Ram Niwas vs State Of Haryana

2. As per the prosecution story Chanda PW.6 was working as a Chowkidar in the Nuna Girls High School, which was being run under the aegis of the Panchayat of the village. He had three brothers, namely, Subhash, Tej Ram and Sher Singh. Raj Singh, the father of the three brothers, had been convicted and sentenced for the murder of one Prem, uncle of Ram Niwas and Pawan Kumar accused and the brother of Jog Raj, Raj Singh and Beg Raj accused. On 16th January 1991 at about 8.00 a.m., Chanda left for the school leaving Sher Singh Crl. Appeal No.115 of 2007 2 asleep in the house. While on the way, Chanda observed Pawan Kumar and Ram Niwas armed with Pharsas coming towards him. Chanda ran into the school but was followed by Pawan Kumar and Ram Niwas who caused an injury each to him. Chanda raised a roula which attracted Kanwal Singh and Tara and in their presence the two caused more injuries to Chanda and then ran away from the spot. A short while thereafter Tej Raj PW-8, Chanda's brother and their mother Brahmi PW7 reached the school premises and told him that Pawan Kumar, Ram Niwas, Jog Raj and Raj Singh had murdered Sher Singh while he was in the house. Brahmi and Tej Raj thereafter removed Chanda to the hospital where his statement Ex.PF was recorded by Sub-Inspector Som Dutt PW10 and on its basis the formal FIR was registered in Police Station Sadar, Bahadurgarh at 1.30 p.m. the same day. The Sub- Inspector then proceeded to the village and found Sher Singh lying dead on the charpai. He made the necessary investigations on the spot and also dispatched the dead body for the post-mortem examination to the Civil Hospital, Bahadurgarh. He also searched for the accused and arrested all of them on 19th January 1991 and pursuant to disclosure statements made by Pawan Kumar and Ram Niwas to Inspector Ashok Kumar PW9, Crl. Appeal No.115 of 2007 3 two Pharsas were duly recovered. On the completion of the investigation, the accused were charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 148 and 452, and under Sections 302 and 307 against Pawan Kumar and Ram Niwas and under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code against Jog Raj, Beg Raj and Raj Singh.

alia, Dr. N.K. Mudra PW3, Dr. M.K. Bishnoi PW5, Chanda PW6, Brahmi PW7,Tej Ram PW8, Inspector Ashok Kumar PW9 and Inspector Som Dutt PW10 respectively. The prosecution case then put to the accused and they denied the allegations levelled against them and some of them pleaded alibis. They also examined certain witness in defence. Pawan Kumar and Beg Raj died during the trial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on a careful consideration of the evidence acquitted Raj Singh and Jog Raj but convicted Ram Niwas under Section 302 and 307 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- on two counts and in default thereof to undergo further imprisonment for three years on each count.

7. We have gone through the judgment of the trial court with respect to the acquittal of Raj Singh and Yog Raj. We reproduce herein below the portions thereof:

9. It is true, as contended, that the relations between the two parties were extremely strained on account of the murder of Prem. While this fact could, undoubtedly, be a reason for false implication of the accused, but on the contrary, it could also be a motive for the commission of Crl. Appeal No.115 of 2007 7 the crime. However, in the light of the fact that the FIR had been recorded within a reasonable time of the incident and the medical evidence fully supports the ocular version, and additionally, the trial court has given the benefit of doubt to some of the accused, as they had no active role to play, the possibility of false implication has also been examined and dealt with. The courts below have, in our opinion, rightly assessed the evidence and being cognizant of the strained relations between the parties and the possibility of false implication, have accordingly given the benefit of doubt to two of the accused. No interference is thus called for by us in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.