Pappu @ Hans Raj vs The State Of Punjab
- Neutral2018 INSC 919
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appellants not being named in the F.I.R. does not render their conviction unsustainable where eyewitnesses have testified to their specific overt acts in the commission of the crime. Evidence of eyewitnesses identifying an accused and describing their specific acts in the furtherance of the crime, coupled with the nature of injuries consistent with those acts, provides a sufficient basis to affirm conviction under Section 302 IPC even in the absence of recovery from the accused or presence of motive. The concurrent findings of conviction recorded by both the Trial Court and the High Court on evidence of eyewitnesses and post-mortem examination warrant no interference in appeal unless a palpable error or misinterpretation of evidence is apparent on the record.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1349 OF 2015
PAPPU @ HANS RAJ ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. ...RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1348 OF 2015
DALJIT KUMAR ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
R. BANUMATH,J.
1. These appeals arise out of the judgment of the
Punjab and Haryana High Court in and by which the High Court
has affirmed the conviction of the appellants under Section
302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon each of
them.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 27.09.2003, calf Signature Not Verified
of the buffalo of deceased Amar Nath entered in the field of Digitally signed by MADHU BALA Date: 2018.10.09 17:51:20 IST Reason:
accused Makhan Ram whereupon accused Makhan Ram beat up the
animal. When deceased Rajji, wife of deceased Amar Nath 2
enquired from accused Makhan Ram, he beat her also by pulling
her long hair. Deceased Amar Nath and Rajji narrated the whole
incident to complainant Sarabjit Kaur (PW-2) and they started
to convene a panchayat along with Ram Lubhaya, husband of
complainant (PW-5). When deceased Amar Nath and Rajji reached
near the house of Chanan at about 1.30 p.m. accused Makhan Ram
(A1) armed with datar, accused Ricky (A-2) armed with Kirpan,
accused Daljit Kumar (A-4) armed with takua accused Pappu (A6)
armed with Datar, accused Seebo, mother of A-1, accused
Kulwinder Kaur, sister-in-law of A-1 came from the opposite
side. Accused seebo and Kulwinder Kaur exhorted other co-
accused to catch hold of deceased Amar Nath and Rajji and kill
them.
3. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence,
the Trial Court vide its judgment dated 21.09.2007 convicted
Makhan Ram (A-1), Daljit Kumar (A-4), Pappu alias Hans Raj
appellant herein (A-6) under Section 302 IPC and sentenced
them to undergo life imprisonment. The Court acquitted the
accused Ricky (A-2), Seebo (A-3) and Kulwinder Kaur (A-5) from
all the charges holding that the prosecution has not
established the guilt against those accused. The High Court
dismissed the appeal preferred by accused Makhan Ram, Daljit
Kumar and the appellant-Pappu alias Hans Raj. Being aggrieved
the appellants – Pappu @ Hans Raj and Daljit Kumar are before
this Court.
4. We have heard Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay & Mrs. S.Sarada Devi,
learned counsel for the appellants as well as Ms. Jaspreet 3
Gogia, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondent.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted
that the appellant-Pappu was not named in the F.I.R. and that
the appellant had no motive against the deceased Amar Nath and
Rajji. No recovery was made from him and, therefore, the
conviction of the appellant - Pappu @ Hans Raj is not
sustainable.
6. The eye witnesses namely, Sarabjit Kaur (PW-2) and Ram
Lubhaya (PW-5) have stated about the overt-act of appellant-
Pappu @ Hans Raj and the accused Daljit Kumar. As per their
evidence, the appellant-Pappu @ Hans Raj inflicted injury on
the deceased Rajji. Likewise accused-Daljit Kumar inflicted
injuries on deceased Rajji with takua. As seen from the post-
mortem examination conducted on the dead body of Rajji, she
sustained incised wound 18 cms x 3 cms was present on lower
part of left side of the head and left side of the face,
extending from left cheek anteriorly cutting left maxillary
bone. The second injury relates to the horizontal incised
wound on upper part of left side of the neck just below the
left ear extending from under surface of the mandible just
anterior to angle of left mandible anteriorly and passing
posteriorly upto the nape of the neck. The injuries inflicted
on Rajji by the appellants clearly show that the intention of
the appellants in inflicting the fatal injury. Upon
consideration of the evidence of the eye witnesses and the
nature of injuries, the Trial Court as well as the High Court
recorded concurrent findings that the appellants-accused are 4
liable to the convicted under Section 302 IPC.
7. We do not find any good ground warranting
interference with the concurrent findings of the Courts
below. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
….......................J. [R. BANUMATHI]
…......................J. [INDIRA BANERJEE] NEW DELHI 3RD OCTOBER, 2018
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free