Case: Dharam Pal Vs. State of Haryana

is contradiction between the ocular testimony of PW- 6 and the medical evidence. It is contended that Asphyxia is not possible without any mark of violence and there is no external injury found on the body of the deceased contrary to the evidence of PW-6 who stated that the deceased was hit on the back side of his head with the butt of a rifle.8. There is a detailed discussion in the judgments of the Courts below about the illegal detention of PW-6 by the police and the continuous threat held out by the accused to PW-6. The Courts below relied upon the evidence of PW-6, being conscious of the fact that PW-6 could not have stated anything against the accused until the investigation was handed over to the CBI. We are unable to accept the submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the accused that the evidence of PW-6 is unreliable. It is no doubt true that PW-6 revealed the complicity of A1 to A-3 before PW-71 only on 23.01.1998 though the incident was on 10.09.1996. It is clear from the evidence on record that PW-6 was spared by A1 to A-3 only on an assurance that he would not reveal about the incident to anybody. It was only after the CBI took up the investigation that he mustered strength to approach the Investigating Officer PW-71 and revealed the facts pertaining to the incident dated 10.09.1996. In this background, the evidence of PW-6 cannot be eschewed from consideration only on the ground that there was delay in reporting his version to the Investigating Officer. We reject the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants that the evidence of PW-6 does not merit favorable consideration.9. As per the postmortem report, the cause of death is Asphyxia. PW-25, Dr. P.S. Parihar, opined that the death might have been caused because of obstruction of air into mouth and nose by a cloth or pillow being put on his nostrils or mouth. PW-6 deposed in his testimony that the deceased was hit by a rifle butt on the back of his head by A-2 due to which he fell down and become unconscious. The medical evidence shows that there was no external injury on the head of the deceased. Though it appears at the first blush that there is a contradiction between the oral testimony of PW-6 and the medical evidence, on a deeper scrutiny it is clear that there is none. PW-6 deposed about the incident to the extent he was aware i.e. the blow given by A-2, the deceased falling down and becoming unconscious. Thereafter, PW-6 was taken away by the accused and was unaware about the events that took place later. He did not state anything about the deceased losing his life. According to medical opinion the death was due to Asphyxia. Dr. P.S.Parihar (PW-25) deposed that the death might have been caused by obstruction of air into the mouth and nose due to a cloth/pillow being put on the nostrils and/or mouth. Therefore, there is no variation between the oral and medical evidence.10. The following circumstances would unerringly point to the guilt of Accused:A. It is clear from the evidence on record that A-1 to A-3 tried to cover up their crime by filing a closure report to the effect that the death of the deceased was due to an accident.B. PW-6 stated in his evidence that A-1 to A-3 caused an injury to the deceased and thereafter dragged and dumped him into the bushes besides the road. They initially took PW-6 to the outpost at Anangpur Chowk and later to Surajkund police station where he was illegally detained till 15.09.1996.C. PW-2, Kanwal Nain Arora, the father of the deceased along with PW-10, Ashok Kumar and PW-12, Harish Arora were frantically searching for the deceased from the early hours on 11.09.1996 on Surajkund - Faridabad road. They found the broken pieces of glass purchased by the deceased on the Surajkund-Faridabad road. There was no trace of the body till it was found on the same road at 5:30 pm on 11.09.1996.D. The police had blocked the road between 02:00 pm to 04:00 pm for vehicle or traffic, presumably to enable the accused to place the body at the spot where it was found.E. The inquest was not done at the spot but at the police station by A-4. The blood stained earth allegedly removed from the spot where the body was lying did not match with the blood group of the deceased. There was blood on the face of the deceased and his clothes, which also did not match his blood group.F. It has also come out in evidence that it rained in the afternoon on 11.09.1996 but the body was found to be dry.G. Manipulation of the investigation by A-4 to A-6 in order to shield A-1 to A-3 from punishment for their crime.H. The deceased being unconscious and lying on the road one km. from Anangpur Chowk at 11:30 pm on 10.09.1996 was to the exclusive knowledge of A-1 to A-3. The absence of any explanation forthcoming from the accused as to the circumstances in which the death occurred, raises a presumption against them.I. The disappearance of the body during the day time until it was found at a place different from the site of the incident at 05:30 p.m. would clearly show that A-1 to A-3 were responsible for the removal of the body in the night and placing the body at the site where it was found around 5:30 pm on 11.09.1996.11. All the above circumstances would show that A-1 to A-3 are responsible for the death, being the only persons having knowledge about the deceased lying at the spot where he was injured at 11:30 pm on 10.09.1996. Complicity of A-4 to A6 has also been sufficiently proved. On the basis of the oral testimony of PW-6 and the strong circumstances which point to their guilt, we uphold the judgments of the Courts below.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]7. It is no moreon of evidence is not required in a case where conviction has been confirmed by the High Court.There is a detailed discussion in the judgments of the Courts below about the illegal detention ofby the police and the continuous threat held out by the accused toThe Courts below relied upon the evidence ofbeing conscious of the fact thatcould not have stated anything against the accused until the investigation was handed over to the CBI. We are unable to accept the submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the accused that the evidence ofis unreliable. It is no doubt true thatrevealed the complicity of A1 to71 only on 23.01.1998 though the incident was on 10.09.1996. It is clear from the evidence on record thatwas spared by A1 toonly on an assurance that he would not reveal about the incident to anybody. It was only after the CBI took up the investigation that he mustered strength to approach the Investigating Officerand revealed the facts pertaining to the incident dated 10.09.1996. In this background, the evidence ofcannot be eschewed from consideration only on the ground that there was delay in reporting his version to the Investigating Officer. We reject the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants that the evidence ofdoes not merit favorablemedical evidence shows that there was no external injury on the head of the deceased. Though it appears at the first blush that there is a contradiction between the oral testimony ofand the medical evidence, on a deeper scrutiny it is clear that there is none.deposed about the incident to the extent he was aware i.e. the blow given bythe deceased falling down and becoming unconscious. Thereafter,was taken away by the accused and was unaware about the events that took place later. He did not state anything about the deceased losing his life. According to medical opinion the death was due to Asphyxia. Dr. P.S.Parihardeposed that the death might have been caused by obstruction of air into the mouth and nose due to a cloth/pillow being put on the nostrils and/or mouth. Therefore, there is no variation between the oral and medical evidence.10. The following circumstances would unerringly point to the guilt ofIt is clear from the evidence on record thatA1 to A3tried to cover up their crime by filing a closure report to the effect that the death of the deceased was due to an accident.B.stated in his evidence thatA1 to A3caused an injury to the deceased and thereafter dragged and dumped him into the bushes besides the road. They initially tookto the outpost at Anangpur Chowk and later to Surajkund police station where he was illegally detained till 15.09.1996.C.Kanwal Nain Arora, the father of the deceased along withAshok Kumar andHarish Arora were frantically searching for the deceased from the early hours on 11.09.1996 on SurajkundFaridabad road. They found the broken pieces of glass purchased by the deceased on theroad. There was no trace of the body till it was found on the same road at 5:30 pm on 11.09.1996.D. The police had blocked the road between 02:00 pm to 04:00 pm for vehicle or traffic, presumably to enable the accused to place the body at the spot where it was found.E. The inquest was not done at the spot but at the police station byThe blood stained earth allegedly removed from the spot where the body was lying did not match with the blood group of the deceased. There was blood on the face of the deceased and his clothes, which also did not match his blood group.F. It has also come out in evidence that it rained in the afternoon on 11.09.1996 but the body was found to be dry.G. Manipulation of the investigation byA4 to A6in order to shieldA1 to A3their crime.H. The deceased being unconscious and lying on the road one km. from Anangpur Chowk at 11:30 pm on 10.09.1996 was to the exclusive knowledge of3. The absence of any explanation forthcoming from the accused as to the circumstances in which the death occurred, raises a presumption against them.I. The disappearance of the body during the day time until it was found at a place different from the site of the incident at 05:30 p.m. would clearly show thatA1 to A3were responsible for the removal of the body in the night and placing the body at the site where it was found around 5:30 pm on 11.09.1996.All the above circumstances would show thatA1 to A3are responsible for the death, being the only persons having knowledge about the deceased lying at the spot where he was injured at 11:30 pm on 10.09.1996. Complicity ofA4 to A6has also been sufficiently proved. On the basis of the oral testimony ofand the strong circumstances which point to their guilt, we uphold the judgments of the Courts below.