Suresh vs State Of Haryana

2. Few facts which are necessary for the disposal of these cases are that a panchayat election was held on 15.12.1994, in the village Sundawas,   where   there   were   two   major   contestants   namely Maha Singh and Dharampal son of Beg Raj. Deceased Chander Bhan was an election agent for the losing candidate Maha Singh. It  is   necessary   to   note  that there was a quarrel including  gun shots   being   fired   at   around   11   A.M,   on   the   day   of   election between   both   factions,   as   a   result   of   which   supporters   of Dharampal   son   of   Beg   Raj   (winning   candidate)   sustained injuries. In this context, a FIR No. 733 of 1994 was registered against   Maha   Singh   (losing   candidate)   and   one   Darya   under Sections   307   read   with   34   of   Indian   Penal   Code,   1860 [hereinafter referred as  ‘IPC’  for brevity] and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

5. Thereafter, A­1 and A­2 took injured Chander Bhan to the City Civil   Hospital,   Hisar   for   treatment.   It   is   alleged   that   in   the meanwhile A­3 tried to hide the gun. It is born from the record that Chander Bhan succumbed to his injuries 20 minutes after he was admitted to the aforesaid Hospital on 16.12.1994. 3

6. Thereafter, accused A­2 went to the Police Station, Sadar Hisar, for   registration   of   a  complaint against Umed Singh son  of  Beg Raj, Dharam Pal son of Beg Raj [Sarpanch] and Dharambir for the death of Chander Bhan. Accordingly, FIR was filed before the police being FIR No. 736/ 1994, dated 16.12.1994, based on the accused A­2.

7. As   per   the   narration   of   accused   A­2,   on   16.12.1994,   at   about 4:30 A.M, the Chander Bhan (deceased), A­2 and A­1 were going to Chandigarh on foot. On reaching a few kilometers ahead of the village Sundawas, they spotted a jeep coming towards them. One of the occupants Umed Singh son of Beg Raj, raised lalkara that enemies   were   going   and   they   should   be   taught   a   lesson   for helping   Maha   Singh   in   the   elections.   Dharampal   and   Umed Singh sons of Beg Raj and Dharambir alighted from the jeep and Dharam Pal son of Beg Raj, who was armed with a pistol, shot Chander Bhan in his stomach and ran away. It is alleged that A­ 1 and A­2, who escaped the firing, rushed Chander Bhan to the City Civil Hospital, Hisar, where he succumbed to his injuries. 4

8. The   case   was   investigated   by   I.O.   Bhim   Singh   [PW­15],   who reached the spot of the alleged occurrence as per the narration of accused   A­2.   However,   he   could   not   trace   any   incriminating material as alleged. Being suspicious of the version of accused A­ 2,   the   investigating   police,   started   to   investigate   from   different angles.

9. On   25.12.1994,   all   the   accused­appellants   contacted   one   Zile Singh [PW­16] and confessed their guilt before him. To put the gist of their extra­judicial confessions, it may be noted that the accused stated to Zile Singh (PW­16) that having the motive to file   a   counter   case   against   Dharampal   son   of   Beg   Raj,   the Sarpanch,   the   accused­appellants   along   with   Chander   Bhan reached an abandoned house in Adarsh Nagar, Hisar and Suresh [A­3] fired a shot at Chander Bhan in the house at Adarsh Nagar. Thereupon accused A­3 fled away with the gun. Later, accused A­1 and A­2 took Chander Bhan to the hospital and registered a false   complaint   against   Dharampal   son  of   Beg  Raj,   Dharambir and Umed Singh son of Beg Raj under Section 302, IPC.  5

10.      It may be noted that Zile Singh produced all the accused before the   Police   and   thereafter   the   accused   identified   the   place   of occurrence. By virtue of such disclosure statements made by the individual   accused   persons,   the   police   are   alleged   to   have recovered   a   licensed   gun,   cartridges,   pellets,   some   concrete material  from   the   khurli  found   in   the  house  at   Adarsh  Nagar, Hisar. Based on the aforesaid complaint, Bhim Singh, S.I to the P.S Sadar, Hisar, registered a case under Sections 25, 30, 54 and 59 of Arms Act, being FIR No. 743 [Ex. PZ/1], against Lachman Singh [A­4] and A­3.

4) were being tried for usage of fire arms, which was consolidated 6 with   the   main   case,   by   order   dated   19.09.1999   and   both   the cases   were   tried   together.   During   the   trial,   the   Prosecution examined 17 witnesses and the Defense examined 4 witnesses in the Sessions Case No. 60 of 1995. It may be noted here that the accused   examined   themselves   as   defense   witnesses   under Section   315   of   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure,   1973   [herein   after referred as ‘CrPC’ for brevity].

7 It may be noted, that during the trial, accused A­1 died and the trial against him got abated. The Trial Court, held the accused guilty, and reasoned as under­

b) That the accused portrayed a fake story and filed a FIR against   Dharampal,   Umed   Singh   sons   of   Beg   Raj   and Dharambir   alleging   that   they   have   murdered   Chander Bhan.   However,   no   evidence   was   found   against Dharampal,   Umed   and   Dharambir   at   the   place   of occurrence as described by accused A­2.

c) There   was   no   motive   for   Dharampal,   Umed   Singh   and Dharambir  to  murder  Chander  Bhan. Rather, a motive exists on the part of the accused, since their candidate had lost the election.

i) The   FSL   Report   concludes   that   the   pellets   which   were recovered   from   the   Khurli   as   per   such   disclosure   were similar to those found in the dead body.

13.     Aggrieved by the fact that the complainant was himself shown as an accused by the investigating authority, A­2 filed a complaint before the Magistrate against the Dharambir, Umed Singh son of Beg Raj and Dharam Pal son of Beg Raj, on the facts as revealed by accused A­2 in FIR No. 736 dated 16.12.1994.

16.      Aggrieved by the judgments of the Trial Court, in Session Case No. 60, accused A­2, A­3 and A­4 filed Criminal Appeal No. 273­ DB, 157­DB, 920­SB respectively before the High Court. On the other hand, accused A­2 filed a Criminal Appeal No. 751­DBA of 2002, against the acquittal, of Dharampal son of Beg Raj, Umed Singh   son   of   Beg   Raj   and   Dharambir,   passed   by   the   Sessions Court in Sessions Case No. 62 of 1997. It may be noted that the High Court clubbed all the appeals and dismissed them through a   common   impugned   judgment   dated   03.01.2012.   The   High Court had further directed accused A­2 and A­3 to pay a sum of 11 Rs. One  Lac as damages to Smt. Kamla and her two children.

Wharton's Criminal Evidence (1955)­ "In   prosecutions   for   homicide,   as   in   criminal prosecutions generally, evidence to show motive is competent and considerable latitude is allowed in its introduction. When proof has been made of the corpus   delicti,   all   facts   and   circumstances   that tend to show motive on the part of the accused are relevant".

26   (2)  the  facts  so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is  to say, they  should not be explainable on any   other   hypothesis   except   that   the   accused   is guilty;

42.    Although this Court, on number of occasions, reiterated that mere relationship with the deceased will not be sufficient to discredit a witness,   in   the   present   circumstances,   it   is   apparent   that   the wife was an interested witness due to earlier enmity between the accused.   Hence,   we   are   of   the   considered   opinion   that   the aforesaid witness does not inspire confidence for us to rely on the same.

b. Not taking the accused to the Police personnel present in the Bus stand.

c. That his presence in the police station itself is suspicious as   the   I.O.   Bhim   Singh   (PW­15)   has   contradicted   Zile Singh (PW­16) on this aspect.

d. That there is no signature of Zile Singh (PW­16) on any of the documents in the Police Station.

50.      In line with the aforesaid discussion on various circumstances, we may now identify the intermediate circumstances, which we are called upon to infer guilt from­

6.) Near   Hisar,   the   Chander   Bhan   was   seen   going   with   the accused   around   the   time   of   the   incident.   [of   doubtful veracity]

9.) Gun and pellets were recovered from an abandoned house in Adarsh Nagar.

53.     Now, coming to the case foisted against Dharambir, Umed Singh and Dharampal (sarpanch) sons of Beg Raj, in Criminal Appeal No. 1458 of 2012 (Sessions Case No. 62 of 1997 in Sessions Trial No. 97 of 1997). The prosecution had examined PW­1 (Dr. R.S. Bishnoi),   PW­2   (Dr.   Surendra   Singh),   PW­3   (ASI­Jagbir   Singh), PW­4 (Sobhat Singh [A­1]) and PW­5 (Dharampal son of Nanak Ram   [A­2]).   While   the   defense   had   led   DW­1   (Kamla),   DW­2 38 (Umed Singh), DW­3 (Zile Singh), DW­4 (Mewa Singh) and DW­5 (Bhim Singh).

55.      In view of  the  discussion above, we allow the Criminal Appeal No(s).   1445­1446   of   2012,   before   us   and   simultaneously   set aside   the   conviction   and   punishment   as   provided   by   the   Trial Court in Sessions Case No. 60 of 1995 in Sessions Trial No. 22 of 1995,   and   dismiss   the   Criminal   Appeal No. 1458 of 2012. 39 Further   the   concerned   authorities   are   directed   to   release   the appellants­accused, if not required in any other case.