Crl. Appeal No. 453 DB of 1998 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(1) Crl. Appeal No. 453 DB of 1998
Date of decision: December 12, 2008
Mohinder Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
(2) Crl. Appeal No. 504 DB of 1998
Balkar Singh and another ...Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GAREWAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. Vinod Ghai, Advocate, for the appellant
in Crl. Appeal No. 453 DB of 1998.
Mr. R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Jasdev Singh Mehendiratta, Advocate,
for the appellants in Crl. Appeal 504 DB of 1998.
Mr. S.S. Randhawa, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
K.S.GAREWAL, J.
Bhagwan Dass (24) and Ram Pal (22) were fatally stabbed on
Crl. Appeal No. 453 DB of 1998 2
June 25, 1994 at 7.30 p.m. near a tea stall located at the Mundri Bus Stand
on the main Kaithal-Karnal road. Mohinder Singh (appellant in Crl. Appeal
453 DB of 1998), Balkar Singh and Jai Parkash (appellants in Crl. Appeal
504 DB of 1998) alongwith Ujjwal Singh, Raj Kumar and Om Parkash were
named as assailants and tried for the double murder. Ujjwal Singh and Ram
Kumar were acquitted by the learned trial Judge while Balkar Singh, Jai
Parkash and Mohinder Singh were convicted on September 22, 1998 by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, and sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for life.
The accused and the deceased were friends. They used to hang
around together like a youthful gang. About 5-6 months before the
occurrence, Balkar Singh, Jai Parkash (accused appellants) alongwith
Bhagwan Dass and Ram Pal (deceased) had been sent up for trial for
beating up a bus driver. On the evening of the occurrence, the accused and
the deceased were all standing around and talking to each other near Puran’s
Tea Shop at the Pundri Bus Stand. The deceased told Balkar Singh and Jai
Parkash that they would not have anything to do with them as their company
had brought a bad name to their families. Balkar Singh and Jai Parkash felt
hurt and started abusing the deceased. On hearing the commotion, Hari
Ram (PW-11) and others pacified them but Balkar Singh and Jai Parkash
raised a lalkara that they would teach a lesson to the deceased for leaving
their company.
According to the eye witness account of Hari Ram (PW-11),
whose statement was the basis of the case, Om Parkash grappled with
Bhagwan Dass while Balkar Singh stabbed him with a knife on the chest.
Crl. Appeal No. 453 DB of 1998 3
When an alarm was raised, Om Parkash hit Bhagwan Dass on the head with
a khurchana (a cooking implement usually found with sweet meal sellers).
Ram Pal got frightened and started running. He was caught by Mohinder
Singh and stabbed in the chest by Jai Parkash. Ram Pal ran for some
distance and fell down injured. Bhagwan Dass also ran a short distance
before he fell down and died soon thereafter. Later Ram Pal also
succumbed to his injuries.
The matter was reported to the police by Hari Ram (PW-11),
uncle of Bhagwan Dass, whose statement was recorded at 10.15 p.m. near
Pharal Chowk, Pundri, by SI/SHO Balbir Singh. FIR was registered under
Sections 302/148/149 IPC at Police Station Pundri at 10.30 p.m. Special
report of the case was delivered to Area Magistrate, Kaithal, at 2 a.m., at
distance of 18 kms., early on the following morning.
The Investigating Officer carried out the inquest proceedings
and sent the dead bodies for the post-mortem which were conducted by a
Medical Board consisting of Dr. S.K. Jain (PW-3) and Dr. S.K. Singhal at
Civil Hospital, Kaithal on June 26, 1994.
Bhagwan Dasss’s autopsy was conducted at 8.40 a.m. and he
was found to have two incised wounds on the chest, a lacerated wound on
right little finger and a lacerated wound on the scalp. One of the incised
wounds had extended into the cavity of the left ventrical and was the cause
of death due to injury to the heart. In the opinion of the Medical Officer,
death had occurred within a few minutes of the incident.
The post-mortem of Ram Pal was conducted at 9 a.m. Ram Pal
also had received two incised wounds on the chest, a lacerated wound on
Crl. Appeal No. 453 DB of 1998 4
the scalp and a bruise on the right shoulder. Both incised wounds had
injured the lungs and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of
nature. However, the time that elapsed between the injury and death was a
few hours.
The police arrested Mohinder Singh, Balkar Singh, Jai Parkash,
Ujjwal Singh, Ram Kumar and Om Parkash and sent them up for trial.
Charges were framed against all the accused under Section 148 (against all
the accused), under Section 302/149 (against all the accused), under Section
302/34 (against Om Parkash and Balkar Singh) for the murder of Bhagwan
Dass and under Section 302/34 (against Mohinder Singh and Jai Parkash)
for the murder of Ram Pal.
The main witnesses examined by the prosecution were Dr. S.K.
Jain (PW-3), Balwant (PW-9), Anant Ram (PW-10), Hari Ram (PW-11)
and Inspector Balbir Singh (PW-13).
A perusal of the interim orders recorded by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge reveals that accused Om Parkash was released on
interim bail from December 20 to 31, 1996 but he failed to surrender before
the Court after the period had expired. This was discovered on January 3,
1997. Till this time all the witnesses barring SI Balbir Singh (PW-13) had
been examined. Finally on June 4, 1997 Om Parkash was a declared
proclaimed offender and the trial continued.
After conclusion of the prosecution witnesses, the accused were
examined without oath under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied all the items
of the prosecution which had appeared against them. They pleaded
innocence and false implication.
Crl. Appeal No. 453 DB of 1998 5
The learned trial Judge found only Mohinder Singh, Balkar
Singh and Jai Parkash guilty of the double murder. Ujjawal Singh and Ram
Kumar were acquitted.
According to the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, the
three eye witnesses were all relatives of the deceased. Balwant Singh (PW-
9) was Ram Pal’s uncle, Anant Ram (PW-10) was a collateral of Bhagwan
Dass and Hari Ram (PW-11) was Bhagwan Dass’s uncle. All the witnesses
were closely related to the deceased but none of them had given any good
reason to be standing around the bus stand. The occurrence must have been
witnessed by others from the surrounding area but these witnesses were
never cited. It was still light at the time of the occurrence, shops would
have been opened but still the prosecution relied only on three chance and
related witnesses.
The entire prosecution case was a concocted story, the eye
witness account was badly contradicted by the medical evidence. Bhagwan
Dass had a head injury, Ram Pal had injury to the lungs and yet the
prosecution expected the court to believe that the two deceased had covered
80 karams and 40 karams, respectively, by running in opposite directions.
According to the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer, Bhagwan
Dass had fallen near Hari Chand’s house, at distance of 2 killas from the
spot where the fight took place. Similarly, Ram Pal had fallen near Ram
Chand’s house,at a distance of 1 killa from the spot. Both these locations
were in two opposite directions. It was not as if the murders had occurred at
the very spot where the young men had gathered and yelled at each other.
The accused and the deceased had been closely associated, it
Crl. Appeal No. 453 DB of 1998 6
could be said that they were part of a gang which had broken up. The
learned Senior Counsel argued that the case had many unusual features.
Neither Bhagwan Dass nor Ram Pal could have run any distance from
Puran’s Tea Shop because their injuries would have made them collapse
immediately. The photographs of the dead bodies showed that the deceased
had been wearing chappals which were lying near their respective bodies.
This would not have been the case if the deceased had run from the spot,
because their chappals would have got left behind, this was not the case.
The learned Senior Counsel further argued that the entire
prosecution was shrouded with massive doubts. The fight was spread over a
period of an hour. No real reason was disclosed by the prosecution
witnesses about the genesis of the fight.
The Learned Additional Advocate General replied that the
presence of the witnesses could not be doubted on flimsy grounds to scuttle
the entire prosecution case. The deceased would have certainly run some
distance after receiving the injuries. The fact that the FIR had been
registered promptly within a few hours of the occurrence and the special
report delivered to the Magistrate within a few hours thereafter showed that
the witnesses were present at the spot and had not been subsequently
introduced. The witnesses had no enmity with the accused and no reason at
all to falsely implicate the accused.
We have gone through the testimonies of the three witnesses.
Balwant (PW-9), Anant Ram (PW-10) and Hari Ram (PW-11). According
to Balwant, he was sitting at Puran’s Shop at about 7.30 p.m., the two
deceased and the six accused were all standing together when an altercation
Crl. Appeal No. 453 DB of 1998 7
started. Om Parkash caught hold of Bhagwan Dass to enable Balkar Singh
to stab on Bhagwan Dass’s chest with the knife. Bhagwan Dass tried to run
to safety. He was followed by Om Parkash who gave a khurchana blow on
his head. Ram Pal had also tried to run but he was caught hold by Mohinder
Singh to enable Jai Parkash to stab him in the chest. According to the
witness, light was also at on Puran’s Shop, natural light was also still present
as night had not fallen.
Balwant’s cross-examination reveals that he had made a few
insignificant improvements over his police statement. However, he
admitted in cross-examination that the accused and the deceased parties had
never had a quarrel with each other. They were also not related to each
other. Bhagwan Dass and Ram Pal deceased had been prosecuted under
Section 326 IPC for the injuries to Sattu. Jai Parkash accused had also been
their co-accused. The witness was subjected to lengthy cross-examination
regarding where each accused had stood at what distance from the deceased
and so on. Quite innocuous and meaningless was the cross-examination.
None of the answers raised any doubt in our minds regarding the veracity of
the eye witnesses. Balwant did admit some relationship between the
deceased and the witnesses but we must accept that in rural areas, social
groupings and ties were pervasive, therefore, people in villages would be
related to one another, in varying degrees, some closely some distantly. We
would not take the relationship factor very seriously.
Puran would have been the natural witness. Balwant was
asked about Puran, he replied that when he reached Puran’s Shop, he was
told by Puran that he was going to answer the call of nature. Therefore,
Crl. Appeal No. 453 DB of 1998 8
there is a valid reason for Puran for being absent when the altercation took
place. Likewise, cross-examination of Anant Ram and Hari Ram (PW-10)
and (PW-11) had also proceeded on predictable lines. They were asked a lot
of vague and inconsequential questions but without any impact. We feel
that the learned trial court had correctly appraised the prosecution evidence
and particularly eye witness account as regards at least two of the accused–
Balkar and Jai Parkash.
The learned Senior Counsel had tried to canvass before us that
the offence committed by the accused were not murder but manslaughter.
Reliance was placed on Sunder Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1988
Supreme Court 2136, Radha Kishan v. State of Haryana AIR 1987 Supreme
Court 768 and Jagat Singh versus State of Haryana 1977 Supreme Court
Cases (Cri) 95.
We have gone through the said judgments and find that they
would not apply to the present case. The accused and the deceased in this
case were members of a gang who had been upto no good, aimless drifters
without any stable job or vocation. The deceased wanted to break their
association with the accused which was not acceptable to the accused. We
are not certain if the two groups had met on the basis of a prior arrangement
or it was a chance meeting. The important fact is that both Balkar Singh
and Jai Parkash were armed with knives. They had been arrested on the
basis of a secret information from a place known as Bastali Jhal on July 1,
1994. Balkar Singh and Jai Parkash, on interrogation, had disclosed that
they had concealed their respective knives and got them recovered. The
Investigating Officer had recorded the statements and got the knives
Crl. Appeal No. 453 DB of 1998 9
recovered. The injuries on the two deceased were inflicted by these two
knives, therefore, the medical evidence corroborates the eye witness
account. The deceased and the accused were together when the fight began.
If the deceased wanted to part company and leave the gang, the accused
should have let them do so but events reveal that Bhagwan Dass was
stabbed by Balkar Singh after he had been caught hold by Om Parkash.
Then Ram Pal tried to run, he was stabbed by Jai Parkash. Bhagwan Dass
and Jai Parkash had run in opposite directions. All this shows that the
accused had come there prepared to fight, Balkar and Jai Parkash were
armed with knives and when fight began, the deceased tried to escape but
both failed to do so. Either the deceased were stabbed at the spot or they
were chased and then stabbed. This is somewhat unclear but the fact
remains that Bhagwan Dass was stabbed by Balkar Singh and Ram Pal by
Jai Parkash. Their acts were certainly committed with the intention to cause
the death of the two deceased and are covered under the definition of
murder. They do not fall in the category of manslaughter under Section 304
IPC.
However, we find that Mohinder Singh accused was empty
handed and there is doubt in our minds regarding his participation in the
occurrence in the same degree as Balkar Singh and Jai Parkash. Therefore,
Mohinder Singh was wrongly convicted for the double murder on the basis
of being a member of unlawful assembly. Mohinder Singh deserves
acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt and his appeal ( Crl. Appeal 453
DB of 1998) is allowed and he is set at liberty forthwith. If he is in custody
he shall be released, if on bail, then his bail bond stood discharged.
Crl. Appeal No. 453 DB of 1998 10
However, as regards Balkar Singh and Jai Parkash, we find that
they both are guilty of murder. Balkar Singh under Section 302 IPC for the
murder of Bhagwan Dass and Jai Parkash under Section 302/34 for sharing
common intention with Balkar Singh for the murder of Bhagwan Dass.
Likewise Jai Parkash is guilty of murder of Ram Pal under Section 302 IPC
and Balkar Singh under Section 302/34 for sharing common intention with
Jai Parkash for the murder of Ram Pal. Both Balkar Singh and Jai Parkash
are liable to be sentenced to life imprisonment on two counts. The learned
trial Judge had awarded consecutive life sentences to them under Section
302 IPC. but we convert consecutive to concurrent sentences and dispose of
their appeal (Crl. Appeal No. 504 DB of 1998) with this modification in
sentence.
(K.S. GAREWAL)
JUDGE
December 12, 2008 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN)
prem JUDGE
Note:- Whether refer to reporter Yes