Criminal Appeal No.731-DB of 2006 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Anup APPELLANT
VERSUS
The State of Haryana RESPONDENT
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHTAB S.GILL
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL
Present:- Shri Vinod Ghai, Advocate for the appellant.
Mrs.Ritu Punj, D.A.G. Haryana.
MEHTAB S.GILL, J.
This is an appeal against the judgment/order dated 25.8.2006 of
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat whereby he convicted Anup
son of Baljit under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo life
imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, or in default, to further undergo
RI for one year.
Criminal Appeal No.731-DB of 2006 -2-
The other accused Kaptan son of Baljit was declared a
proclaimed offender, when the trial of Anup was taking place before the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat. He could not face trial at that
time, but now as per the learned counsel for the appellant, he has been arrested
and his trial is now proceeding in the Court of learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Sonepat.
The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement of Prem
Singh son of Siri Chand Ex.PE, given to SI/SHO Police Station Sadar,
Sonepat, on 6.5.2004 at 6.15 p.m. at Mehra Turn in the area of Village
Badswani. Prem Singh stated that he is a labourer. He has two daughters and
four sons. His eldest son Neetu was missing since 5.3.2004. His elder
daughter Meena remains sick and was staying with him. Younger to Meena,
was Reena, then Sonu, Rani and Bunti. Marriage of his daughter Reena was
performed on 13.3.2004 with Sandeep son of Dharampal. For the last 15 days
Reena had come to his house. The houses of Kaptan and Anup son of Baljit
are adjacent to his house. About 6/7 days prior, Kaptan and Anup asked Prem
Singh that he is unnecessarily blaming them for the missing of Neetu and he
will be taught a lesson. At this his daughter Reena stated that it is they
(Kaptan and Anup) who were responsible for the missing of their brother
Neetu and they would make a complaint to the police in this regard. Kaptan
and Neetu stated that before making any complaint to the police, they would
finish her. On 6.5.2004 at about 2 p.m. Prem Singh along with his wife Savitri
and wife of Neetu were sitting in the house. Reena went to the Gher on the
back side of the house to feed the buffaloes. They heard the shouts of Reena
Criminal Appeal No.731-DB of 2006 -3-
for help. All of them rushed to save Reena and saw that Kaptan was inflicting
injuries with a knife on Reena. Reena was lying on the Gher and Anup was
standing in front of his house and saying not to leave her and exhorted Kaptan
not to leave her alive. Within their sight more injuries were inflicted on Reena
on her neck and forehead. Thereafter Kaptan on seeing them fled away. Reena
died at the spot. On the basis of this statement F.I.R. Ex.PE/2 was recorded on
6.5.2004 at 6.50 p.m. Special report reached the A.C.J.M., Sonepat on
6.5.2004 at 8.30 p.m.
The prosecution to prove its case, brought into the witness-box
Constable Inder Pal PW-1, HC Chander Singh PW-2, ASI Virender Singh
PW-3, HC Telu Ram PW-4, HC Puran Singh PW-5, Rajesh Kumar
Photographer PW-6, Dr.R.N.Tehlan PW-7, Shavitri PW-8, Prem Singh PW-9
and ASI Satbir Singh PW-10.
Learned counsel for the appellant has argued, that F.I.R. No.79
Police Sadar,Sonepat Ex.PC, was recorded in which it has been stated that son
of the petitioner Natwar Singh alias Neetu was missing since 5.3.2004. In this
F.I.R. the name of appellant Anup is not mentioned, but only the name of
accused Kaptan is mentioned. This F.I.R. is dated 25.5.2004. The name of
appellant Anup not being mentioned shows that Anup was not a party in any
way with the commission of the offence. It is only in F.I.R. Ex.PE/2, in the
present case, that the name of Anup is mentioned, though this F.I.R. had been
registered on 6.5.2004. Learned counsel has further argued, that as per F.I.R.
Ex.PC, the motive turns out to be only for accused Kaptan to commit the
murder of Reena with whom he was having an affair. Similarly, in the
Criminal Appeal No.731-DB of 2006 -4-
disclosure statement Ex.PJ of Kaptan, nowhere the name of appellant Anup is
mentioned. Similarly, in the memo of demarcation Ex.PJ/5, again the name of
Anup is not mentioned.
If we go through the site plan Ex.PA, the house of appellant
Anup is not shown. If his house was not near the house of the deceased, then
he could not have exhorted accused Kaptan to extinguish the life of Reena.
In fact, as per the suggestion put to the witnesses, it is Surjit the
husband of Reena and family members of Reena who had committed the
murder of deceased Reena as they saw her in a compromising position with
accused Kaptan.
Learned counsel for the State has argued that F.I.R. No.79 Police
Station Sadar, Sonepat Ex.PC, is regarding dis-appearance of Natwar Singh
alias Neetu, the brother of deceased Reena. Though it does not mention the
name of Anup, but that does not mean anything, as it is appellant Anup and
accused Kaptan who had threatened Reena and thereafter extinguished her life.
Going through the F.I.R. Ex.PE/2 i.e. the present F.I.R. in this case, it has been
clearly stated that both appellant Anup and accused Kaptan had come to the
house of Prem Singh father of Reena to say that the family members of Prem
Singh were unnecessarily blaming them of taking away Neetu son of Prem
Singh. It is at this that Reena told both of them that they were responsible for
the disappearance of their brother Neetu and they would complain to the police.
This incident had taken place about 6/7 days prior to 6.5.2004, the day of
murder. On the day of the murder, both appellant Anup and Kaptan who was
armed with a knife came to the house of Reena, but Reena had gone out to
Criminal Appeal No.731-DB of 2006 -5-
throw fodder into the Gher for the cattle. It has been mentioned in the F.I.R.
Ex.PE/2 that the house of appellant Anup and accused Kaptan are adjacent to
each other. Appellant Anup was standing in front of his house and he exhorted
Kaptan to kill Reena. Going through the statements of the eye-witnesses i.e.
Savitri PW-8 and Prem Singh PW-9, both mother and father of the deceased
who are natural witnesses as the occurrence had taken place in their house,
F.I.R. Ex.PE/2 gets corroboration from their statements. In fact, both these
witnesses also corroborate each other inter se. The non-mentioning of the
name of appellant Anup in Ex.PJ, the disclosure statement of Kaptan or in the
demarcation Ex.PJ/5 would not have much bearing on the case, when seen in
its larger context and totality, as it is a case of eye-witness account of two
witnesses.
F.I.R. Ex.PE/2 has been recorded promptly and this itself goes a
long way in proving the case of the prosecution. The occurrence had taken
place on 6.5.2004 at 2 p.m., at Village Badswani, Police Station Sadar, Sonepat
which is about 6-1/2 kms. away from the police station. Statement of Prem
Singh, father of the deceased was recorded by Mehar Singh SI/SHO at 6.15
p.m. on 6.5.2004 and the F.I.R. Ex.PE/2 came into existence on the same day at
6.50 p.m. The special report reached A.C.J.M., Sonepat at 8.30 p.m. The
distance between Police Station Sadar, Sonepat and the Court of A.C.J.M.,
Sonepat is about 6 kms. The name of appellant Anup has been categorically
mentioned in the F.I.R., his role of exhorting his co-accused is also mentioned
in the F.I.R. Appellant Anup has tried to throw the blame partly on his co-
accused Kaptan by putting a suggestion to Prem Singh PW-9 that accused
Criminal Appeal No.731-DB of 2006 -6-
Kaptan and Reena were seen in a compromising position and the family
members of Reena had murdered her. Appellant Anup has unsuccessfully
tried to pass the buck to accused Kaptan and the family members. In his
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., to Question No.12, the same answer has
been given by appellant Anup, that it is the husband and family members of the
deceased who had killed her as they had seen her in a compromising position
with Kaptan.
Mehar Singh SI/SHO could not be produced, as he had died
before giving his evidence. But his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and
other documents and his signatures have been identified by ASI Satbir Singh
PW-10.
We do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned trial
Court.
Appeal is dismissed.
( MEHTAB S.GILL )
JUDGE
( L.N.MITTAL )
January 15, 2009 JUDGE
GD
WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO