Rohtas vs The State Of Haryana State Of Haryana

3. After completion of investigation, charge­sheet was filed against six accused persons for offence punishable under Sections 148, 302 and 149 IPC. The trial commenced before the Additional Sessions Judge (I), Faridabad being Sessions Case No.40 of 1998. Both sides produced witnesses. According to the accused persons, they were falsely implicated. Further, it is their stand that Mohar Pal was injured in the previous incident which had taken place at 6.30 p.m. on the same evening. He was member of the aggressor party. During the fight which took place, he must have sustained injuries at the hands of opposite party. It was also the case of the accused that Mohar Pal had 4 suffered injuries at some other place near Anaj Mandi and he was brought to the hospital in a three­wheeler. In other words, the incident did not happen near the hospital.

4. On the basis of such alternative plea, the accused persons denied their involvement in the commission of the offence. After completion of the trial and recording of statements of the concerned accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Trial Court finally convicted Rohtas (Accused No.1), Surender Singh (Accused No.2), Roop Chand (Accused No.4) and Dev Kumar (Accused No.6) but acquitted Rajender (Accused No.3) and Billu (Accused No.5) by giving them benefit of doubt. The Trial Court accordingly convicted the four accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.30,000/­ each to the widow of deceased Mohar Pal, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years. This decision was carried in appeal by Accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 6 being Criminal Appeal No.241­DB of 1999 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The High Court, on reappreciation of the evidence on record, affirmed the finding of guilt against the appellants Rohtas (Accused No.1) and Surender 5 Singh (Accused No.2) but acquitted Roop Chand (Accused No.4) and Dev Kumar (Accused No.6) by giving them benefit of doubt. As regards the appellants, the High Court, vide impugned judgment, opined that the evidence on record clearly established their involvement in the commission of the offence and causing death of Mohar Pal by inflicting knife blow injuries to which he eventually succumbed.

(ii) Blood group of deceased was not ascertained, hence no link was established between blood found on alleged kurta and blood stained earth with the blood of the deceased. Thus the prosecution has totally failed to establish the link between blood found on the seized articles and blood of the deceased;

(iii) Prosecution though allegedly recovered the alleged knife and sent it to FSL, but it did not produce the said knife in the Court nor got it exhibited, besides there were no blood stains, hence the recovered knife cannot be connected with this crime;

(iv) Shirt was seized as per recovery memo Ex. PB, but Kurta was replaced while sending it to FSL;

(vii) The IO has miserably failed to show in the Sketch plan Ex PH as to from which place or places, trail of blood was there as per FIR and alleged blood recovered, since in the alleged first attack by appellants the deceased was on motor cycle, which he left and tried to run away by making noise “mar diya mar diya” and thereafter 7 he was knived at least two to three times by Roop Chand and Devi;

(ix) The most important and valuable witnesses i.e. Anil and Ved Prakash were withheld by the prosecution, who also participated in the earlier village incident @ 6.30 pm and got injured;

(xii) Sketch plan Ex PH does not show as to where motorcycle was thrown, where deceased threw away his clothes, where the witnesses PW­1, PW­2 and their Associates were standing and from which place body of the deceased was lifted and brought to the Hospital. Hence the prosecution has miserably failed to connect the place of occurrence with the commission of offence;

3. Reddish abrasion 8 cm long and linear in shape and 8 cm above and lateral to the left side of umbilicus.

26. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in upholding the view taken by the Trial Court that there was no delay in registration of the FIR in the fact situation of the present case.

29. Taking any view of the matter, therefore, no interference is warranted in this appeal and we are disposed to dismiss the same. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. The bail bonds of the appellants stand cancelled. The appellants shall surrender within four weeks from today failing which, the local police station must take necessary action against the appellants in accordance with law.

November 5, 2019