Crl. Appeal No.535-DB of 1998 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No.535-DB of 1998
Date of decision : January 07, 2009
*****
Rajrup and others
............Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana
...........Respondents
*****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH
*****
Present: Mrs. Baljit Kaur Mann, Advocate for the appellants.
Ms. Naveen Malik, Additional Advocate General,
Haryana.
*****
JORA SINGH, J.
Rajrup alias Babli, Rajpal alias Palu sons of Kanwar Lal
and Kanwar Lal son of Ram Dhan ( since deceased) through this
instant appeal have impugned the judgment/order dated
31.10.1998/2.11.1998 respectively rendered by Additional Sessions
Judge, Jhajjar in Sessions Case No.6 of 12.1.1993 in case FIR
No.171 dated 22.9.1992 under Sections 302/325/323/34 IPC, Police
Station Beri, whereby Rajrup, Rajpal and Kanwar Lal were convicted
under Sections 302/325/323/34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo
imprisonment as under:
(1)Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each
Crl. Appeal No.535-DB of 1998 2under Sections 302/34 IPC. In default of payment of
fine to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one
year.
(2)RI for 6 months and a fine of Rs.500/- each under
Sections 323/34 IPC. In default of payment of fine to
undergo further imprisonment for three months.
(3)RI for three years and a fine of Rs.2000/- each under
Sections 325/34 IPC. In default of payment of fine to
undergo further imprisonment for six months.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
During the pendency of trial, Rajender Singh had expired.
During the pendency of appeal, Kanwar Lal, one of the appellants
had also expired.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that Sube Singh son of Ram
Dhan, resident of Village Gwalison lodged report with the police to
the effect that he had four sons and one daughter. Three sons had
already expired. Fourth son namely, Ranbir Singh was residing with
his family at the house of his in-laws at village Rawaldi for the last 20
years. Sube Singh-complainant used to live with his daughter-in-law,
Shanti widow of Dharambir along with her children. His daughter
Prem had come to his house from the house of her in-laws and was
staying with him. At about 10:00/11:00 A.M, Ranbir Singh came and
reported that death of a relation has taken place at village Kharkhari
and in that connection he has come to the house of the complainant.
On 25.9.1992, complainant-party is to visit village Kharkhari for
paying condolence. Kanwar Lal is the brother of the complainant.
Crl. Appeal No.535-DB of 1998 3
Six months ago, Kanwar Lal and his sons had a dispute qua water
and passage of land with the complainant-party. But the dispute was
settled in the Panchayat. Ranbir was also present at the time of
compromise. Even after the compromise, Kanwar Lal and his sons
continued to harass the complainant-party. At 3:00 P.M, he along
with his son Ranbir Singh was going towards the bus stand of the
village because Ranbir Singh was to go back to village Rawaldi.
They were present near the shop of Joravar. Kanwar Lal, Rajinder
Pal, Rajrup and Rajpal came from the backside. Kanwar Lal was
armed with an iron pipe, Rajinder was holding a jaili, Rajrup was
holding a pharsa and Raj Pal was holding a jaili with small prong.
Rajrup gave a lalkara to catch hold of Ranbir and decide the dispute
regarding water and passage of land because Ranbir whenever
visited the village then raised a dispute. Rajrup gave three blows
with a pharsa on the head of Ranbir. Rajinder gave a jaili blow
thrustwise on the back of Ranbir and again a jaili blow on the leg of
Ranbir. Kanwar Lal gave blow with a steel pipe on the back of
Ranbir. Rajpal had waived the jaili and gave a lathiwise blow on the
left thigh of Ranbir. Ranbir fell down on the ground. Complainant
tried to intervene and raised an alarm. Then Rajinder gave jaili blow
on the head and second blow on the thigh of the complainant.
Kanwar Lal gave blows with a pipe to the complainant. Rajpal gave
four jaili blows to the complainant. Raula was raised. Daughter of
the complainant, Prem and his grandchildren Sunil, Jai Pal and Vijay
also came to the spot. Sunil was also injured with a pipe by Kanwar
Lal. After that accused had fled away from the spot. Injured was
Crl. Appeal No.535-DB of 1998 4
shifted to Civil Hospital, Jhajjar on the tractor of Saheb Singh.
Ranbir was declared dead by the doctor. Complainant and his
grand-daughter were medico-legally examined.
SHO, Police Station Jhajjar informed PS Beri regarding
death of Ranbir Singh. On receipt of message, Brij Lal, ASI along
with other police party had gone to Civil Hospital, Jhajjar. Dead body
of Ranbir was lying in the emergency ward. Sube Singh was lying
admitted in the emergency ward. After obtaining opinion from the
doctor regarding fitness of the injured to make statement. Statement
of Sube Singh was recorded. Statement was read over and
explained to him, who had thumb marked the same in token of its
correctness. The statement was sent to police Station on the basis
of which formal FIR under Sections 302/323/34 IPC was registered.
Inquest report was prepared by ASI, Brij Lal. Application was moved
for post mortem examination of the dead body of Ranbir Singh. After
that investigation of the case was handed over to Shish Ram-
Inspector. Inspector Shish Ram along with the police officials
including, ASI, Brij Lal and others had gone to the place of
occurrence. But due to darkness and night time place of occurrence
could not be inspected. One constable was deputed to guard the
place of occurrence. Inspector along with party had gone to the
house of the complainant. Statement of Prem daughter of Sube
Singh was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Investigating Officer
had inspected the place of occurrence and prepared a rough site
plan. Blood stained earth was lifted and the same was made into a
parcel sealed with the seal bearing impression `SR’ and was taken
Crl. Appeal No.535-DB of 1998 5
into possession vide memo attested by witnesses. Seal after its use
was handed over to PW-Ramesh. Statements of Jai Pal, Vijay,
Sumer and Ramesh were also recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
Sunil was also sent to hospital for medico legal examination.
Inspector Shish Ram was present at Jahajgarh Chowk on 23.9.92.
Constable Raj Karan had produced the sealed parcel containing the
clothes worn by the deceased. Sealed parcel was taken into police
possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. On
return to the police station, case property was deposited with the
MHC. On 27.9.1992, Inspector Shish Ram was present in the
revenue estate of Village Jhajjar. There he received a secret
information that Kanwar Lal, Rajpal, Rajender and Rajrup are present
at bus-stand Jhajjar. Raid was conducted then the accused were
arrested from the Bus stand of Jhajjar. On 28.9.92, accused were
interrogated separately regarding the weapons of offence in the
presence of Dharambir and Rati Ram. In pursuance of the
disclosure statement suffered by Kanwar Lal, an iron pipe was
recovered from the specified place. Sketch of the pipe was prepared
and the pipe was taken into police possession after making into a
sealed parcel.
On the same day i.e 28.9.1992, Rajpal accused suffered
disclosure statement. As per disclosure statement got recovered
double pronged jaili from the specified place. Recovered weapon
was sealed with the seal bearing impression SR and the sealed
parcel was taken into police possession vide separate memo
attested by the witnesses.
Crl. Appeal No.535-DB of 1998 6
On the same day i.e 28.9.1992, Rajrup was also
interrogated then he suffered a disclosure statement. As per
disclosure statement suffered by accused, pharsa was recovered
from the specified place. Sketch of the pharsa was prepared and the
recovered weapon was taken into police possession vide separate
memo attested by the witnesses. Rajinder accused also suffered
disclosure statement and as per disclosure statement got recovered
single prong jaili from the specified place. Sketch of the weapon was
prepared and the same was taken into police possession vide
separate memo attested by the witnesses. On return to the police
station, case property was deposited with the MHC (Mahavir, Head
Constable).
After the completion of the investigation, challan was
presented.
Copies of the challan were supplied to the accused and
the same were found to be correct after scrutiny. Case was
committed to the Court of Session for trial.
After hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State,
defence counsel for the accused and perusing documents on the file.
Learned trial Court opined that a prima facie case is made out to
frame charge under Sections 302/323/325/34 IPC. Charge was
accordingly framed to which the accused did not plead guilty and
claimed trial
In order to substantiate the charges, prosecution
examined as many as twelve witnesses.
Dr. Ram Kumar was examined as PW-1. Dr. Ram Kumar
Crl. Appeal No.535-DB of 1998 7
had medico-legally examined Sube Singh on 22.9.92 and found the
following injuries on his person:
1. A lacerated wound 8 x 1 x bone deep on
the vertex of the head having fresh
bleeding. Margins were irregular and x-ray
was advised.
2. A contusion 15 x 6 cm. On the right side of
the chest just above the costal margin and
it was reddish in colour. Patient was
complainant swear pain in it and x-ray was
advised.
3. A swelling 7.5 x 4 cm on dorsal aspect of
right hand at the base of middle and ring
finger. Swelling was hot and tender and
patient was unable to move the finger. X-
ray was advised.
4. A contusion 9 x 2.5 cm on the back of the
right thigh just above the knee joint which
was reddish in colour.
5. A contusion 12 x 2.5 cm on the back of the
right thigh 6 cm. above the injury no.4. It
was reddish in colour.
6. A contusion 10 x 3 cm on the back of the
right thigh 7 cm above the injury no.5. It
was reddish in colour.
7. A contusion 5 x 2.5 cm on the back of the
Crl. Appeal No.535-DB of 1998 8right shoulder joint. It was reddish in colour
and patient was referred to Medical
College, Rohtak for treatment.
Injury no.2 on the person of Sube Singh was declared grievous.
Other injuries were found to be simple in nature.
PW-2, Dr. Ajay Sharda stated that Sube Singh remained
under his treatment. Ex.PE is his bed head ticket. Vide police
request Ex.PF, he gave his opinion Ex.PF/1.
PW-3, Dr. S.K Bhutani had conducted post mortem
examination on the dead body of Ranbir on 23.9.92 and found the
following injuries on the person of Ranbir:
1. Incised wound on front of forehead in the
middle 3 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm.
Transversed.
2. Incised wound on right parietal in the middle
vertical, along medial line, 6 cm x 2 cm x
1.5 cm and on cut section bone underline
was fractured and grey matter oozing out.
3. Incised wound of right side of occipital
back, semi circular, 4 cm x 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm
and on cut section bone underline was
fractured and grey matter was oozing out.
4. Incised wound on left occipital, transverse 4
cm x 1.0 x1.5 cm.
5. Abrasion on right abdomen, laterally lower
limb vertical 3 cm x 1 cm.
Crl. Appeal No.535-DB of 1998 9
6. Pointed wound on right renal area back
above upper part of right hip bone in the
middle, 2 cm x 2 cm x cavity deep and bone
underline (10th rib was fractured and liver on
posterior part lower end was ruptured and
cavity was full of blood).
7. Contusion of right knee lower limb
transverse 2 cm x 1.5 cm.
8. Contusion on right leg in the middle,
anteriorly vertical 3 cm x 2 cm.
9. Multiple contusions of back of chest four in
number 6 cm x 2 cm each.
10.Contusion on left knee upper and laterally
2 cm x 2 cm.
Injuries were found to be ante mortem in nature and
sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Death was
due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries. Probable
duration between injuries and death was within six hours and
between death and post mortem was within 24 hours.
PW-4, Chander Parkash Bhatnagar, Draftsman had
prepared a scaled site plan Ex.PM.
PW-5, Sube Singh and PW-6, Sunil are the injured eye
witnesses. Both on oath stated that Prem had come to her parental
house. Ranbir came to Village Gwalison due to the death of a
relative at Village Kharkhari and in that connection he was to visit
Kharkhar on 25.9.1992. The accused party had dispute qua water
Crl. Appeal No.535-DB of 1998 10
and passage of land six months earlier with the complainant-party
and that dispute was settled in the Panchayat. Ranbir was also
present in the Panchayat. But even after the compromise, accused
party used to harass them. On 22.9.1992 at 3:00 P.M, Ranbir was to
visit village Rawaldi. Ranbir along with Sube Singh while going to the
Bus Stand were present near the shop of Joravar. Accused fully
armed came from the backside. Kanwar Lal was armed with an iron
pipe, Rajinder was holding a jaili, Rajrup was holding a pharsa and
Raj Pal was holding a jaili with small prong. Rajrup gave a lalkara to
catch hold of Ranbir and decide the dispute regarding water and
passage of land because Ranbir whenever visited the village then
had raised a dispute. Accused armed with different weapons had
caused injuries to Ranbir. Sube Singh further stated that when he
intervened to save Ranbir, then Rajinder, Kanwar Lal and Rajpal
gave injuries to him with their weapons. Raula was raised. Prem
daughter, Sunil grand daughter, Jaipal and Vijay grandsons of Sube
Singh came to the spot. Sunil was also injured with a pipe by
Kanwar Lal. Injured were shifted to hospital where Ranbir was
declared dead. On the statement of Sube Singh, main case was
registered.
PW-7, ASI, Brij Lal on receipt of message from SHO,
Police Station, Beri had gone to Civil Hospital, Jhajjar where dead
body of Ranbir was lying. Sube Singh was also lying admitted in the
hospital. Statement of Sube Singh was got recorded. Brij Lal had
also prepared inquest report. Dead body was also handed over to
the police officials for post mortem examination.
Crl. Appeal No.535-DB of 1998 11
PW-8, ASI, Sumer Singh stated that on 23.9.1992, he
was with the party of SI, Shish Ram and in his presence, blood
stained earth was lifted from the spot.
PW-9, Constble Raj Karan had tendered his affidavit
Ex.PV.
PW-10, U.G.C Sardara Singh had handed over special
report to the Illaqa Magistrate.
PW-11 Dr.Anamika deposed that on 23.9.92, Sube Singh
was medico legally examined.
After the close of prosecution evidence, statements of the
accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused denied
all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent.
Defence version of Rajrup alias Babli was that in the
month of September 1992, he had come on leave from Bangalore.
He was serving in the Air force. He was not present at the time of
occurrence. He was taken by the police on 22.9.1992 but his formal
arrest was shown on 27.9.1992. Recovery of pharsa was planted on
him. His signatures were obtained in the police station. His wife had
approached the high officials regarding his illegal detention w.e.f
22.9.1992.
Defence version of Kanwar Lal and Raj Pal was that on
the date of alleged occurrence, dispute arose between Sube Singh
and his son Ranbir Singh. Earlier to that also, Sube Singh and
Ranbir Singh had strained relations. Grand sons and other members
of the family of Sube Singh gave beatings to Ranbir Singh outside
the baithak. On receipt of injuries, Ranbir Singh had died. After the
Crl. Appeal No.535-DB of 1998 12
death of Ranbir Singh, Sube Singh with the connivance of the police,
had falsely implicated the accused.
In defence, Mahabir appeared as DW-1 and stated that
Rajrup is married with his sister’s daughter Anita. Rajrup was falsely
implicated in a murder case. On the date of occurrence, Rajrup and
Anita were present in his house from 10:00 A.M to 5:00 P.M. After
seven days, he came to know that Rajrup was falsely implicated in a
murder case. He had gone to the police station to enquire as to why
Rajrup was implicated in this case. He was also threatened by a
police official to be implicated in the case.
DW-2, Bijender Singh stated that on 7.10.1992, complaint
was received from Anita Devi. Entry was made in the register.
Complaint was regarding illegal detention of Rajrup.
DW-3, Anita Devi has supported the version of DW-1,
Mahabir by saying that on the day of occurrence, she alongwith her
husband, Rajrup was in the house of Mahabir from 10:00 A.M to 5:00
P.M. Rajrup was arrested at 6:00 P.M while present in front of Civil
Hospital, Jhajjar. On 26.9.1992, a complaint was sent to Deputy
Commissioner regarding illegal detention of Rajrup.
DW-4, Amarjeet Singh, Assistant Complaint Clerk, SP
Office stated that no complaint was received from Anita from
26.9.1992 to 28.9.1992 but on 5.10.92, a complaint was received on
behalf of Ranbir regarding implication of Rajrup in FIR No.171.
After hearing learned counsel for the State, defence
counsel for the accused, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar
had convicted the accused under Sections 302/325/323/34 IPC and
Crl. Appeal No.535-DB of 1998 13
were sentenced to undergo imprisonment as stated above.
Defence counsel for the appellant-accused argued that
occurrence had taken place on 3:00 P.M on 22.9.1992. Ruqa was
sent at 5:45 P.M but statement of the injured was recorded at 9:30
P.M. FIR was recorded at 10:30 P.M. There was a delay in lodging
the FIR. Distance of the place of occurrence from the police station
was hardly 15 kilometers. Story was concocted to implicate the
appellants. Delay is fatal. There was no motive to commit the crime.
For the last 20 years, Ranbir was staying at his in-laws house. Sube
Singh had given property to his son. No question of dispute of water
and passage of land with Ranbir Singh. In fact Ranbir Singh had
dispute with Sube Singh. Ranbir Singh was demanding property.
Sube Singh and his family members had caused injuries to Ranbir
Singh. Later on with the connivance of police, appellants-accused
were falsely implicated. In case a dispute was earlier settled before
the Panchayat then one or two Panchayat Members could easily be
produced to show that earlier there was a dispute amongst the
parties. Medical evidence is contrary to the ocular evidence. Rajpal
was armed with a jaili and as per story he gave jaili blow on the left
thigh of Ranbir. If Rajpal had the intention to cause injuries then
there was no idea to give jaili blow thrustwhile. Presence of Rajpal is
doubtful. Rajrup was also not present at the time of occurrence. He
was present at the house of Mahabir. In fact Sube Singh and his
family members had caused injuries to Ranbir Singh. After the death
of Ranbir Singh, whole story was concocted. Learned counsel for
the appellants requested to acquit the appellants-accused.
Crl. Appeal No.535-DB of 1998 14
Ms. Navin Malik, Additional Advocate General, Haryana
argued that deceased along with Sube Singh was present near the
shop of Joravar. Accused fully armed came from the backside and
had caused injuries to the deceased and Sube Singh. Appellants-
accused had the intention to commit the crime. Occurrence had
taken place on 22.9.1992. If Rajrup was at the house of Mahabir
then why complaint was not sent on the same day. Ex.DB is the
copy of the complaint dated 26.9.1992. DW-1, Mahabir and the wife
of Rajrup were very much interested in the acquittal of appellant-
accused. Rajrup when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C then he
did not state a word that he had gone to the house of Mahabir.
Occurrence had taken place near the shop of Joravar but no
independent witness came forward to say that Sube Singh and his
family members had caused injuries to Ranbir Singh. If the defence
version is correct one than the question is how the injuries figured on
the person of Sube Singh and Sunil. Learned counsel for the
respondent-State further argued that evidence on the file was rightly
appreciated. She requested to dismiss the appeal.
First submission of the learned defence counsel is that
there is delay in lodging the FIR and delay is fatal. But we are not in
a position to agree with the submission of the learned defence
counsel because occurrence had taken place at about 3:00 P.M near
the shop of Joravar. After the occurrence injured was shifted to Civil
Hospital, Jhajjar, where Ranbir Singh was declared dead. From Civil
Hospital, Jhajjar, V.T message was sent to police Station, Jhajjar and
from police station Jhajjar, message was sent to Police Station Beri.
Crl. Appeal No.535-DB of 1998 15
On receipt of message, ASI, Brij Lal, incharge PP Chuchakwas
reached Police Station, Jhajjar. Thereafter he went to Civil Hospital,
Jhajjar. Dead body of Ranbir Singh was lying in the emergency
ward. Sube Singh was lying admitted in the emergency ward. After
obtaining opinion from doctor as to whether injured is fit to make a
statement or not, statement of Sube Singh was recorded. After
making endorsement at 9:30 P.M on 22.2.1992, statement was sent
to police station, Beri. On the statement of Sube Singh, formal FIR
was recorded. Sunil was also injured. Ten injuries were noted on
the person of Ranbir Singh. Seven injuries were noted on the person
of Sube Singh. When there are number of injuries with sharp edged
weapons then an effort is made to shift the injured to the nearest
hospital for medical aid. Eye witnesses/close relations are not
expected to approach the police station by leaving the injured on the
spot. Appellants-accused were related to the deceased. By leaving
the real culprit particularly, when the occurrence was during the day
time, complainant-party was not expected to implicate the appellants-
accused. Delay was fully explained. In case we presume that there
is delay in lodging the FIR then delay itself is not sufficient for
acquittal of the accused. Delay is one of the suspicious
circumstances to scrutinize the evidence with great care and caution.
Delay is not sufficient for acquittal of the accused.
Second submission of the learned defence counsel for
the appellants-accused is that there was no motive/enmity to commit
the crime. In fact, Ranbir Singh was residing at his in-laws house.
Father-in-law of Ranbir had transferred his property in the name of
Crl. Appeal No.535-DB of 1998 16
the sons of Ranbir Singh. Ranbir Singh was pressurizing his father
to give his share. Complainant-party had a dispute with Ranbir
Singh. Ranbir Singh was given injuries near the baithak. Appellants-
accused were falsely implicated.
We have considered the submission of the learned
defence counsel but we are not in a position to accept the same.
Evidence on the file shows that earlier to the present occurrence,
there was a dispute qua water and passage amongst the parties and
that dispute was settled in the Panchayat. In case there was no
dispute six months earlier, then any Member of the Panchayat could
be produced in defence to state that there was no dispute amongst
the complainant party and the accused. As discussed earlier,
appellants are related to the complainant-party and if there was no
dispute then there was no idea to implicate the appellants-accused.
Sometimes without motive, heinous crimes are committed. In case
prosecution fails to prove motive then only on this short ground, story
is not to be ignored. In the present case, six months earlier to the
present occurrence, there was a dispute amongst the complainant-
party and the accused qua path and water course but that dispute
was settled. Appellants-accused were of the opinion that whenever
Ranbir Singh came to the house of his father then his family
members were instigated to have dispute with the appellants-
accused. To settle the dispute, accused-party came fully armed and
had caused injuries to Ranbir Singh and Sube Singh. All injuries on
the person of Ranbir Singh and Sube Singh cannot be self-suffered
or self-inflicted, particularly, when some of the injuries were on the
Crl. Appeal No.535-DB of 1998 17
vital parts of the body.
Defence counsel further submitted that presence of
Rajpal at the time of occurrence is doubtful. Rajpal was armed with
small pronged jaili. One injury was caused on the left foot of Ranbir
Singh. Some injuries were given to Sube Singh with a jaili by using
the same dangwise. In case Rajpal had the intention to cause
injuries then injuries could easily be caused with his jaili thrustwise.
There was no idea to cause injury with a jaili like dangwise.
Submission of the learned defence counsel seems to be reasonable
one. Rajpal was armed with small pronged jaili and as per story only
one injury was given to Ranbir Singh by using jaili dangwise and the
injury was on the left foot. Four injuries with a jaili were given to
Sube Singh. Jaili was used like dangwise. Dr. S.K Bhutani had
conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Ranbir
Singh. But no injury on the left foot. Dr. Ram Kumar had medico
legally examined Sube Singh. There were four injuries alleged to be
caused by Rajpal i.e one on the thigh second on the right side of
stomach, third on the right hip and last on the right side of the
shoulder. On cross-examination, doctor admitted that injuries
alleged to have been caused by Rajpal with a jaili used dangwise are
possible by fall. Sube Singh while appearing in the Court as PW-5,
in chief, stated that Rajpal waived the jaili and gave lathiwise blow on
the right thigh of Ranbir Singh and then again on the left thigh. But
as per doctor, no injury on the left thigh of Ranbir Singh was noticed.
On cross-examination, Sube Singh admitted that on receipt of
injuries, he had a fall on the left side touching the ground. But, not
Crl. Appeal No.535-DB of 1998 18
even a single word has been mentioned in the FIR that on receipt of
injuries, Sube Singh had a fall on the ground. Injuries alleged to
have been caused by Rajpal as per doctor were possible by fall.
Rajpal was armed with a jaili but only one blow was given to Ranbir.
If Rajpal had the intention or he was present at the time of
occurrence then number of injuries were expected to have been
caused with a jaili by using the same thrustwise not dangwise. Due
to previous enmity, Rajpal was expected to repeat the blow but blow
was not repeated. Before the present occurrence, complainant-party
had a dispute with the accused-party. No jaili blow alleged to have
been given to Ranbir Singh by Rajpal was noticed by the doctor at
the time of post mortem examination. Injuries alleged to have been
caused by Rajpal on the person of Sube Singh were possible by a
fall. Rajpal was implicated being the brother of Rajrup and son of
Kanwar Lal, who died during the pendency of the appeal. Sunil,
second injured was examined on 23.9.1999. But injury on the person
of Sunil was possible by fall. Sunil when appeared in Court then
stated that Rajpal gave two jaili blows on the right leg of Ranbir.
Rajpal gave three jaili blows to Sube Singh. One on the right foot,
second on the shoulder and third on the right side. Statement of
Sunil is contrary to the sttement of Sube Singh and medical evidence
as suggestion was given to Sunil that she had not witnessed the
occurrence. Presence of Rajpal at the time of occurrence is doubtful.
Defence counsel further argued that presence of Rajrup
is also doubtful at the time of occurrence. Rajender Singh had died
during the pendency of the trial. Kanwarl Lal had died during the
Crl. Appeal No.535-DB of 1998 19
pendency of the appeal. On the day of occurrence, Rajrup was away
to the house of Mahabir. Mahabir appeared as DW-1 and stated that
at the time of occurrence, Rajrup was present in his house. But after
going through the evidence on file, we are not in a position to agree
with the submission of the learned defence counsel. No suggestion
to the witnesses that at the time of occurrence, Rajrup was not
present and in fact he was present in the house of Mahabir. Rajrup
when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, then stated that on the
day of occurrence, he was on leave. He was arrested by the police
on 22.9.1992 but his formal arrest was shown on 27.9.92. His wife
had moved the higher authorities for his illegal detention from
22.9.92. In case Rajrup was present in the house of Mahabir at the
time of occurrence, then Rajrup when examined under Section 313
Cr.P.C should have stated that he was present in the house of
Mahabir situated in the revenue estate of village Chhara. Mahabir, in
examination-in-chief stated that Rajrup is married with Anita,
daughter of his sister. After seven days he came to know that Rajrup
was involved in a murder case. He had gone to police station to
enquire as to why Rajrup was implicated in a murder case. That
means after seven days, Mahabir came to know that Rajrup was
taken away by the police. In case Rajrup was arrested on 22.9.92
then Mahabir being the relative of Rajrup should have approached
the police immediately. Statement of Mahabir was not recorded by
the police. Mahabir did not file any complaint against the police
officials. In cross-examination, Mahabir admitted that after two days
he came to know from Anita that complaint was sent to the higher
Crl. Appeal No.535-DB of 1998 20
authorities qua false involvement of Rajrup. Anita appeared as DW-3
and stated that from 10:00 A.M to 5:00 P.M on 22.9.92, she along
with Rajrup was present in the house of Mahabir. But Rajrup was
arrested on the same day while present in front of Civil Hospital,
Jhajjar. On 26.9.1992, she had sent complaints to the Deputy
Commissioner. Her grandfather had sent complaints to Deputy
Commissioner on 28.9.92. In case Rajrup was arrested on the same
day and was detained illegally, then why complaints were not sent on
the same day. On 24.9.1992 or 25.9.1992, Mahabir came to know
from Anita that complaints were sent to the higher authorities but
Anita stated that complaints were sent to the higher authorities on
28.9.1992. Anita, in cross-examination, admitted that she along with
her grand father had gone to police station on 24.9.92 to enquire as
to why Rajrup was arrested. Rajrup was armed with pharsa and
gave three blows to Ranbir Singh. Blows were on the vital parts of
the body. Blows on the vital parts cannot be self-suffered or self-
inflicted. As per defence version of Kanwar Lal, Ranbir Singh had
dispute with Sube Singh and other family members. Sube Singh and
his family members gave beatings to Ranbir Singh outside the
baithak. But Sube Singh and Ranbir Singh had no dispute with
anybody else. Prior to the present occurrence, Ranbir Singh had not
filed any civil suit or complaint against Sube Singh and others to get
his share from Sube Singh. When Ranbir Singh or his sons were
not demanding property from Sube Singh and there was no dispute
then Sube Singh and his family members were not supposed to give
beatings to Ranbir Singh. All this shows that Rajrup fully armed was
Crl. Appeal No.535-DB of 1998 21
present at the time of occurrence and had caused injuries to Ranbir
Singh.
No other submission was put forward.
In view of the all discussed above, appeal filed by Rajpal
is accepted, whereas of Rajrup is dismissed.
Registry to send intimation to the concerned authorities
for the release of appellant, Rajpal forthwith, in case he is not wanted
in any other Court.
( JASBIR SINGH ) ( JORA SINGH )
JUDGE JUDGE
January 07, 2009
ritu