Kulvinder Singh & Anr vs State Of Haryana

On that date at about 7.00 PM, Ishwar Singh (PW.2) started from his house for his fields in order to keep watch on the crop, relieving Amardeep from the fields. On his way, Ishwar Singh (PW.2) saw Kulvinder Singh and Jasvinder Singh/appellants at the tubewell of Singh Ram. Kulvinder Singh was sitting on a cot outside the tubewell while Jasvinder Singh was inside the tubewell. On being asked by Ishwar Singh (PW.2), Kulvinder Singh replied that they were there in a routine manner as it was the tubewell of Singh Ram, the father of Jasvinder Singh. Kulvinder Singh is the son of the maternal uncle of Jasvinder Singh. After reaching his fields, Ishwar Singh (PW.2) relieved his son Amardeep of his duties. The next morning i.e., on 10.10.1997, at about 6.00 AM, the labourers of Mange Ram, Sarpanch, (PW.11) of the same village came and told him that a dead body was lying near the paddy field in the water channel. Mange Ram (PW.11) reached the spot with his labourers.

By that time several other villagers had also collected there and they identified the dead body as being that of Amardeep. They also found a large number of wounds caused by a sharp-edged weapon on 2 the body. They immediately called Ishwar Singh (PW.2), father of the deceased to the spot.

(B) Mange Ram (PW.11) then started for Police Station Radaur to make the report, however, he met Roop Chand SI/SHO, Police Station Radaur (PW.14) on the way and informed him that Amardeep had been murdered by some unknown person by assaulting him with sharp edged weapons. Roop Chand, SI, (PW.14) asked Mange Ram (PW.11) to go to the Police Station to lodge the complaint formally. Thus, the FIR was lodged. Roop Chand, SI, (PW.14) reached the place of occurrence and examined the dead body as well as the place where it was lying. He prepared the inquest report and sent the dead body of Amardeep for postmortem examination. Roop Chand, SI, (PW.14) also got the spot photographed, prepared a rough site plan of the place of occurrence and recorded the statements of the witnesses in which Ishwar Singh (PW.2) told him that about 8 to 10 days before the date of occurrence, he saw Jasvinder Singh/appellant grappling with his son Amardeep while they were playing kabaddi. He intervened and asked the reason for the same and Jasvinder Singh had disclosed that Amardeep was teasing his sister and wife. Ishwar Singh (PW.2) reprimanded his son Amardeep for the alleged misconduct, however, 3 Amardeep protested and told him that the accusation was false.

Both the appellants were arrested and interrogated. On their disclosure, the clothes they had put on at the time of occurrence, which had already been washed, were recovered. On disclosure of Jasvinder Singh-appellant, the barchha used for committing the crime was recovered on 14.10.1997. After conducting the postmortem examination, Dr. Vijay Mohan Atreja (PW.9) gave a 4 report stating that there were 22 injuries on the person of Amardeep and the same could have been caused by a barchha. The barchha recovered on the disclosure of the appellant-Jasvinder Singh had blood stains on it at the time of recovery. Roop Chand, SI, (PW.14) recovered the blood stained chappals and the blood stained earth from the spot and sent all those items alongwith barchha and clothes to the Forensic Science Laboratory. After completing the investigation, a chargesheet was submitted against the appellants.

The court after completing the formalities committed the case to the Sessions Court vide order dated 20.1.1998. They were charged under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC vide order dated 20.2.1998 to which the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(D) The prosecution examined 14 witnesses at the trial including Ishwar Singh, (PW.2); Ranbir Singh (PW.3), who saw the accused running fast and crossing him on the evening of 9.10.1997 and heard the shrieks from the place of occurrence; Dr. Vijay Mohan Atreja (PW.9), who conducted the postmortem examination alongwith Dr. Ashwani Bhatnagar on the dead body of Amardeep;

Phool Singh, (PW.10) before whom the extra-judicial confession was made by the appellants; Mange Ram, Sarpanch, (PW.11) complainant/informant in the case; Mam Chand (PW.12), witness to 5 the recovery of barchha on the disclosure statement of the appellant Jasvinder Singh; and Roop Chand (PW.14), the investigating officer.

The reports of the Serologist were tendered in evidence. On closure of the prosecution case, the Trial Court examined the appellants/accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called `Cr.P.C.'). Both the accused denied their participation and pleading that they had been falsely implicated.

(E) After considering the entire evidence on record, the Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 22.2.1999 convicted both the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and awarded the sentence of life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/-

Jasvinder Singh-appellant had a grudge against Amardeep, as Amardeep had teased his wife and sister and this fact had come to the notice of Ishwar Singh (PW.2), father of the deceased. Thus, motive stood fully established. Evidence of Phool Singh (PW.10) regarding the extra-judicial confession is to be believed for the reason that he was the Ex-Sarpanch of the village and the appellants/accused had gone to him, so that he could produce them before the police. In fact, the appellants/accused were produced by 7 Phool Singh (PW.10) before the police and they had disclosed to him that they had murdered Amardeep. Appellants were seen together with the deceased just before the commission of the crime. Twenty two injuries were found on the person of Amardeep-deceased, and even if they had been caused by one weapon, it is not possible for a single person to cause so many injuries, as the deceased was a young man of 25 years and of 5 ft. 10 inch height, while the appellants were at that time 19 and 23 years of age respectively. Even if there is any contradiction in the statements of the witnesses, it is so trivial that it cannot be taken note of. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

deceased. Thus, we do not find any reason not to accept his deposition in respect of the extra-judicial confession made by the appellants as his deposition stands the test of credibility.

appellant No.1 becomes doubtful and he should be acquitted giving him the benefit of doubt. According to the post mortem report, the following injuries were found on the body of Amardeep-deceased, aged 25 years.

2. Incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm each on the palmer aspect of lower phalanx of left index and middle finger and upper phalanx of the left little finger.

10. Stab wound 2 cm x 2 cm placed on the anterior aspect of the middle of the neck transversely.

11. Stab wound 4 cm x 2 cm on the left side of the neck 2 cm below the right angle of mandible.

13. Stab wound 4 cm x 3 cm on left axillary fold (anterior) place vertically spindle shape tapering upwards.

14. Stab wound 4 cm x 2 cm elliptical at lower border of left axilla placed vertically.

15. Stab wound 7 cm x 3 cm elliptical, placed obliquely starting from 5 cm lateral to left nipple and extending upto 3 cm medial to injury no.14.

16. Stab wound 4 cm x 3 cm elliptical placed obliquely on the left chest, 15 cm from the midline and 7 cm below the injury no.15.

17. Incised wound 6 cm x 2 cm placed obliquely on left side of chest 3 cm below and lateral to injury no.16.

19. Incised wound 4.5 cm x 2 cm placed obliquely on the right inguinal ligament.

According to Dr. Vijay Mohan Atreja (PW.9), the cause of death in this case was shock and hemorrhage due to extensive injuries to the vital organs. All these injuries were found to be anti-

The injuries look as if received by a person whilst trying to save himself.

22. In view of the above, we do not find any force in the appeal and is, accordingly, dismissed.