Suresh vs State Of Haryana

Suresh ....Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana ...Respondent

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 404 OF 2009 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2007 of 2008]

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted in S.L.P (Crl.) No.2007 of 2008.

2. These appeals are directed against the judgment of the learned Single

Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court upholding the conviction of

the accused-appellants and two others for offence punishable under Sections

1 326 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short

the `IPC'). However, the sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment as

awarded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, was reduced to 7

years while the sentence of 3 years in respect of offence punishable under

Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC was upheld. Seven persons faced trial

before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, out of which four

accused were convicted and remaining three were acquitted. During the

pendency of the appeal before the High Court, accused Ram Kumar expired

on 17.4.1995 and, therefore, Criminal Appeal No.493-SB/94 was held to

have abated so far as he is concerned.

3. Out of the seven persons who faced trial, Jaibir, Ram Kumar, Suresh

and Raj Kumar were convicted while accused Jaibir, Rajmal and Surender

were acquitted.

4. Prosecution case, in a nutshell, is as follows:

On 14.10.1991 (the date of occurrence), Ram Sarup and his two sons,

namely, Nakul and Sehdav (injured in the present case) had boarded a three-

wheeler/tempo of Dharambir from Meham for going to attend a peshi in the

Court of S.D.M. On the way, some passengers including Sanjay (PW-11)

2 boarded the said tempo from village Madina. At about 10 A.M. by which

time the said tempo covered the distance of about 2/3 kolometres from

village Madina, accused Suresh armed with an iron chain, Ram Kumar

armed with a hockey stick, Jai Dev and Raj Kumar, both armed with

gandasas, emerged on the road from one side and stood in front of the

tempo. When the tempo was stopped by the driver, all the four persons

started giving blows by their respective weapons to Ram Sarup, Sehdav and

Nakul. On seeing the occurrence, the other passengers got down and ran

away to the fields. After causing serious injuries to these three persons, the

accused ran away from the spot along with their respective weapons.

Thereafter, Dharambir, driver of the tempo with the help of Sanjay (PW-11),

took the injured to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak, in a Haryana

Roadways bus. Sanjay got down at Madina and went to village Mokhra for

giving information to the family members of the injured. Dharambir got the

injured admitted in the Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak. The Medical

Officer attended the injured and informed the police. A message was sent to

the Police Station Meham. ASI Ishwar Singh came to Medical College and

Hospital and recorded the statement (Ex. PN) of Dharambir on the basis of

which the FIR (Ex. PN/2) was registered.

3 On 14.11.1991, Dr. S.P. Chugh, Casualty Medical Officer, M.C.H.,

Rohtak (PW-9) conducted the medico-legal examination of injured Ram

Sarup, Nakul and Sehdev and found the following injuries on their person:-

The injuries pertaining to Ram Sarup, injured:

1. An incised wound 10x4x2 cm. deep over front of the neck just above

the thyrod cartilage. The trachea was cut and exposed. Advised

E.N.T. Surgeon's opinion.

2. An incised wound 16x2 cm X bone deep over right side of the scalp

extending from right eyebrow to the parietal region up to the mid line.

Advised Surgeon's opinion.

3. Incised wound 6 cm x 1 cm bone deep over left side of the scalp

extending from the left eyebrow over the scalp. Advised Surgeon's

opinion.

4. Incised wound 4x1x1 cm deep over the left side of the forehead 1 cm

deep over the left side of the forehead 1 cm. of mild line.

5. Incised wound 4 x 1 x 1 cm. over the anterior aspect of left shoulder.

6. Crush injury 16 cm x 8 cm x bone deep over the right shoulder

underlying bone muscles were exposed.

4 As per the witness, injuries No. 1 to 5 were caused by sharp caged

weapon and injury No. 6 by blunt weapon.

The injuries pertaining to Nakul, injured:

1. An incised would 12 cm x 6 cm deep over the dorsal aspect of left

shoulder.

2. An incised would 10 x 3 cm x bone deep over left side of the occipital

region 1 cm from mid line. Advised Surgeon's opinion.

3. Incised would 4 cm x 2 cm x bone deep over right side of the

occipital region of the scalp 1 cm of injury No.2. Advised X-ray

skull.

4. An incised wound 6 x 4 x 1 cm over the right leg, 2 cm below the

tibial tubrosity. Advisied Ortho Surgeon's opinion.

Y

5. A crush injury over the palmer aspect of right hand. Advised Ortho

Surgeon's opinion.

6. Incised wound 6 x 4 cm x bone deep over the lower part of the right

leg.

5

7. Incised wound 3 x 2 cm x bone deep over the palmer aspect of left

hand.

8. Incised wound 6 x 3 cm x bone deep over the paler aspect of left hand.

9. Incised wound 3 x 2 cm x bone deep over the left leg.

As per the witness injures No. 1 to 4 and 6 to 9 were caused by sharp

edged weapon and injury No. 5 by blunt weapon.

The injuries pertaining to Sehdev, injured:

1. An incised wound 4 x 1 x cm over the palmer aspect of right hand.

Bleeding was present. Advised Ortho Surgeon's opinion.

2. An incised wound 6 x 4 x 2 cm over the right side of the chest.

Advised Surgeon's opinion.

3. In incised wound 3 x 1 x 1 cm over the ventral aspect of right arm just

above the elbow.

4. Multiple incised wound of verging sizes present over the right side of

the face. Whole of the face was flushed with blood. Advised Surgeon's

opinion.

6 As per the witness, all the injures were caused by sharp edged

weapon.

Injuries No.1 to 4 of Sehdev were declared as grievous in nature vide

opinion Ex. PS/1 given by the said witness, and the injures on the person of

the injured could have been caused by sharp weapons Ex. P1 and P2. The

injuries of Nakul and Ram Sarup were sufficient cause of death in the

ordinary course of nature. As per the opinion Ex. PR/1 given by the said

witness, there were multiple fractures and surgical emphysema was present.

So, the injures were dangerous to life.

After investigation, charge sheet was filed in respect of offence

relatable under Sections 148, 307/149, 326/149, 324/149 and 323/149 IPC.

Since the accused persons pleaded innocence they were put on trial. 12

witnesses were examined including the alleged eye-witnesses PWs 5, 6, 8

and 9. The trial court directed convictions and imposed sentence as

aforementioned. Before the High Court, the stand taken was that no offence

under Sections 307, 326 read with Section 34 IPC has been made out and

7 prosecution has failed to prove the specific injuries alleged to have been

caused by the accused to the injured. On the other hand, the State supported

the judgment. The High Court after referring to the evidence of the

witnesses held the eye-witnesses' version that the accused persons were

armed with chain, gandasa and hockey sticks and that they stopped the

tempo and started causing injuries to the injured. Injuries on Ram Singh

and his two sons namely Nakul and Sehdev have been clearly established.

Accordingly, the conviction was maintained. The High Court noted that the

injured persons were given large number of injuries with sharp edged

weapons and blunt weapons like hockey sticks. They were mercilessly

beaten and attack was also so severe that all the other passengers sitting on

the tempo ran away from spot and none came forward to save the injured. It

was also noticed that injuries caused on Nakul and Ram Swarup were

definitely dangerous to life. Therefore, the conviction was maintained, but

the sentence was reduced to 7 years.

5. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that the witnesses have not specifically indicated about what acts attracted

under Section 307, if any. The sentence in respect of Section 307 was also

characterized to be heavy. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the

8 other hand submitted that the injury on Ram Singh was so severe that he lost

his memory due to the injuries caused to him. The other injured witnesses

PWs 6 and 8 who suffered serious injuries were examined. In view of

cogent and credible evidence of the injured witnesses there is no scope for

interference in these appeals. Though false implication was pleaded, the

same is without any foundation. Clearly, all persons who have suffered

injuries would not shield the actual culprit and implicate an innocent person

when false implication is pleaded. The foundation has to be laid on the

same. In the instant case that has not been done.

6. The appeals are without merit and deserve dismissal which we direct.

.........

........................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

...............................................J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA) New Delhi, February 27, 2009.

9