Sat Narain vs State Of Haryana Tr.Ministry Of Home

3. The case of the prosecution was that the occurrence took place on June 17, 1999 at about 3.30 a.m. In the said incident, one Chhotu Ram @ Lal Bahadur was killed and PW14- Ravinder Kumar-real brother of deceased Chhotu Ram, as also PW15-Sakeela-wife of deceased Chhotu Ram sustained injuries.

According to the prosecution, on that day, a telephonic message was received from Civil Hospital, Sangaria Police Station by ASI Hari Ram relating to the incident. He, therefore, reached Civil Hospital, Sangaria to find out whether injured Ravinder Kumar, Chhotu Ram and Sakeela were in a position to give statements. ASI Hari Ram also sent wireless message to the Police Station, Sadar Dabwali. After some time, he received an information that Chhotu Ram, injured had succumbed to the injuries. Meanwhile, PW18-ASI Umed Singh of Sadar Dabwali Police Station reached the hospital at Sangaria and recorded the statement of injured Ravinder Kumar, resident of Village Chamar Khera, Police Station Sadul Shahar, District Ganga Nagar, Rajasthan wherein he stated that he was the resident of Village Chamar Khera. His sister, Sunita Devi, got married to one Darshan Singh, resident of Dhani Choutala. On the previous day, i.e. on June 16, 1999, at about 8 p.m., the complainant had gone to see his sister Sunita Devi at Dhani Choutala where there was a quarrel between his brother-in- law-Darshan Singh and Bablu, son of Sat Narain (appellant herein). Darshan Singh then went to call Chhotu Ram (deceased)-brother of the complainant, from Village Chamar Khera in a jeep. In the night at about 1.30 a.m., Darshan Singh returned with deceased Chhotu Ram and his wife Sakeela. At about 3.30 a.m. on June 17, 1999, Sat Narain (appellant herein) armed with a gun, his son Bablu armed with a gandasi, his wife Savitri armed with a kasoli and Avtar Singh armed with lathi came in a Maruti car at Dhani of Darshan Singh and stopped the car on the way. They started abusing Darshan Singh, his wife and complainant Ravinder Kumar. Chhotu Ram (deceased) asked Sat Narain to go back, saying that they would talk in the morning. The complainant Ravinder Kumar with his brother Chhotu Ram (deceased) and Sakeela-PW15 then boarded a jeep and all of them started for Village Sangaria. The deceased Chhotu Ram was on the steering wheel of the jeep, complainant Ravinder Kumar was sitting by his side and Sakeela was sitting on the back seat. When their jeep reached near the car of the appellant, all accused raised a lalkara to teach a lesson to the complainant party for siding with Darshan Singh. The appellant Sat Narain fired a shot at Chhotu Ram from his licensed gun with intention to kill him and the pellets hit the right shoulder of the deceased. Sat Narain fired another shot towards the complainant Ravinder Kumar but he saved himself by taking shelter behind the jeep. The appellant fired third shot towards Sakeela and the pellets hit on her right hand. Accused Bablu, Savitri and Avtar Singh also caused injuries with their respective weapons to the complainant party. The pellets also hit on front portion of the jeep of the complainant party. They raised alarm and on hearing the noise, Darshan Singh, Vikram Singh and Sunita came running and raised a lalkara that complainant party need not be frightened and they had come. On seeing those persons coming near the scene of offence, the accused fled away with their respective weapons. The injured were then shifted to Civil Hospital, Sangaria. Chhotu Ram, however, succumbed to the injuries and died. The motive behind the attack was the dispute between Darshan Singh on the one hand and his brother Sat Narain on the other hand and complainant party was supporting the case of Darshan Singh.

4. After the usual investigation, charges were framed against three accused persons-Bablu (A1), son of Sat Narain (appellant), Sat Narain (appellant) (A2) and Avtar Singh (A3). Savitri was declared as proclaimed offender and the case could not be proceeded against her.

5. At the trial, the prosecution examined the complainant PW14-Ravinder Kumar, brother of deceased Chhotu Ram, first informant and an injured eye-

6. In the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, accused Nos. 1 and 3 pleaded not guilty. Their case was of total denial. According to them, they were falsely implicated in the incident. So far as appellant Sat Narain-accused No.2 is concerned, he admitted his presence at the scene of offence. His defence, however, was that after taking the turn of water in his field he was returning with his licensed gun in the car. There the complainant party surrounded him and threatened to finish him. The appellant got frightened and ran to save himself but the complainant party chased him and stopped him by striking the jeep against his car. The complainant party was armed with deadly weapons. The appellant-accused, in the circumstances, fired a shot in his defence which hit the deceased Chhotu Ram and on seeing the injuries on the person of Chhotu Ram, the complainant party ran away from the spot. It was, therefore, his case that he had committed no offence and should be acquitted.

7. The trial Court, on the basis of prosecution evidence and considering the defence version particularly of accused No.2 (appellant herein), held that the prosecution was successful in proving the incident in question. It was also established from the evidence that the complainant party was not the aggressor. No right of self defence was, therefore, available to appellant Sat Narain. From the injuries sustained by the deceased Chhotu Ram, PW14-Ravinder Kumar (complainant) and PW15-Sakeela, it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant accused had used gun which caused death of deceased Chhotu Ram and injuries to Sakeela. Accused Bablu and Avtar Singh had also caused injuries to deceased Chhotu Ram, Ravinder Kumar and Sakeela. Accordingly, the trial Court convicted the appellant herein for an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) for causing death of deceased Chhotu Ram and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for two years. It also convicted the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 307, IPC for attempt to commit murder of Sakeela, wife of deceased Chhotu Ram, and ordered him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for one year. The Court also convicted the appellant for an offence punishable under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34, IPC for causing injuries to Ravinder Kumar and Sakeela. Accused Avtar Singh was thus convicted for an offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307, IPC substantively. He was also convicted and sentenced for committing offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34, IPC.

8. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, all the three accused preferred Criminal Appeals before the High Court. The State of Haryana and complainant Ravinder Kumar filed Revision Petitions. All the matters were taken up by the High Court together. The High Court, by the impugned order, dismissed both the Revisions filed by the State and the complainant. It allowed Criminal Appeals of accused No.1-Bablu and accused No.3-Avtar Singh and held that it was not proved beyond reasonable doubt that they had committed the offences with which they were charged. Hence, by giving benefit of doubt, the High Court acquitted them.

10. Against the order passed by the High Court acquitting Bablu and Avtar Singh, complainant Ravinder Kumar had approached this Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 1274 of 2006 which was dismissed on January 15, 2007. In the present matter by accused No.2-Sat Narain, notice was issued on March 7, 2007. Records and proceedings were thereafter called for and the matter was ordered to be placed for hearing on a non- miscellaneous day.

13. The learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that murder of deceased Chhotu Ram was committed by the appellant-accused No.2 when the members of the complainant party, who were unarmed, were going to their village in a jeep. According to the counsel, they were prevented from proceeding towards the village by putting Maruti car in the way which caused obstruction and the complainant party was attacked by the accused party. The counsel submitted that the appellant herein had fired three shots, out of them one injured deceased Chhotu Ram who succumbed to the injuries, the second shot was aimed at complainant Ravinder Kumar but he escaped it by taking shelter behind the jeep and the third shot injured Sakeela, wife of the deceased. The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence, believed the story of the prosecution witnesses so far as the role of the appellant is concerned and convicted him. The High Court confirmed the view taken by the trial Court. In the circumstances, acquittal of other two accused by the High Court would not make conviction and finding recorded against the appellant vulnerable. It was also submitted that in the totality of facts, both the Courts were right in convicting the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 as also under Section 307, IPC and in imposing imprisonment for life and the order does not suffer from any infirmity.

But the High Court held that the appellant was rightly convicted by the trial Court for offences punishable under Section 302, IPC substantively as also under Section 307, IPC substantively. Accordingly, the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against the appellant in respect of those offences was confirmed.

27. Since both the Courts were right in believing prosecution witnesses who were injured at the time of incident and since the appellant had used fire arm which caused death of deceased Chhotu Ram and injuries to PW15- Sakeela without there being aggression by them, the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court against the appellant cannot be said illegal or contrary to law. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

28. For the foregoing reasons, the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the High Court against the appellant is legal, valid and in consonance with law and calls for no interference. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.