3 his brother with whom he was in joint cultivation. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. Learned counsel for the appellants has laid much stress on site plan Ex.P.11 arguing that if the two eye-witnesses Bhajan Lal PW-3 and Subhash Chander PW-4 were standing at points C and D, they could not have seen deceased Subhash Chander being injured in the house of Jai Mal Ram. Deceased Subhash Chander was not injured at point A, but at point F where his body was lying. It is from point F blood-stained earth was collected by the Investigating Officer SI Sangram Singh PW-7. The Chappals of the deceased were taken into possession from point G. No blood stained earth was recovered from point A where deceased was injured and he fell down. There is no trail of blood from point A to point F. This argument of the learned counsel for the appellants does not cut much ice after going through the statement of the witness and site plan Ex.P.11. Criminal Appeal No.405-DB of 2000 -6- Bhajan Lal PW-3 has stated in his testimony before the Court that his brother Subhash Chander was going in front of him. Meanwhile Jeep No.DDD- 9653 came from the opposite side which was driven by appellant Ved Parkash. The jeep stopped near them. Appellants Ved Parkash, Ram Kumar and Sumitra got down from the jeep along with the other accused. They were armed with Kappa, Gandasa, Kulhari and Dangs. It has further come in evidence that deceased Subhash Chander received injuries and he fell down on the ground at some distance ahead of that place where the appellants injured him which reads as under :- “I have stated before police in statement Ex.P7 that on receipt of injury Subhash Chander fell on the ground ahead of that place.” This statement has been corroborated by Subhash Chander PW-4. It has come in evidence of the Investigating Officer SI Sangram Singh PW-7 that the distance between point F and point A is about 47 feet. 47 feet distance is not much distance. An injured person looks for cover. It was natural for Subhash Chander deceased to try and save himself and go into the nearest house to take shelter. Subhash Chander deceased after getting injured at point A, and after the accused/appellants had left, went to the house of Jai Mal Ram which was only 47 feet away where he fell down at point “F”. No trail of blood could have been noticed by the Investigating Officer SI Sangram Singh PW-7 as the Investigating Officer reached the place of occurrence at 6/6.30 p.m. i.e. after a gap of about six hours. It has come in evidence that the Phirni (circular road) was around the village. It is not a metalled road. Passersby would not have stopped to preserve the blood trail. The blood trail must have got mixed up with the mud, as people were walking on the Phirni. Tractors and other vehicles must have also passed over the blood trail. Criminal Appeal No.405-DB of 2000 -7- The motive for the commission of the offence, is that appellants Ved Parkash and Ram Kumar were angry with the deceased, due to the reason that he was not looking after their sister appellant Sumitra. Further, they were apprehensive that deceased Subhash Chander would transfer his share of property to Bhajan Lal PW-3 and would not give any share to his wife appellant Sumitra, their sister. Appellant Sumitra, was in litigation with deceased Subhash Chander. Proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. were pending and a case under Sections 436/406 I.P.C. was also pending between the parties. Both the eye-witnesses Bhajan Lal PW-3 and Subhash Chander PW-4 are in fact, natural witnesses. It was the month of July. Bhajan Lal PW-3 and Subhash Chander PW-4 were coming back from their fields. when the occurrence took place. The injury attributed to appellant Sumitra is not corroborated by the medical evidence as spelt out by Dr.I.M.Challana PW-2 who performed the post- mortem on the body of Subhash Chander on 20.7.1998 at 8.30 a.m. The medical evidence does not corroborate the ocular account qua appellant Sumitra daughter of Ved Parkash. She has been unnecessarily roped in. The lalkara attributed to Sumitra also does not tell the truth, as a woman alone would not be the one who would be shouting a lalkara, but it is usually the men folk who exhort others to inflict injuries. There is some delay in lodging of the F.I.R. Ex.P.7/B which has been adequately explained. The occurrence took place at 12.30 p.m. on 19.7.1998 and the F.I.R. Ex.P7/B came into existence at 6.05 p.m. at Police Station Khuian Sarwar. Subhash Chander had been brought to Civil Hospital, Fazilka on the same day at 19.7.1998 at 1.35 p.m. as per the statement of Dr.Rajesh Kumar Sharma PW-1. Ruqa Ex.P1 was sent immediately by Dr.Rajesh Kumar PW-1. With the above discussion and observations, appeal qua Ved Parkash Criminal Appeal No.405-DB of 2000 -8- son of Amru Ram, Ram Kumar son of Ved Parkash and Daulat Ram son of Hari Ram fails and is dismissed. Appeal qua Sumitra daughter of Ved Parkash is allowed and she is acquitted of the charges framed against her giving her the benefit of doubt. ( MEHTAB S.GILL ) JUDGE ( DAYA CHAUDHARY ) May 18, 2009 JUDGE GD WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO