Sunil vs State Of Haryana

SUNIL ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. This appeal arises out of the following facts:

1.1 Suraj Bhan accused, Satbir P.W. And Ramphal

deceased were three of several brothers all living

jointly in one home. About 15 days prior to the

occurrence Azad, wife of Suraj Bhan, and Satbir Singh's

wife Jantar quarrelled over the taking of water from the

tap. At about 5:00p.m. on the 22nd February, 1993 ,

Suraj Bhan accused who was in the Army but was on leave

that day, accompanied by his son Sunil and Azad Azad

aforesaid came to Satbir's side of the family home

where he along with his brother Ram Phal, Ram Phal's

wife Saroj and Zile Singh, another brother, were sitting

Crl.A. No. 1299 of 2006 2

together. Suraj Bhan was armed with a shot gun whereas

Sunil was carrying a bandolier containing cartridges.

Azad exhorted her husband and son to teach the others a

lesson whereupon Suraj Bhan aimed his gun towards them.

Ram Phal, however, ran towards the roof whereupon Suraj

Bhan fired two shots at him. Sunil thereafter took the

gun from his father and fired two shots towards them but

as Satbir Singh and the others had taken shelter behind

a parapet no injury was suffered by them. The accused

thereafter ran away from the spot.

1.2 Ram Phal, who was seriously injured, was

thereafter taken towards the Civil Hospital, Dadri for

treatment but he died on the way due to his injuries.

On the basis of the statement made by Satbir to Sub

Inspector Amrik Singh, S.H.O., Police Station Dadri, at

8:40p.m. Near village Chiriya, a formal First

Information Report was recorded at Police Station Dadri

at 9:05p.m. and the Special Report delivered to the

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Charkhi Dadri at about

10:40p.m., the same night. On the completion of the

investigation Suraj Bhan, his wife Azad and their son

Sunil were brought to trial. The prosecution relied

primarily on the eye witness account of Satbir P.W. 4

and his brother Zile Singh, P.W. 5 as also SI Amrik

Crl.A. No. 1299 of 2006 3

Singh - P.W. 6 as well as the medical evidence of P.W. 2

- Dr. S.N. Sharma and P.W. 3 - Dr. S.C. Gupta, who had

performed the post mortem on the dead body. The trial

court, relying on the aforesaid evidence as well as the

recoveries of the spent cartridges and wads from the

place of incident and finding that the eye witness

account was supported by the medical evidence convicted

Suraj Bhan and Sunil under Section 302/34, 307/34 and

450 of the Indian Penal Code and Suraj Bhan under

Section 27 of the Arms Act as well and sentenced them to

life imprisonment for the primary offence. Azad was

given the benefit of doubt and acquitted. The matter

was thereafter taken in appeal before the High Court

which has confirmed the judgment of the trial court.

The present appeal has been filed by Sunil only after

the grant of special leave.

2. We notice from the judgment of the High Court that

it had relied on the significant fact that the FIR had

come into existence within four or five hours of the

incident as the incident had taken place at about

5:00p.m. and that the special report had also been

received by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dadri

at 10:40p.m.. The High Court had also relied

extensively on the statements of P.Ws. 4 and 5 who are

Crl.A. No. 1299 of 2006 4

the real brothers of the victim as also of Suraj Bhan

and therefore the uncles of the appellant Sunil. We

have also seen the site plan which reveals that the

incident happened in the house of the parties concerned,

who happened to be the real brothers.

3. Mr. Sanjay Jain, the learned counsel for the

appellant has, however, argued that as the spent

cartridge cases had been picked up not from one place

but from different places it appeared that the story

that Sunil had taken the gun from his father and fired

two shots, was not borne out. We have perused the site

plan and find that the distance between the two places

from where the spent cartridges had been picked up was

so minimal that it would have no effect on the merits of

the case. In any event, the eye witness account of

P.Ws. 4 and 5 who are the brothers of the deceased and

the accused Suraj Bhan cannot be faulted in any manner.

It is also the admitted position that both the parties

were living jointly in the same house although in

different portions thereof.

4. On the last date of hearing that is, on the 12th

January, 2011, Mr. Jain had raised an argument that the

appellant was less than 18 years of age on the date of

Crl.A. No. 1299 of 2006 5

the incident and in this view of the matter he could not

have been brought to trial along with his co-accused.

We had, accordingly, adjourned the matter seeking a

report from Bhiwani. Mr. Satish Ahlawat, Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Bhiwani has sent a report

dated 28th February, 2011 and we have perused the same.

It reveals that on the date of the incident i.e. 2nd

February, 1993 the appellant was 18 years 9 months and

26 days of age. He was, therefore, clearly not a

juvenile. We, accordingly, find no merit in the appeal

which is, accordingly, dismissed.

.........................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

.........................J [GYAN SUDHA MISRA]

NEW DELHI JULY 13, 2011.