Rajender Singh & Anr vs State Of Haryana

(A-6) and Sajjan Singh (A-7) were tried by Learned Additional 2

Sessions Judge, Rohtak, in Sessions Case No. 119 of 2002 for

committing the murder of Dinesh aged about 20 years.

2. By judgment and order dated 06.02.2003, the Learned

Trial Judge convicted (A-1), (A-2), (A-3), (A-4), (A-5) and (A-7)

under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code and Section 342 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code (for short `IPC') and sentenced each to undergo

imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in

default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

three years and under Section 342/34 IPC, they were sentenced

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months

with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine,

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. All the

sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently. Out of

fine if realized, 90 per cent thereof was ordered to be paid to the

legal representatives of the deceased Dinesh. The Learned Trial

Judge acquitted (A-6).

3. The accused filed three sets of appeals before the High Court

of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. (A-1), (A-4) and (A-5) filed

Criminal Appeal No. 194-DB of 2003 whereas Criminal Appeal 3

No. 207-DB of 2003 was filed by (A-2) and Criminal Appeal No.

224-DB of 2003 was filed by (A-3) and (A-7). The High Court by

a common judgment and order dated August 16, 2005 modified

the judgment of the Trial Court. It upheld the conviction and

sentence of (A-1), (A-2), (A-3) and (A-4). It, however, acquitted

(A-5) and (A-7).

4. (A-1), (A-2), (A-3) and (A-4) have now approached this Court

in these appeals. These appeals were heard together and shall

stand disposed of by this common judgment.

5. The incident leading to the prosecution of the appellants

occurred on 29.05.2002. Dinesh, son of Dharambir (PW-1)

complainant, had gone to Delhi for ascertaining the date of his

interview for recruitment to the Police Force of Delhi

Government, but till late night he did not return to his village

Sundana, Tehsil Kalanaur, District Rohtak. On the following

day, i.e. 30.05.2002, at about 4.00 a.m. Randhir Singh (PW-10)

elder brother of PW-11 told PW-1 that Dinesh was wrongfully

confined in the house of appellant-Suraj Bhan (A-1). It was

Jagbir (PW-9), a jeep driver, who disclosed this fact to PW-10.

On coming to know the fact of confinement of his son by A-1, 4

PW-1 alongwith his father Sube Singh (PW-11) and uncle

Raghbir Singh rushed to the house of A-1, where they found the

outer door of the house bolted from inside. They all heard the

shrieks of Dinesh "maar diya, maar diya". Thereupon, they

peeped through the window and saw that all the appellants

including A-6 (since acquitted) had made Dinesh to lie down on

the floor of the room, his hands and legs were tied with a rope.

In the electric bulb light and within their sight, A-1 inserted a

"danda" (wooden stick) in the anus of Dinesh, who cried loudly

in pain. On seeing the occurrence, PW-1, PW-11 and Raghbir

Singh raised an alarm and forcibly broke open the door of the

room. On seeing them, the appellants fled away and took

"danda" and piece of rope with them. They attended Dinesh, but

he succumbed to his injuries at the spot.

6. Motive behind the alleged occurrence was that about a

year prior to the incident in question, i.e. 28.04.2001, A-1 got a

case registered against Dinesh under Section 376 IPC for

committing sexual intercourse with his daughter. In the said

case, Dinesh was acquitted by the trial court on 18.03.2002. 5

7. PW-1 requested his father Sube Singh (PW-11) and uncle

Raghbir Singh to safe guard the dead body of Dinesh at the

place of occurrence and himself rushed to the Police Station for

lodging a report. On the way, Om Parkash, ASI (PW-14) met

PW-1 at the curve of Beri Road, where, he made statement

(Ex.PA) at 9.00 a.m. narrating the entire incident. PW-14 then

made his endorsement (Ex.PA-2) on the said report and sent the

same to the Police Station through Constable Krishan Kumar,

on the basis of which formal FIR (Ex. PJ) was recorded by MHC

Mohinder Singh (PW-6) at 11.00 a.m. on the same day. The

Special Report thereof was sent to the Illaqa Judicial Magistrate

through Constable Udham Singh (PW-4), which was received at

his residence at 2.35 p.m. at Rohtak. Thereafter, PW-14

alongwith PW-1 rushed to the place of occurrence and got the

dead body photographed from Gobind Ram, Photographer

(PW-7). PW-14 prepared the inquest report (Ex. PM) and then

sent the dead body for post mortem examination. From the spot,

PW-14 lifted blood stained earth, pair of sport shoes (Exs. P11

and P12) and jute rope (Ex.P13). They were taken into

possession vide recovery memos (Ex. PB to Ex. PD) and sealed in 6

separate parcels. At the spot, rough site plan (Ex.PR) of the

place of occurrence was also prepared by the Investigating

Officer. On the same day, investigation of the case was taken

over by Sub-Inspector Rohtas Singh (PW-12). He recorded the

statements of PW-1, Randhir, Zile Singh, Jagbir (PW-9), a jeep

driver, and other witnesses. Thereafter, PW-12 searched for the

accused in the village but they were found missing. The Deputy

Superintendent of Police had also visited the place of occurrence

and verified the investigation of the case. Naresh Kumar,

Constable (PW-3), took the dead body of deceased Dinesh to the

Hospital for post mortem examination.

8. On 01.06.2002, A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 were produced

before PW-12 by Zile Singh. After their arrest by the

Investigating Officer, A-1 during interrogation made disclosure

statement (Ex.PQ) to the effect that he had kept concealed

"danda" and "rope" under an iron box in his house and in

pursuance thereof, he got recovered "danda" (Ex. P-18) (broken

into two pieces) and "rope" (Ex. P-19), which were taken into

possession vide recovery memo (Ex.PQ/4). The entire recovered 7

articles were sealed and deposited with MHC of Police Station,

Kalanaur.

9. On 12.06.2003, Ajit Singh ASI (PW-13) made an

application (Ex.PN) to Dr. Paramjeet (PW-8) for obtaining his

opinion whether recovered "danda" could cause fatal injury to

the deceased or not, and Doctor opined in the affirmative. After

taking his opinion Ex.PO, pieces of "danda" were resealed. After

completion of the investigation and receipt of the post mortem

report and other material on record, charge sheet came to be

filed against the accused. At the initial stage, A-1, A-2, A-3 and

A-4 were challaned for commission of offences punishable under

Sections 342/302/34 IPC. Later on, vide order dated

30.09.2002, A-5, A-6 and A-7 were also summoned under

Section 319 Cr.P.C. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty

to the charges and claimed to be tried.

10. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case,

examined as many as 14 witnesses, namely, Dharmabir

(PW-1), who lodged the complaint (Ex.PA); Sumit Kumar,

Draftsman (PW-2), prepared the scaled site plan (Ex.PE) of the

place of occurrence; Naresh Kumar, Constable (PW-3) placed his 8

affidavit (Ex.-PF) on record regarding taking the dead body for

post mortem examination; Udam Singh, Constable (PW-4) filed

his affidavit (Ex.-PG) regarding taking the Special Report to the

Illaqa Judicial Magistrate; Jagbir Singh Constable (PW-5), took

the case property to Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban;

Mohinder Singh, Head Constable (PW-6), recorded the formal

FIR (Ex.-PJ); Gobind Ram, Photographer (PW-7), proved on

record photographs (Exs. P-1 to P-5) and negatives thereof

(Exs.P-6 to P-10); Dr. Paramjit (PW-8), conducted the post

mortem and proved on record the post mortem report (Ex.PK);

Jagbir Singh (PW-9) a Jeep Driver; Randhir Singh (PW-10), who

after being informed by PW-9 regarding the fact of confinement

of Dinesh at the house of Suraj Bhan (A-1) had disclosed the

said fact to PW-1; Sube Singh (PW-11), an eye witness of the

occurrence; Rohtas Singh SI (PW-12), the Investigating Officer of

this case; Ajit Singh ASI (PW-13) and Om Parkash ASI (PW-14),

who had also completed the formal investigation of the case.

11. The accused in their statements recorded under Section

313 Cr.P.C denied the incriminating evidence appearing against

them. They pleaded that they have been implicated in a false 9

case and they claimed to be innocent. They examined three

defence witnesses, namely, Suraj Mal (DW-1), who deposed

regarding disconnection of the electric connection at the house

of A-1; Rajinder Singh, DSP (DW-2), on whose verification three

persons, namely, Sajjan, Dharambir and Sube Singh were found

innocent in this case and Jagbir (DW-3) who was married to

Poonam, daughter of Suraj Bhan (A-1) on 26.05.2002. DW-3

stated that on the evening of 25.09.2002 Dinesh had

misbehaved with his wife at his Village Kohla.

12. The trial court, on appraisal of the entire evidence on

record, held A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5 and A-7 guilty of the charges

and convicted them under Section 302/342 read with Section

34 of Indian Penal Code. However, learned trial judge acquitted

A-6.

13. Being aggrieved, the accused filed three sets of separate

appeals before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the

appeals of A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4. It, however, allowed the

appeals of A-5 and A-7 and accordingly acquitted them. 10

14. Feeling aggrieved thereby and dissatisfied with the

judgment of the High Court, the above-said appeals have been

filed in this Court.

15. Ms. Garima Prashad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the appellants, contended that the evidence produced in this

case is not sufficient and convincing to warrant the conviction of

the appellants. She contended that the evidence of PW-1 and

PW-11 could not be accepted as they are both interested

witnesses related to the deceased. She next contended that

PW-1, PW-9 and PW-10 in their deposition have given a

concocted version which casts severe doubts about truthfulness

of the prosecution case. The learned counsel also contended

that the evidence appearing on record against the appellants is

verbatim version which was taken into consideration by the trial

court with regard to the acquittal of A-5, A-6 and A-7 and,

therefore, the case of the appellants cannot be decided on any

other scale and should have been treated at par for giving

benefits of doubt to the appellants as it was considered for the

acquittal of A-5, A-6 and A-7. The learned counsel then

contended that as per the post mortem report (Ex. PK), as many 11

as 12 injuries were found on the dead body of Dinesh which

would support the defence version of DW-3 that the deceased

was given beatings by the village people of his village Kohla,

when Dinesh misbehaved with his wife at their residence on

29.05.2002. It was also argued that there is no reliable evidence

brought on record to prove that the appellants also shared

common intention to murder Dinesh and in the absence of such

evidence, the appellants could not be convicted for offence

punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

16. Mr. Sandeep Chaturvedi, Advocate, appearing on behalf of

the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 615/2008, has adopted

and supported the arguments made by Ms. Garima Prashad,

Advocate. As against that, Mr. Rajiv Gaur Naseem, Advocate

appearing on behalf of the State, has canvassed for the

correctness of the view taken by the trial judge which was

confirmed by the High Court.

17. In order to appreciate the aforesaid rival contentions of the

learned counsel for the parties, we have independently

scrutinized the oral and documentary evidence appearing on

record.

12

18. PW-1, father of the deceased Dinesh, at the relevant time

was serving in the Police Department. On 29.05.2002 he was

on leave for a period of one month. He stated that his son

Dinesh had applied for recruitment in the Police of Delhi

Government. On 29.05.2002 Dinesh had gone to Delhi to

confirm about the date of interview to be held for the post.

He did not return to his house till late in the night. On

30.05.2002 at about 4.00 a.m., Randhir Singh, elder brother

of his father Sube Singh (PW-11), came to his house and

disclosed that Dinesh was wrongfully confined by A-1 in his

house. This information was given to Randhir Singh by

Jagbir (PW-9), a jeep driver. On receipt of this information,

he alongwith his father (PW-11) and uncle Randhir Singh

went to the house of A-1. The outer door of the house of A-1

was found bolted from inside. They peeped through the

window and noticed that Dinesh was made to lie facing his

face towards the floor of the room. At that time, an electric

bulb was burning inside the room. A-1 inserted "danda" in

the anus of Dinesh in their presence and his hands and both

legs were tied by a piece of rope. Dinesh was crying in pain. 13

They raised cry and in the process they broke open the door

and entered the room. All the accused ran away carrying

"danda" and "rope" with them. As per his version, in spite of

their best efforts, Dinesh could not be survived. He also

stated that about one year prior to the present incident, A-1

got a false case registered against Dinesh under Section 376

IPC in which his son was acquitted by the Court and as a

result thereof, A-1 was nursing a grudge against his son. He

testified the contents of the repot (Ex.PA) lodged to the Police,

on the basis of which FIR (Ex. PJ) came to be registered by

PW-6 at the Police Station. This witness has corroborated the

version of PW-12, the Investigating Officer, in regard to

taking into possession blood stained earth, a pair of sports

shoes belonging to deceased Dinesh and preparation of the

parcels containing the seized articles affixed with seals. He

showed his knowledge of ignorance about the marriage of the

daughter of A-1 with Jagbir (DW-3) son of Om Prakash,

resident of village Kohlapur, District Sonipat. A suggestion

that on 29.05.2002 Dinesh had gone to village Kohlapur and

there he misbehaved with Poonam, as a result thereof he was 14

given beatings by the village people, has been emphatically

denied by him. He has identified two pieces of "danda"

(Exs.P-18 and P-19), which were used by A-1 in the

commission of the crime. He categorically stated that there

was sufficient electric bulb light inside the room when they

saw accused persons giving beatings to Dinesh. A suggestion

of the defence that on receiving telephonic information from

Jagbir (DW-3) son-in-law of A-1, he alongwith his father PW-

11 and A-1 went to village Kohla in a hired jeep and brought

his injured son in the said jeep and then they threshed

Dinesh at bus stand of village Sundana and as a result

whereof Dinesh died on 30.05.2002 at about 8.00 p.m., has

been denied by him.

19.PW-11, the second eyewitness of the incident, has

corroborated the entire testimony of PW-1. He was cross-

examined at length but nothing could be elicited from his

statement which casts any doubt about the truthfulness of

his testimony. Jagbir PW-9, the jeep driver, deposed that on

29.05.2002 at about 8.30 a.m. Ballu (A-2) alongwith four

other persons, who were identified in the Court, came to his 15

house and asked him to take them to village Kohla. They

hired his jeep and he took them to village Kohla. They left

him with his jeep on the village street. On hearing alarm, he

rushed to the place where he found son of PW-1 present. All

the five accused persons then asked him to take the son of

PW-1 to village Sundana, but initially he refused to oblige

them as he apprehended danger to the life of the son of PW-

1, but later on from the village Kohla he took the son of PW-1

alongwith A-1 and six more persons in the jeep and left them

except Sube Singh (A-6) at bus stand of village Sudana. He

disclosed this incident to Randhir Singh Subedar uncle of

PW-1 on the same night. This witness in the cross-

examination has stated that village Kohla is at a distance of

15-16 KMs from Gohana and Gohana is at a distance of

about 25-30 KMs from Rohtak, whereas village Kohla is at a

distance of about 60 KMs from village Sundana. He stated

that A-1 and son (Deceased) of PW-1 had met him at the

house of the daughter of A-1 in village Kohla. He admitted

that A-1 told him that prior to this incident Dinesh had

teased his daughter and on the day of incident Dinesh had 16

gone to the house of DW-3, son-in-law of A-1. A suggestion of

the defence that Dinesh was assaulted by the people of

village Kohla and as a result thereof, he could not walk

properly has been denied by him. He also denied the

suggestion that he had brought injured Dinesh in his jeep

and left him at Sundana Bus Stand. A further suggestion

that PW-1 and PW-11 grandfather of Dinesh, had

accompanied him in the jeep while going to village Sundana,

has been denied by him.

20.Randhir Singh (PW-10) deposed that on 30.05.2002 at about

2.30 a.m. while he was sleeping in his house, Jagbir (PW-9)

came there and disclosed that A-1 had confined Dinesh in

his house. He immediately rushed to the house of PW-1,

woke him up and thereafter passed on the said information

to PW-1. He stated that on the next morning, he came to

know about the murder of Dinesh in the house of A-1.

21. In the teeth of the evidence of eyewitnesses PWs 1 and 11,

corroborated by the testimony of PW-9 and PW-10 discussed

above, it is established beyond any shadow of doubt that in

fact the occurrence had taken place at the given time in the 17

house of A-1 where the dead body of Dinesh was found lying

by the Police which was sent to the Doctor for post mortem

examination. PW-1 immediately lodged complaint (Ex. PJ) of

the incident to Om Prakash, ASI (PW-14) who

met him on the way leading to the Police Station. The names

of all the accused were specifically mentioned in the said

complaint. The accused persons were not found present in

the village when the Investigating Officer visited the place of

occurrence. A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 were produced before

Rohtas Singh S.I. (PW-12) by Zile Singh, who is the resident

of the same village. Recovery of two pieces of "danda" (Exs.P-

18 and P-19) and "rope" (Ex. PQ/3) taken into possession by

PW-12 pursuant to the disclosure statement (Ex.PQ) made by

A-1 during the course of interrogation, has been proved

which were used by the appellants in the commission of the

offence. The ocular version of PW-1 and PW-11, the

eyewitnesses, has been further corroborated by Dr. Paramjit,

who found as many as 12 injuries on the dead body of

Dinesh. Dr. Paramjit in his post mortem report (Ex.PK) had

noticed the following injuries:

18

i. There was bruise contusion about 6 x 2 cm present in left supra scapular area with blurred margins;

ii. There was contusion 2 x 1 cm on right shoulder with blurred margins. On dissection, extra vestation of blood into true skin and subcutaneous tissues with infiltration was present;

iii. There was bruise 2 x 2 cm on right elbow with discoloration of skin with blurred margins;

iv. Multiple bruises 5 x 5 cm present on both hands on dorsal aspect.

Margin blurred with discoloration of skin present. On dissection, extra vestation of blood into skin and subcutaneous with infilteration.

v. There was bruise 2 x 1 cm on left lower arm with margins blurred;

vi. Another bruise 1 x 1 cm on the left wrist joint below the above mentioned wound;

vii. A bruise 5 x 1 cm on the left side on interior abdominal wall with margin blurred and discoloration of skin;

viii. Bruise 3 x 2 cm on the left thigh with blurred margins;

ix. An lacerated wound 2 x 1 cm on the left leg with margins blurred and extra vestation blood into skin discoloration;

19

x. A lacerated would 5 cm below the above mentioned wound;

xi. Bruise swelling on ankle joint (right) 2 x 2 cm with discoloration of skin;

20

xii. There was lacerations present around the anal opening at 3rd, 7th and 10th o clock position of size 2 cm, 1 cm, 3 cm respectively. Blood was coming out from anus. Anal opening was distorted and dilated. On dissection, blood was present in anal canal and rectum with rupture (through and through) of posterior lateral aspect of rectal wall with perforation of intestinal coils in the right side alongwith through and through laceration of right kidney with lacerations of right lob of liver, extending through and through of liver. Large amount of blood was present in peritoneal cavity. On dissection of skull, large scalpel haemotoma present with multiple laceration on brain with subdural haemotoma. Walls, ribs and cartilages externally healthy. On dissection, blood was present in plural cavity with haemothorax with laceration of right lung present in lower lobe just above the diapharam right dome of dipharam ruptured in posterior half. Left lung healthy. In heart both chambers were empty.

Abdominal wall as described above.

Peritorium haemoperitome present.

Mouth pharnix and esophagus healthy, stomach and its contents was healthy. Small intestines and large intestines and liver already described.

Spleen was healthy. Bladder was empty.

Organ of generation was healthy.

21

22. In the opinion of Dr. Paramjit, the cause of death of Dinesh

was shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries to the vital

organs which were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to

cause death in ordinary course of nature.

23. On reappraisal and scrutiny of the evidence discussed

hereinabove, we find no particular reason as to why the two

eyewitnesses PW-1 and PW-11 should falsely depose against

the appellants. It is difficult to believe that the relatives of

deceased Dinesh would spare his real assailants and falsely

involve other persons responsible for committing the offence.

It is well settled that if the witness is related to the deceased,

his evidence has to be accepted if found to be reliable and

believable because he would inter alia be interested in

ensuring that real culprits are punished. The trial court as

well as the High Court have rightly held that there was a

motive for the accused to commit murder of Dinesh because

as per the prosecution evidence, A-1 was nursing a grudge

against the deceased because he allegedly sexually assaulted

his daughter, for which offence Dinesh was acquitted by the 22

trial court on 18.03.2002 whereas the prosecutrix was later

on married to DW-3 on 26.05.2002. Dinesh was murdered on

the intervening night of 29/30.05.2002 in the house of A-1 in

village Sundana. The evidence of PWs 1 and 11 has been

found to be satisfactory, reliable, consistent and creditable

by the trial court as well as by the High Court. Both the

witnesses have been cross-examined at length by the

defence, but nothing tangible has been extracted from their

evidence to create any shadow of doubt that they are not

truthful witnesses. They have given reliable and consistent

version of the crime and their evidence inspires confidence.

On our examination of the judgment given by the trial court

and confirmed by the High Court, we find that both the

Courts have properly and rightly appreciated and re-

appreciated the entire evidence on record and there is no

infirmity or perversity in the findings recorded by the Courts

below to interfere with the well-reasoned judgments.

24. The ratio of the judgment in Prem Singh v. State of Punjab

[AIR 1977 SC 673] relied upon by the learned counsel is of

no help to the appellants in the facts and circumstances of 23

the present case. In that case, the evidence of two

eyewitnesses who were brother of the deceased with regard

to participation of four other accused was found unreliable

and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case, the

conviction of those accused was held illegal by the Supreme

Court. In the present case, no reliable and clinching evidence

was found by the trial court and by the High Court against A-

5, A-6 and A-7 who also participated in the commission of

the offence, therefore, they were rightly acquitted by the

Courts. Therefore, the contention that the appellants shall

be held entitled to the benefit of doubt in the same manner

as A-5, A-6 and A-7 have been acquitted cannot be accepted.

The occurrence as spoken by the eyewitnesses is fully

established, therefore, all the appellants will be

constructively liable under Section 302 read with Section 34

IPC for the commission of the crime, though the fatal injury

was inflicted by A-1, only as the other appellants participated

in giving beatings to the deceased which caused injuries on

other part of his body.

24

25.No other point has been raised by the appellants. We thus,

find no merit and substance in any of the submission made

on behalf of the appellants.

26.In the result, for the afore-stated reasons, there is no merit

in these appeals and these are, accordingly, dismissed.

........................................J. (Lokeshwar Singh Panta)

........................................J. (B. Sudershan Reddy)

New Delhi, January 09, 2009.