Case: Sandeep Vs. State Of Haryana

ON the charge of murder of one Vishal Goel, Arun Bhatia (A2), Vishal Goel, Mandeep (A4) and one juvenile Aman were prosecuted. Trial of juvenile was separated. The Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad by judgment and order dated 22nd November, 1996 in Sessions Case No. 10 of 1995 convicted all the four accused for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1000/each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months each. He also convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 201/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/each in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months each. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. Against the said judgment and order, Sandeep (A1) preferred Criminal Appeal No.of 1997, Arun Bhatia (A2) filed Criminal Appeal No.of 1997, Vikram Singh (A3) filed Criminal Appeal No.of 1997 and Mandeep (A4) preferred Criminal Appeal No.of 1996 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Vishal Goel, complainant and father of the deceased of sentence. The High Court reappreciated the evidence and considered the circumstances connecting the accused with the crime. The High Court disbelieved the evidence of PW6 Gulshan Kumar that he was the deceased and accused quarreling near Kesar Hotel and that he separated them as in his previous statement he had not stated that he enquired the names of those boys from them. The High Court held that even if the said evidence is ruled out of consideration, it will make only motive in the case behind the killing of Vishal absent. However, the Court relied upon the evidence of PW9 Laxmi Narain on the ground that Sandeep was known to him earlier and that Vikra, Aman and Sandeep went to the house of Laxmi Narain in expectation that he was having association with the complainant Vishal Goel so he would be able to help them in the investigation or in the trial. The court relied upon the evidence of PW11 Manish Sharma for arriving at the conclusion that the accused and the deceased were last seen together. Manish also gave98. The Court also relied upon the evidence of PW7 Bankey Lal who after some time sawand scooter coming at fast speed. On thehe saw Sandeep, Aman and Arun Bhatia. Arun was driving theand Sandeep was having sword in his hand. He also saw Sandeep driving the scooter an Vikram Singh sitting on its pillion. ON the basis of the information, Vishal Goel, alongwith Manish Sharma, Bhuneshwar and Bankey Lal went in search of Vishal and when they reached near Gurgaon canal they found a pair of chappal of brown colour belonging to deceased. One jacket belonging to the deceased was also found lying there. At the instance of accused Sandeep, bloodstained sword and clothes were recovered. Similarly, at the instance of accused Vikram Singh,was recovered and also bloodstained clothes containing human blood as reported by the Chemical Analyst were found. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, the Court arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has successfully brought home beyond pale of doubt against Vikram Singh and Sandeep the change of murder of Vishal Goel on 15th March, 1995 in furtherance of their common intention. However, the Court carried at the conclusion that there was no evidence of recovery so far as Mandeep and Arun were concerned and only evidence that they were last seen in the company of deceased would not alone be sufficient to convict them.3. The High Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 28th April, 1999 dismissed the Criminal Appeal Nos. 48 andof 1997 filed by Sandeep(A1) and Vikram Singh (A3)and confirmed their conviction. The court partly allowed the Criminal Revision No. 199 of 1997 filed by the complainant Vishal Goel for enhancement of sentence and enhanced the fine in respect of Sandeep(A1) and Vikram Singh (A3)to Rs. 25,000/each for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and to Rs. 5,000/each for the offence punishable under Section 201/34 IPC. In default of payment of fine, they were further directed to undergo RI for one year and six months respectively. The court allowed Criminal Appeal No.of 1997 and Criminal Appeal No.of 1996 filed by Arun Bhatiaand Mandeep (A4)respectively and acquitted them for the offences for which they were charged.4. The said judgment and order is challenged by, Sandeepby filing Criminal Appeal No. 345 of 2000, by Vikram Singhin Criminal Appeal No. 350 of 2000, by the complainant Vishal Goel in Criminal Appeal Nos. 346 to 348 of 2000 against Mandeep. Arun Bhatia and State. The State of Haryana has also filed Criminal Appeal No. 349 of 2000 against acquittal of Mandeep.Further, the prosecution has also produced on record the report of Assistant Director, (Serology), Forensic Science Lab. Haryana who found stains of human blood in the earth , shirt,pant, sweater, underwear and sword. As per the FSL report, the said articles were found stained with human blood ofwhich was also the blood group on the articles recovered from the dead body of Vishal Goel.

Reasoning: 13. In our view, the High Court erred in disbelieving the evidence of PW6 Gulshan Kumar in its entirety. It is the say of PW6 that at about 4/4.30 p.m., near Kesar Restaurant, he saw Vishal Goel andboys quarreling with each other. Vishal Goel was caught byboys, who were present in the court, and he separated, he has stated that he was not knowing them prior to the incident and that he was knowing Vishal Goel and his father since years. May be that, on the date of incident he was not knowing the names of the boys who were quarreling with deceased but that would not, in any way, falsify his say that Vishal Goel andboys were quarreling with each other and that he separated them. Even inhe has not stated the names of accused. However, the High Court rightly appreciated the evidence of PW11 Manish Sharma who has stated that at about 7.30 p.m. on the date of incident, he saw accused Sandeep and Arun going on ahaving the same number which was recovered at the instance of Vikram Singh. This witness has specifically stated that he was knowing deceased Vishal Goel as he was a tenant in the house of V.K. Goel. He has also stated that he was knowing Sandeep and Arun since he became tenant at the house of V.K. Goel. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of this witness. The evidence is consistent with the evidence of complainant who has stated that at about 7.30 p.m. when his son Vishal Goel was taking his meals, someone called him from outside and thereafter he left the house. Next day, V.K. Goel was informed by PW11 Manish Sharma that he had seen his son in the company of Sandeep and Arun at 7.30 p.m. on aFurther there is evidence on record of Bankey Lal PW7 that on 15th March when he alongwith Bhuneshwar Goel was walking on the road leading to Sector 9 and 13, at about 8.30 p.m., he saw Sandeep, Aman and Arun on ae was driven by Arun and Sandeep was having a sword in his hand. He also saw Mandeep driving a scooter and Vikram Singh was pillion rider. Theand scooter were coming from the side of canal in a fast speed. On the next day when he came to know that Vishal Goel was missing, he accompanied V.K. Goel in search of him towards canal and found a part of chappal of brown colour and blood on the earth. One locket of "Om" was also found there and they notice dragging marks on the spot up to the canal. Inthe witness has stated that he was on visiting terms with V.K. Goel and had gone at his house on number of occasions as he was residing in neighbourhood. He has also stated that the accused boys have been visiting the house of V.K. Goel and he was knowing their names as he had heard them talking with each other. As the evidence of the aforesaid two witnesses is consistent, cogent and reliable, it would be difficult to accept the contention of the learned Counsel that because they knew V.K. Goel, therefore, they are interested and their evidence is not reliable. In case where the victim and accused are known to a witness, his evidence would be material and cannot be criticized that as witness was knowing the father of the accused, he is interested witness. In the present case, as the witnesses knew the deceased as well as the accused persons, hey were in a position to inform the complainant and also to identify the accused. I such a case there was no question of holding an identification parade. The aforesaid evidence clearly establishes that the deceased was last seen in the company of Sandeep and others after leaving the house at about 7.30 p.m. Therefore, Sandeep having sword and others were seen coming back from the canal side by Bankey Lal, PW7. From the house of Sandeepbloodstained sword and clothes werediscovered. Similarly, the bloodstainedwas discovered from the house of Vikram Singh and from the garage of his house,E/3698 was also recovered. PW5 Dr. Aggarwal carried out theand found as many as 10 incised wounds which could be caused by a sword. The sword and the clothes which were recovered were found stained with blood of `B group which is also the blood group found from the earth lifted from the spot and from the articles found on the body of deceased Vishal.14. In view of the foresaid circumstances evidence proved by the prosecution, even if we discard the confessional statement made by accused Sandeep before PW9 Laxmi Narain, the High Court was right in convicting accused Sandeep(A1) and Vikram SinghFurther, the High Court held that against Mandeep and Arun, except seeing them together while coming back by PW7, there is no other evidence to connect them with the crime and that there was no discovery of blood stained articles at their instance. Hence, they were acquitted. But that would not in any way adversely affected the prosecution evidence qua A1 and A3. It is also true that despite the detailed FIR, the IO has not taken immediate steps for arresting the accused named in the FIR. But sluggishness in investigation would not in any ay of diversely affected the evidence ofPW7 and PW11. In this view of the matter, the finding record by the High Court convicting A1 and A3 and acquitting A2 and A4 does not call for any interference.