CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 180 of 2004 PETITIONER: Rajinder & Ors. RESPONDENT: State of Haryana & Anr. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/08/2004 BENCH: B.N. AGRAWAL & H.K. SEMA JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
B.N.AGRAWAL,J.
The appellants along with accused Laxman Singh were tried and by
judgment rendered by the trial court accused Laxman Singh, though acquitted of
the charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act, was convicted under Section 302 of
the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “I.P.C.”) whereas four appellants
were convicted under Sections 302/149 I.P.C. and all sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one month. Accused Laxman Singh was further
convicted under Section 307 I.P.C. and the appellants under Sections 307/149
I.P.C. and each one of them sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, rigorous
imprisonment for a period of one month. They were also convicted under Sections
148 and 323/149 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of one year and three months respectively. All the sentences, however, were
ordered to run concurrently. On appeal being preferred, the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana confirmed the convictions whereupon two special leave petitions were
filed before this Court, one by accused Laxman Singh whereas the other by the
appellants. The special leave petition of accused Laxman Singh has been
dismissed but leave to appeal was granted in the case of appellants giving rise to
the present appeal.
The prosecution case in short was that on 10.4.1999 at about 4.30. P.M.,
when Lakhan Lal, the complainant, and his father Shiv Charan were at their shop,
the appellants and accused Laxman Singh armed with lathies and gun respectively
came there in a jeep bearing Registration No. HR 26 J-0051 and started abusing
the complainant and his father whereupon the complainant and his father came out
of their shop and asked the reason for abusing them. At this, the appellants threw
stones and sticks on them and in order to save themselves, the complainant and
his father ran towards their house and when they were on raised platform of the
house, accused Laxman Singh, who had a double barrel gun, fired shot from the
same. One shot hit Shiv Charan in his head while the other right calf region as a
result of which Shiv Charan fell down. When the complainant tried to take care of
his father, gun was fired at him too and stones pelted. While he escaped unhurt
from the gun shots as they were off target, he received injuries by pelting of stones
on his left palm and right calf. Finding that his father had already died, the
complainant, out of fear, entered his house and closed the door from within.
Thereafter, the accused persons stoned the women of the house who were on the
roof and they were also fired at. The ladies came down out of fear and thereafter
the accused fled away. Besides the complainant, his brother Johri Mal had also
seen the occurrence. In the meantime, Meenu, wife of the complainant, left for the
Police Station, arrived there at about 6.45 P.M. and reported the incident of
physical violence. On her information, entry was made in the Daily Diary and
Shakuntala, S.H.O., Police Station, Bilaspur and Vinod Kumar, Inspector, left for
the place of occurrence with her where fardbayan of Lakhan Lal was recorded
stating the aforesaid facts, on the basis of which First Information Report was
drawn up. The police after registering the case took up investigation and on
completion thereof submitted chargesheet, on receipt whereof the learned
Magistrate took cognizance and committed all the aforesaid accused persons,
including the appellants, to the Court of Session to face trial.
The defence of accused persons was that they were innocent, no
occurrence, much less the one alleged, had taken place, the deceased might have
received injuries at some other place of occurrence in some other manner and the
accused were falsely implicated by members of the prosecution party to feed fat
the old grudge.
During trial, the prosecution examined sixteen witnesses in all, out of whom
PW1 was Dr. Sanjay Narula, who conducted the post-mortem examination on
dead body of the deceased and PW2, Lakhan Lal, the informant, and his brother
Johri Mal, PW3, who claimed to be eyewitnesses to the alleged occurrence. PWs
4, 5 and 8 to 15 were formal witnesses and PW6, Dr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma,
examined the injuries of PW2 whereas PW7 and PW16 were the two Investigating
Officers in the case. The defence had not examined any witness in the case on
hand. Upon the conclusion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge
convicted all the accused persons, as stated above, and their convictions having
been confirmed by the High Court, the present appeal by special leave by the
appellants; conviction of accused Laxman Singh having been confirmed by this
Court by dismissal of his special leave petition.
Mr. U.R. Lalit, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the appeal,
submitted that though the occurrence has taken place in the broad day-light, the
prosecution failed to examine a single independent witness but has examined PWs
2 and 3 who are nobody else than sons of the deceased. These witnesses
consistently supported the prosecution case, disclosed in the First Information
Report, in all material particulars, in their statements made before the Police as
well as substantive evidence in Court. The trial court as well as the High Court
has placed reliance upon their evidence and were of the view that merely because
they were related to the deceased, the same ipso facto could not have been the
ground to discard their evidence. In our view, the trial court as well as the High
Court was quite justified in placing reliance upon their evidence as they were
natural witnesses and consistently supported the prosecution case. That apart,
their evidence has been accepted by this Court by upholding conviction of accused
Laxman Singh and there is no reason to discard their evidence even in relation to
the appellants.
The learned Senior Counsel next submitted that the prosecution case and
evidence of firing by accused Laxman Singh were highly doubtful and evidence of
PWs 2 and 3 on this count could not have been relied upon. In our view,
submission has been made only to be rejected. So far as Laxman Singh is
concerned, his conviction having been upheld by this Court by dismissal of his
special leave petition, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is not
possible for this Court to go into the correctness or otherwise of conviction of the
said accused. The learned counsel then submitted that though according to
prosecution case, the appellants were armed with sticks and used the same during
the course of occurrence, no stick was recovered. It is true that sticks were not
recovered from any place, much less possession of any of the appellants, but that
cannot be a ground to throw out the prosecution case when the same has been
otherwise found to be truthful by credible evidence. The learned counsel also
submitted that PWs 2 and 3 stated in court that the appellants exhorted for killing
the deceased, though no such case was disclosed either in the First Information
Report or in the statement of these witnesses before the police. Even if the
prosecution failed to prove case of exhortation by the appellants by credible
evidence, the same cannot affect the prosecution case in relation to the
appellants.
Learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution case of pelting
stones on the deceased as well as on PW2 and assaulting them by lathies is not
supported by the medical evidence as the doctor found injuries by fire arm. The
doctor – PW1, who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the
deceased, found as many as eight injuries on his person and in his opinion, injury
nos. 1 and 2 alone could have been caused by fire arm and not the other six
injuries which does not eliminate the fact of causing injuries by lathies and stone
pelting by the appellants. So far as the evidence of doctor – PW6, who examined
the injuries of PW2, is concerned, he specifically stated that injuries found on him
could be caused by blunt weapon, as such the injuries could have been caused by
lathies and pelting of stones by the appellants. Thus, we have no difficulty in
holding that the prosecution case of causing injuries by lathies and pelting of
stones is corroborated by medical evidence.
The learned counsel lastly submitted that the common object of the unlawful
assembly, of which the appellants were members, could not have been to cause
death of the deceased but the same could have been, at the highest, to cause
simple hurt. In our view, the submission has been made only to be rejected as the
definite prosecution case as well as the evidence is that the five accused persons,
including the four appellants, came together in a jeep, one of whom was armed
with gun and others with lathies, after arriving at the place of occurrence, they
abused members of prosecution party and on protest being made by them,
accused Laxman Singh fired at the deceased, who succumbed to the injuries,
whereas the appellants pelted stones upon the deceased and PW2 and threw
lathies upon them, as a result of which they received several other injuries apart
from the two injuries by fire arm inflicted by accused Laxman Singh upon the
deceased, and thereupon, they fled away together from the place of occurrence.
On these facts, we have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the common
object of the unlawful assembly, of which the appellants were members, was to
cause death of the deceased and pursuant to that common object, one of the
members of the unlawful assembly, namely, accused Laxman Singh inflicted two
fatal injuries upon the deceased by fire arm whereas the appellants inflicted six
other injuries on him. Thus, we do not find any substance in this submission as
well. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that prosecution has
succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and the High Court has
not committed any error in upholding convictions of the appellants, as such no
interference is called for by this Court.
Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.