Case: RAHUL Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA

with the documentary evidence, we are of the considered view that there is a complete chain of evidence which would lead to irresistible conclusion that the appellant-accused has committed the offence and none else. Even the recoveries are sufficiently proved with the cogent evidence. In the disclosure statement the appellant-accused has stated that he has kept the weapon with his Bua at House No.160, Old Housing Board Colony, Bhiwani. Though she was examined on behalf of the accused to disprove the recovery, at the same time, she has admitted in the cross-examination that police have visited her place a year and a half earlier to her statement. If this part of evidence is examined, coupled with the other documentary evidence on seizure, there is no reason to disbelieve the recovery of weapon, from the residence of appellants Bua, i.e., House No.160, Old Housing Board Colony, Bhiwani. All the recoveries have been proved by examining witnesses for such recoveries. Only in view of the disclosure statement Ex.PX recoveries of pistol .315 bore and cartridges were made from the house of his Bua at Bhiwani vide recovery memo Ex.PY on 24.08.2010. Further, as per the FSL report Ex.PXX, the country made pistol .315 bore used by the accused- appellant for committing the murder of the deceased was found in working order and both the fired cartridges recovered from the spot and fired bullet taken out from the body of the deceased, are found fired from the country made pistol recovered at the instance of accused (Rahul). Further, the injuries on the person of deceased have been proved by doctor who was examined as PW-5. The material evidence on record produced by the prosecution has been further corroborated by call details of mobile phones of Ramesh, Ashok Kumar and Jitender and such call details have been proved by the statement of PW-14. Further, it is also well settled that if other evidence on record clearly establishes that the deceased was murdered by the appellant by using fire-arm, the factum of motive loses its importance, more so, in this case the motive has been established by leading cogent evidence to show that only because the deceased had developed relationship with appellants wife Priyanka, has decided to eliminate the deceased. 20. From the evidence on record, we are of the considered view that prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent evidence. Further, the motive is also proved by the prosecution. 21. In the case of Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC 755 relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court has held that certain tests are to be fulfilled by the prosecution by leading cogent evidence, when the case rests upon circumstantial evidence. Further, in the case of Wakkar (2011) 3 SCC 306 this Court has held that mere recovery itself cannot be the basis for conviction and recovery of incriminating articles and its evidentiary value has to be considered in the light of other relevant circumstances. However, having regard to evidence on record in this case on hand, we are clearly of the view that the prosecution has satisfied all the tests mentioned in the case of Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC 755 to bring home the guilt of the accused, by resting upon the circumstantial evidence. If the factum of recoveries is considered along with other evidence in entirety, it gives an irresistible conclusion that the appellant alone has committed offence by using the weapon, which is recovered from the house of DW-1 who is the Bua of the appellant. Further, it is also to be noted that whether the guilt of the accused is proved or not based on the circumstantial evidence, each case has to be judged on the overall assessment of the evidence on record, as such we are of the view that the case law which is referred above, relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, would not render any assistance to accept his plea that the appellant was falsely implicated. 22. The High Court, in the appeal filed by the appellant herein and another accused Ramesh, reappreciated the evidence on record and confirmed the conviction and sentence, so far as the appellant is concerned and acquitted the other appellant, i.e., Ramesh. Though it is contended by learned counsel appearing for the appellant, on same set of evidence while acquitting the other accused Ramesh there is no reason to confirm the conviction and sentence so far as the appellant herein is concerned. In the impugned judgment, the High Court has recorded reasons for acquittal of the other appellant, i.e., Ramesh. PW-3 Anil, in his deposition has clearly stated that when he along with his mother and deceased Jittu, went to Badhra, after some time Jittu was separated from them, and came back along with Rahul (appellant) and Ashok (proclaimed offender) in a Maruti car. It is stated by PW-3, at that time Jitender @ Jittu stated that he was going to Haridwar and would come back in 3-4 days. Thereafter, Jitender @ Jittu went along with Rahul and Ashok. To the same effect is the statement of PW-12 (Kasturi), mother of the deceased. From the said evidence on record, it stands established that the deceased Jitender @ Jittu was last seen in the company of Rahul (appellant) and Ashok (proclaimed offender) only. There was no mention that Ramesh (appellant before the High Court) also accompanied Jitender @ Jittu for going to Haridwar. In the absence of any evidence on record to show that deceased was also seen with Ramesh lastly by PW-3 and PW-12, the High Court has come to the conclusion, that prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt so far as the other appellant Ramesh is concerned. In view of such reasoning recorded by the High Court and evidence on record there are justifiable reasons for acquitting the other appellant, namely, Ramesh, while confirming the conviction so far as the appellant herein is concerned.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]13. Though the appellant (Rahul) and another accused, namely, Ramesh were tried together and were convicted by the trial court but on appeal the High Court has allowed the appeal qua Ramesh and acquitted him of the charges by recording a finding that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused Ramesh beyond reasonable doubt. At the same time, the High Court has confirmed the conviction recorded and sentence imposed, by the trial court, on the appellant.14. It is the case of the prosecution that appellant Rahul has married Priyanka, who is the daughter of Ramesh and sister of Ashok. It is the case of the prosecution that because of the relationship of the deceased Jitender @ Jittu with Priyanka who is the wife of the appellant, the appellant and other accused have decided to eliminate the deceased. It is true that the entire case rests upon the circumstantial evidence. In ocular evidence there is a deposition of PW-3 and PW-12 who are brother and mother respectively of the deceased. Merely because two of the witnesses are related to the deceased, that by itself, is no ground to discard their testimony. If their testimony is corroborated by other evidence on record, same can be relied on to establish the guilt of the accused.15. In this case PWs-1 and 2 were declared hostile and PW-3 also, at some stage, was declared hostile. He was cross-examined by the counsel for the prosecution. In his chief examination, PW-3 (Anil), brother of the deceased (Jittu) has deposed that, Jitender alias Jittu was his younger brother. On 06.08.2010, Ramesh from village Chandwas had come to his house and he told Jittu in his presence at about 02:00 or 02:30 p.m. that appellant (Rahul) would come in the evening and he had a programme of going to Haridwar in order to bring kawar. Thereafter in the evening at about 05:00 p.m., he, his mother and brother Jittu went to Badhra in a bus. They purchased some articles and after some time Jittu separated from them and after two hours, Rahul (appellant), Jittu and Ashok came in a Maruti car 800 CC No.DL-9CJ-5165 and told them that they were going to Haridwar and would come back in 3-4 days. Jittu had gone with Rahul and Ashok. After 3-4 days he tried to contact his brother on his mobile, but both the mobiles were switched off. Further, he has deposed that on 14.08.2010 his sister had read the newspaper and told him the description of cloths and slippers which were mentioned in the newspaper. Thereafter, he also read the newspaper, as such they went to Police Station and saw the cloths of Jittu and the photographs of dead body of Jittu. They identified the cloths and photographs of Jittu. At that time he did not have any suspicion on anyone. After he has deposed to some extent by way of chief examination, he was declared hostile at the request of the Public Prosecutor and he was further cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that he stated to police that his brother had made a telephone call to Priyanka - sister of Ashok Kumar and on that, Ashok and Ramesh came to their house and protested, and that might be the reason for murdering his brother Jittu. Senior Scientific Officer – Ravinder Pal Singh was examined as PW-4 and in his deposition, he stated that he along with his assistant inspected the spot and prepared his report under Ex.PE and he also prepared the rough sketch Ex.PF.The doctor (PW-5) has deposed that the cause of death was because of fire-arm injuries and they were ante mortem in nature. Probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was immediate and that of between death and post mortem examination was 1-3 days. Further, through him, it is proved that the fired bullet Ex.P1 was the same which was taken out from the body of the deceased. The complainant (Jaswant Singh) who has informed to the police at first instance, was examined as PW-6. He has deposed, reiterating the information which he has given to police. The draftsman who prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PT was examined as PW-7 and to prove the photographs Ex.PW8/1 to Ex.PW8/8, PW-8 Inderjit was examined. PW-10 Head Constable Arvind Kumar, who was on patrolling duty along with other police officials, has inspected the car of the appellant on 21.08.2010 and he was interrogated by the investigating officer to whom disclosure statement was made under Ex.PV. Further, PW-10 has also pointed out that the appellant has disowned the earlier statement and stated that he concealed the pistol and cartridges in House No.160, Housing Board, Bhiwani in the house of his Bua. That disclosure statement was recorded as Ex.PX. The mother of the deceased PW-12 (Kasturi) in her deposition while stating that Jittu was taken by the appellant (Rahul) and Ashok from the bus stop stating that they were going to Haridwar to bring kawar. She has further stated that few days prior to occurrence, a panchayat was convened by Ramesh and Ashok on the point that her son Jittu was making telephone calls to daughter of Ramesh and only due to this the accused have killed her son. PW-16 – Investigating Officer (Sarif Singh) in his deposition has clearly stated that he lifted two empties from the spot and they were taken into possession and sealed vide memo Ex.PL. He also stated that he lifted blood-stained earth from the spot which was sealed in parcel vide memo Ex.PK. Further, PW- 17 – ASI Amir Singh in his deposition has stated that on 25.08.2010 he was posted as I.O. at Police Station Charkhi Dadri and after arresting Rahul he has interrogated him and he made his disclosure statement Ex.PLL. Vijender Singh, Dy. Superintendent of Police/SHO, P.S. Sadar, Dadri was examined as PW-20 on 31.08.2010.17. Though it is mainly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the motive attributed is an improved version in the statements made by PW-3 and PW-12, but in a case of this nature it is to be noticed that deceased was known to the appellant (Rahul) and Ramesh. Merely because PW-3 has deposed at first instance that there was no suspicion or any animosity between the deceased and the appellant but at the same time he has clearly stated that on 06.08.2010, Ramesh, the other accused had come to village Chandwas and in his presence Ramesh told to Jittu at about 2:00 or 2:30 p.m. that Rahul would come in the evening and they have planned to go to Haridwar in order to bring kawar. Further, it is also clearly deposed that the same day evening PW-3 – Anil went along with his brother Jittu and his mother Kasturi – PW-12 to Badhra in a bus and they purchased some articles, thereafter Jittu was separated and after two hours Rahul, Jittu and Ashok came in a Maruti car and stated that they were going to Haridwar and would come back. Initially no suspicion was indicated but at the same time when PW-3 was declared hostile and in cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor he has admitted that he stated to police, his brother Jittu had made a telephone call to Priyanka, sister of Ashok Kumar and on that Ashok who is the brother of Priyanka and Ramesh, father of Priyanka, came to their house and protested. He also indicated, that might be the reason for murdering his brother Jittu by the appellant and other accused. PW-12 who is the mother of the deceased has, in clear terms, stated that few days prior to the occurrence, a panchayat was convened by Ramesh and Ashok on the point that her son Jittu was making telephone calls to daughter of Ramesh and due to this they killed her son. Although it is the contention of the counsel for the appellant that as PW-3 and PW-12 are family members/close relations of the deceased, as such, their testimony is to be discarded, but the same cannot be accepted. Merely because PW-3 and PW-12 are related, by itself is no ground, to reject their testimony. Further, a close relative who is a natural witness cannot be regarded as an interested witness. It is fairly well settled proposition that even the evidence of interested person can also be considered provided such evidence is corroborated by other evidence on record. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to a judgment of this Court in the case of Kanhaiya Lal & Ors. etc. v. State of Rajasthan (2013) 5 SCC 655. Paragraphs 24 and 25 of the said judgment read as under :24. In Hari Obula Reddy v. State of A.P. (1981) 3 SCC 675  a three-Judge Bench has opined that it cannot be laid down asan invariable rule that interested evidence can never form the basis of conviction unless corroborated to a material extent in material particulars by independent evidence. All that is necessary is that the evidence of the interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. If on such scrutiny, the interested testimony is found to be intrinsically reliable or inherently probable, it may, by itself, be sufficient, in the circumstances of the particular case, to base a conviction thereon. (SCC pp.683-84, para 13)25. In Kartik Malhar v. State of Bihar (1996) 1 SCC 614  this Court has stated (SCC p.621, para 15) that a close relative who is a natural witness cannot be regarded as an interested witness, for the term interested postulates that the witness must have some interest in having the accused, somehow or the other, convicted for some animus or for some other reason.While rejecting the plea that the witnesses were in close relation to the deceased, in the case of Ram Chander & Ors. v. State of Haryana(2017) 2 SCC 321  this Court has held as under :33. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that since Guddi (PW 9) was in close relation with the deceased persons, she should not be believed for want of evidence of any independent witness, deserves to be rejected in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab (1976) 4 SCC 158  and Harbans Kaur v. State of Haryana (2005) 9 SCC 195 , which lays down the following proposition (Harbans Kaur case, SCC p.198, para 7)7. There is no proposition in law that relatives are to be treated as untruthful witnesses. On the contrary, reason has to be shown when a plea of partiality is raised to show that the witnesses had reason to shield the actual culprit and falsely implicate the accused..18. It is clear from the deposition of PW-5 (doctor) and the post mortem report that, injuries were caused over the body of the deceased with a fire-arm and the bullet was found embedded in the body. It is also clearly stated that death was due to fire-arm injuries and was ante mortem in nature. He has clearly stated that the fired bullet which was marked as Ex.P1 was the same which was taken out from the body of the deceased.19. If we closely scrutinize the oral evidence on record coupled with the documentary evidence, we are of the considered view that there is a complete chain of evidence which would lead to irresistible conclusion that the appellant-accused has committed the offence and none else. Even the recoveries are sufficiently proved with the cogent evidence. In the disclosure statement the appellant-accused has stated that he has kept the weapon with his Bua at House No.160, Old Housing Board Colony, Bhiwani. Though she was examined on behalf of the accused to disprove the recovery, at the same time, she has admitted in the cross-examination that police have visited her place a year and a half earlier to her statement. If this part of evidence is examined, coupled with the other documentary evidence on seizure, there is no reason to disbelieve the recovery of weapon, from the residence of appellants Bua, i.e., House No.160, Old Housing Board Colony, Bhiwani. All the recoveries have been proved by examining witnesses for such recoveries. Only in view of the disclosure statement Ex.PX recoveries of pistol .315 bore and cartridges were made from the house of his Bua at Bhiwani vide recovery memo Ex.PY on 24.08.2010. Further, as per the FSL report Ex.PXX, the country made pistol .315 bore used by the accused- appellant for committing the murder of the deceased was found in working order and both the fired cartridges recovered from the spot and fired bullet taken out from the body of the deceased, are found fired from the country made pistol recovered at the instance of accused (Rahul). Further, the injuries on the person of deceased have been proved by doctor who was examined as PW-5. The material evidence on record produced by the prosecution has been further corroborated by call details of mobile phones of Ramesh, Ashok Kumar and Jitender and such call details have been proved by the statement of PW-14. Further, it is also well settled that if other evidence on record clearly establishes that the deceased was murdered by the appellant by using fire-arm, the factum of motive loses its importance, more so, in this case the motive has been established by leading cogent evidence to show that only because the deceased had developed relationship with appellants wife Priyanka, has decided to eliminate the deceased.20. From the evidence on record, we are of the considered view that prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent evidence. Further, the motive is also proved by the prosecution.21. In the case of Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC 755 relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court has held that certain tests are to be fulfilled by the prosecution by leading cogent evidence, when the case rests upon circumstantial evidence. Further, in the case of Wakkar (2011) 3 SCC 306  this Court has held that mere recovery itself cannot be the basis for conviction and recovery of incriminating articles and its evidentiary value has to be considered in the light of other relevant circumstances. However, having regard to evidence on record in this case on hand, we are clearly of the view that the prosecution has satisfied all the tests mentioned in the case of Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC 755  to bring home the guilt of the accused, by resting upon the circumstantial evidence. If the factum of recoveries is considered along with other evidence in entirety, it gives an irresistible conclusion that the appellant alone has committed offence by using the weapon, which is recovered from the house of DW-1 who is the Bua of the appellant. Further, it is also to be noted that whether the guilt of the accused is proved or not based on the circumstantial evidence, each case has to be judged on the overall assessment of the evidence on record, as such we are of the view that the case law which is referred above, relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, would not render any assistance to accept his plea that the appellant was falsely implicated.22. The High Court, in the appeal filed by the appellant herein and another accused Ramesh, reappreciated the evidence on record and confirmed the conviction and sentence, so far as the appellant is concerned and acquitted the other appellant, i.e., Ramesh. Though it is contended by learned counsel appearing for the appellant, on same set of evidence while acquitting the other accused Ramesh there is no reason to confirm the conviction and sentence so far as the appellant herein is concerned. In the impugned judgment, the High Court has recorded reasons for acquittal of the other appellant, i.e., Ramesh. PW-3 Anil, in his deposition has clearly stated that when he along with his mother and deceased Jittu, went to Badhra, after some time Jittu was separated from them, and came back along with Rahul (appellant) and Ashok (proclaimed offender) in a Maruti car. It is stated by PW-3, at that time Jitender @ Jittu stated that he was going to Haridwar and would come back in 3-4 days. Thereafter, Jitender @ Jittu went along with Rahul and Ashok. To the same effect is the statement of PW-12 (Kasturi), mother of the deceased. From the said evidence on record, it stands established that the deceased Jitender @ Jittu was last seen in the company of Rahul (appellant) and Ashok (proclaimed offender) only. There was no mention that Ramesh (appellant before the High Court) also accompanied Jitender @ Jittu for going to Haridwar. In the absence of any evidence on record to show that deceased was also seen with Ramesh lastly by PW-3 and PW-12, the High Court has come to the conclusion, that prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt so far as the other appellant Ramesh is concerned. In view of such reasoning recorded by the High Court and evidence on record there are justifiable reasons for acquitting the other appellant, namely, Ramesh, while confirming the conviction so far as the appellant herein is concerned.