Case: Kahan Singh &amp; Others Vs. State of Haryana

1. At about 7 a.m. on October 31, 1966, two persons by name Moti Ram and Balak Ram were injured as a result of an attack on them. The attack in question is said to have been made when they were on their way to the field for cultivation. It is said that they fell unconscious at the spot itself. When they were being removed to the hospital Moti Ram died on the way and later Balak Ram died in the hospital. The information about this offence was laid by P. W. 4, Harnam Das, the brother of the deceased Moti Ram ata.m. on the same morning at Mullana Police Station which is about six miles from the scene of occurrence. In that information he accused the appellants as having attacked Moti Ram and Balak Ram. He claims to have seen the occurrence himself.2. During the pendency of the investigation of the case one Rattan Lal, the brother of the appellant Gopi Chand sent a petition to the Superintendent of Police, Ambala on November 5, 1966. Therein he gave out a different version of the incident. According to the version given by him, the deceased persons and some of their relations attacked the appellants Nos. 1 to 3, when they were proceeding in a cart and that the appellant No. 4, Bhushan Lal was not present at the time of the occurrence. Therein he further stated that appellants Nos. 1 to 3 defended themselves by removing the cart pegs. The Superintendent of Police forwarded this petition to the Dy. Superintendent of Police for enquiry. He in turn appears to have entrusted the same to the Inspector of Police. It is also seen from the evidence that the Superintendent of Police himself went to the locality some days later and supervised the investigation.3. On January 31. 1967, P. W. 4, Harnam Das filed a petition before the Judicial Magistrate. 1st Class, Ambala Cantt. alleging that the police were sabotaging the prosecution case with a view to help the accused. The implied suggestion in that complaint was that with a view to undermine his complaint, the police were distorting the version showing that Bhushan Lal, appellant No. 4 was not present at the occurrence and thereby not only exonerate Bhushan Lal but also condemn the evidence adduced in support of his complaint as being unreliable.4. After the investigation. The police sent up a somewhat curious final report. Despite the fact that the complainants version that the appellants including Bhushan Lal had attacked the deceased persons was supported by other evidence, it was recommended in that report that Bhushan Lal may be discharged and in his place Rattan Lal, the brother of the appellant Gopi Chand, who as seen earlier had sent a petition on Nov. 5., 1967, be included as an accused. At the trial of the case no evidence whatsoever was led against Rattan Lal.Despite the report of the police, the learned Magistrate took cognizance against all the appellants as well as against Rattan Lal. But instead of framing one consolidated charge against all of them, he adopted a somewhat novel procedure. He framed two sets of alternative charges. In the first set he charged the present appellants under S. 302 read with S. 34, L P. C for the murder of Moti Ram and Balak Ram respectively, under the second set he charged appellants Nos. 1 to 3 and Rattan La] for the murder of those very persons. After holding a preliminary enquiry, he committed the appellants as well as Rattan Lal to the court of the Sessions Judge, AmbaIa for being tried under the charges mentioned above.6. The learned Sessions Judge did not alter the charge which he could have and should have. But the prosecution adduced evidence only against the appellants. No evidence whatsoever was led against Rattan Lal, nor even the three court witnesses implicated Rattan Lal. The learned trial Judge believed the prosecution evidence. convicted the appellants under S. 302 read with S. 34, L P. C. He acquitted Rattan Lal. For the murder of Moti Ram all the appellants were sentenced to death but in the charge for the murder of Balak Ram, appellant Bhushan Lal was sentenced to death but the other accused were sentenced to imprisonment for life. The death sentences imposed on them were subject to the confirmation by the High Court.7. As against the decision of the learned Sessions Judge, the appellants went up in appeal to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The learned Sessions Judge sent up the records to the High Court with his report for confirmation of the death sentences imposed on the appellants. The appeal filed by the appellants and the reference made by the learned Sessions Judge wereby a division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The division bench accepted the prosecution case and confirmed the convictions of the appellants. But it reduced the sentence imposed on the appellants to imprisonment for life Thereafter this appeal has been brought by special leave.

Court's reasoning:
Therefore the complaint of P. W. 4, Harnam Das that the police were trying to sabotage the prosecution case cannot be dismissed as being frivolous.From the two versions put forward by the prosecution and the accused, it is clear that an incident did take place at the place and tune mentioned in the charge as a result of which the two deceased persons received serious injuries, one of them namely Moti Ram died very soon after the incident and the other Balak Ram on November 1, 1966. The medical evidence discloses that Moti Ram had received as many as 12 injures, six of them were incised wounds and two were contusions. One of the contusions was in the rightIts dimension was 4"xl". That injury had fractured his skull, the bones of the skull were broken into many pieces. The Medical Officer who had conducted theof Moti Ram was of the opinion that primarily the deceased must have died as a result of that injury. Balak Ram had sustained six injuries; three of them were contusions, one was an incised injury. Further he had a big swelling: extending from the angle of right mandible upwards above the ear and right side of the scalp. Theexamination disclosed a big haematoma under the scalp. The Medical Officer was of the opinion that the death must have been the result of shock and haemorrhage due to the two blows given on the head of Balak Ram viz. injuries Nos. 1 and 5.The three Court witnesses examined in the case tried in a somewhat feeble manner to support the case of the appellants. Their evidence was mutually contradictory. Each one of them had a version of his own and further the evidence given by them in Court materially differs from the statements made by them during investigation. Hence the trial Court as well as the High Court were right in placing no reliance on their testimony. The learned Counsel for the appellants made a somewhat hesitant attempt to commend their evidence for our acceptance. Their evidence is discrepant and the version given by them is basically improbable.14. Some comment was also made on the fact that the trial Court and the High Court erred in not taking into consideration the evidence of P. Ws. 6 and 7. It is clear from the evidence of these witnesses that they had turned hostile to the prosecution. The Public Prosecutor was allowed tothem. The trial Court and the High Court did not refer to this evidence. The contention of Mr. Mukherjee was that the trial Court and the High Court should have attempted to salvage something out of their evidence. But there was nothing to salvage from their evidence. The effect of their evidence is that they had not seen the occurrence. Therefore there was no question of separating the grain from the chaff.It is true that the trial Court should not have framed the alternative charges referred to earlier. If it wanted to proceed with the case against Rattan Lal as well as it should have included him along with the other accused and framed common charges. On the facts of this case there was no question of framing an alternative charge. It is not a case wherein the aid of Section 236, Cr. P. C. could have been taken. All the same there is absolutely no reason to think that the accused had been prejudiced by the alternative charges mentioned earlier. As seen earlier, the prosecution led evidence only in support of the charge that the four appellants were responsible for the murders of Moti Ram and Balak Ram. No evidence whatsoever has been led in support of the alternative charges. Counsel for the appellants was not able to show us how the accused can be said to have been prejudiced by the alternative charges. This Court has ruled in Willie (William) Slaney v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, (1955) 2 SCR 1140  = (AIR 1956 SC 116 ), that a mere defect in the charge is no ground for setting aside a conviction. Procedural laws are designed to subserve the ends of justice and not to frustrate them by mere technicalities. The object of the charge is to give an accused notice of the matter he is charged with. That does not touch jurisdiction. If the necessary information is conveyed to him and no prejudice is caused to him because of the charges, the accused cannot succeed by merely showing that the charges framed were defective. Some decisions were read to us showing that if the prosecution speaks in discordant voices as to the person or persons who are responsible for the offence, that would be a ground for acquitting the accused. It is not necessary to refer to those decisions in view of the decision of this Court in WiIliam Slaneys case, (1955) 2 SCR 1140  = (AIR 1956 SC 116 ) (supra), the essential question being whether the accused were prejudiced by the charge. As mentioned earlier we are unable to hold that the appellants in this case were prejudiced by the alternative charges referred to earlier.