{"id":48283,"date":"2009-01-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-01-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surender-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-14-january-2009"},"modified":"2016-01-17T15:57:53","modified_gmt":"2016-01-17T10:27:53","slug":"surender-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-14-january-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surender-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-14-january-2009","title":{"rendered":"Surender And Another vs State Of Haryana on 14 January, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Surender And Another vs State Of Haryana on 14 January, 2009<\/div>\n
       Crl.A. No. 322-DB of 2003                               -1-\n\n            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA\n                          AT CHANDIGARH\n\n                        Crl.A. No. 322-DB of 2003\n\n                        DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 14, 2009\n\n\nSurender and another\n\n                                                     .....APPELLANTS\n                              Versus\n\nState of Haryana\n                                                     ....RESPONDENT\n\n\nCORAM:     HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL\n           HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY\n                         ---\n\n\nPresent:    Mr.B.S. Saroha, Advocate,\n            for the appellants.\n\n            Mr.Partap Singh, Sr.D.A.G., Haryana.\n                 ..\n\n\nSATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.\n<\/pre>\n
            This criminal appeal has been filed by accused against their<\/p>\n
conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak in<\/p>\n
Sessions case No.126 of 2002 arising from FIR No.123 dated 20.4.2002<\/p>\n
under Sections 302\/201\/120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar,<\/p>\n
Rohtak. Accused Surender has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and<\/p>\n
sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.20,000\/-, in<\/p>\n
case of default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for a<\/p>\n
period of three years. He has been further convicted under Section 201 IPC<\/p>\n
and sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and a<\/p>\n
fine of Rs.5,000\/-, in case of default of payment of fine, further rigorous
\n         Crl.A. No. 322-DB of 2003                               -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
imprisonment for a period of one year. Accused Sham Lata           has been<\/p>\n
convicted under Section 201 IPC and sentenced for rigorous imprisonment<\/p>\n
for a period of five years and a fine of Rs.5,000\/- in case of default of<\/p>\n
payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.<\/p>\n
However, both the sentences of accused Surender were ordered to run<\/p>\n
concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
            In the present case, the aforesaid FIR (Ex.PE) was registered at<\/p>\n
Police Station Sadar, Rohtak under Sections 302\/34 IPC on 20.4.2002 at<\/p>\n
12.45 a.m. on the statement of Jagdish (father of deceased Sunil) made<\/p>\n
before ASI Ishwar Singh (PW18), who met him at Bus Stand, Bhagwatipur.<\/p>\n
In his statement (Ex.PC), complainant Jagdish had stated that he was having<\/p>\n
two sons and two daughters. The eldest was Sunil (deceased). He used to<\/p>\n
ply a maxi cab jeep from Rohtak to Julana. On previous date, i.e.,<\/p>\n
19.4.2002, his son Sunil had left the house at 8.00 p.m. after taking milk by<\/p>\n
telling that he was going for walk. Thereafter, his son Sunil did not reach<\/p>\n
home. He searched his son. On the next date, i.e. 20.4.2002 at 10.00 a.m., he<\/p>\n
came to know that dead body of a young man was lying in the field of<\/p>\n
Khatiwala. He went there and saw that the said body was of his son Sunil.<\/p>\n
Sharp edged wounds were present on his head, forehead and on his hands. A<\/p>\n
lot of blood was present on the spot. He stated that his son was murdered on<\/p>\n
previous night by giving him injuries by some unknown persons. He stated<\/p>\n
that he was having no doubt on anybody as he was having no grudge with<\/p>\n
any inhabitant of the village. After leaving his brother Nafe Singh son of<\/p>\n
Attar Singh, his son Anil and Ishwar Sarpanch of the village with the dead<\/p>\n
body, he had come to lodge the report.\n<\/p>\n
            After registering the FIR, the police party went to the spot
\n         Crl.A. No. 322-DB of 2003                                 -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
where Nafe Singh, Anil son of Jagdish and Ishwar, Sarpanch and many<\/p>\n
other villagers were found present at the place of occurrence. In their<\/p>\n
presence, the spot and the dead body was inspected. One glass tumbler<\/p>\n
(Ex.P11), empty plastic bottle (Ex.P12) and empty half of English liquor<\/p>\n
bottle (Ex.P13) were found by the side of dead body. The sniffer dog was<\/p>\n
called. At that time, PW-11 SDC Sudershan Kumari also came there from<\/p>\n
the S.P. office, Rohtak. She had taken the finger prints from the glass<\/p>\n
tumbler, empty plastic bottle and empty half of English liquor bottle lying at<\/p>\n
the spot and sealed them in a parcel. Thereafter, the dead body was taken for<\/p>\n
autopsy to the Mud Hut Dispensary, Rohtak and inquest report (Ex.PZ) was<\/p>\n
prepared.\n<\/p>\n
            On 20.4.2002 itself, PW1-Dr.Mahesh Parkash conducted the<\/p>\n
post-mortem of the deceased. He found 12 injuries on the person of the<\/p>\n
deceased. In the stomach, there was liquid and undigested food and smell<\/p>\n
of alcohol was also present. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death<\/p>\n
was due to injuries to the big vessel, i.e., right carotid and trachae, leading<\/p>\n
to haemorrhage shock. All the injuries were found to be ante-mortem in<\/p>\n
nature and were sufficient to cause death. The time between injury and<\/p>\n
death was within few minutes and between death and post-mortem was<\/p>\n
between 12 to 24 hours.\n<\/p>\n
            As per the prosecution version, on 26.4.2002 at 1.00 p.m., both<\/p>\n
the accused made extra-judicial confession before PW5-Dilbagh Singh, who<\/p>\n
is resident of the same village. In his statement, PW5 had stated that on<\/p>\n
26.4.2002 when he and Rajal were present in the Baithak of Rajal, at about<\/p>\n
1.00 p.m., both the accused came there and accused Surender disclosed that<\/p>\n
one year back deceased Sunil had an evil eye on his wife Sham Lata and he
\n         Crl.A. No. 322-DB of 2003                                -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
tried to molest her. He also disclosed that he and his wife planned to kill<\/p>\n
Sunil. Accordingly, he brought a quarter of English liquor from Rohtak and<\/p>\n
the deceased was called at his shop. He also took a crushed pill and a knife<\/p>\n
from his shop. He and Sunil went to the field where he gave the crushed pill<\/p>\n
in wine to Sunil and after drinking, he became unconscious. Thereafter, he<\/p>\n
murdered him by giving knife blows. After killing Sunil @ Lilu, he went to<\/p>\n
his house and disclosed all facts to his wife Sham Lata. His wife had taken<\/p>\n
off his blood stained clothes and after burning those clothes, had thrown the<\/p>\n
ashes at the Kurdi of the village. The accused had further disclosed that they<\/p>\n
wanted to surrender before the police.\n<\/p>\n
            As per the prosecution version, then the accused were produced<\/p>\n
by PW5-Dilbagh Singh before the police. Thereafter, on the basis of the<\/p>\n
disclosure statement (Ex.PL) made by accused Surender, knife (Ex.P29) was<\/p>\n
recovered vide recovery memo dated 27.4.2002(Ex.PL\/2). The disclosure<\/p>\n
statement (Ex.PL) and recovery memo (Ex.PL\/2) were witnessed by PW14-<\/p>\n
Om Parkash and one Anup Singh. On interrogation, accused Sham Lata had<\/p>\n
also made a disclosure statement (Ex.PM) and also got recovered the ashes<\/p>\n
from the Kurdi of the village vide recovery memo (Ex.PM\/1). This<\/p>\n
disclosure statement as well as recovery memo have also been witnessed by<\/p>\n
the same person.\n<\/p>\n
            During investigation, FSL report was obtained regarding ash,<\/p>\n
which was recovered from the Kurdi vide recovery memo (Ex.PM\/1). The<\/p>\n
sample of the finger prints of accused Surender were obtained from glass<\/p>\n
tumbler and plastic bottle lying at the place of the occurrence. His specimen<\/p>\n
handwriting (Ex.PV\/1) was also taken.\n<\/p>\n
            After investigation, the challan was filed and the case was
\n         Crl.A. No. 322-DB of 2003                                 -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
committed to the court of Session. Charges under Sections 302\/201\/120-B<\/p>\n
IPC were framed against the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and<\/p>\n
claimed trial.\n<\/p>\n
                 In support of its case, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses<\/p>\n
and produced on record various documents and reports. After recording the<\/p>\n
evidence of the prosecution, the trial Court put all the incriminating material<\/p>\n
to both the accused while recording their statements under Section 313<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. The accused pleaded false implication and claimed to be innocent.<\/p>\n
Accused Surender pleaded that he was innocent and has been falsely<\/p>\n
implicated because the police had earlier registered a case against the son of<\/p>\n
Anoop Singh under Section 376 IPC, who is a prosecution witness in the<\/p>\n
instant case. The said Anoop Singh is brother of father of the deceased and<\/p>\n
he in connivance with the police has falsely implicated them. The real uncle<\/p>\n
of the deceased is also a Sub Inspector in police and he got prepared false<\/p>\n
proof against them in connivance with the police. He further stated that he<\/p>\n
was taken into custody by the police from village Nidana where he had gone<\/p>\n
to attend the marriage of the daughter of his uncle and at that time Sarpanch,<\/p>\n
ex-Sarpanch and Lambardar of the village were also present. In presence of<\/p>\n
ex-Sarpanch of village Nidana, the police obtained his signatures forcibly<\/p>\n
after giving beatings. In defence, the accused examined DW1-Raghbir,<\/p>\n
Sarpanch of village Nidana.\n<\/p>\n
             After considering the evidence led by the prosecution and<\/p>\n
hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and after appreciating the<\/p>\n
evidence available on the record and coming to the conclusion that the<\/p>\n
prosecution has fully proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt, the trial<\/p>\n
Court convicted accused Surender under Sections 302\/201 IPC and accused
\n        Crl.A. No. 322-DB of 2003                                -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
Sham Lata under Section 201 IPC and sentenced them, as indicated above.<\/p>\n
Hence this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
            Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the instant<\/p>\n
case the trial Court has illegally convicted both the accused for the alleged<\/p>\n
offence only on the basis of the circumstantial evidence from which the<\/p>\n
conclusion of the guilt of the accused has not been established. Neither<\/p>\n
those circumstantial evidence is consistent nor conclusive in nature. These<\/p>\n
circumstantial evidence are not consistent with the hypothesis of guilt and<\/p>\n
inconsistent with innocence. Learned counsel further submitted that in such<\/p>\n
a case a strong motive to commit the alleged crime should have been<\/p>\n
established by the prosecution which in the instant case has not been<\/p>\n
established at all. Learned counsel submitted that according the prosecution<\/p>\n
version, the motive of the alleged crime was the illicit relation of the<\/p>\n
deceased with the wife (Sham Lata) of accused Surender and that too was<\/p>\n
one year prior to the alleged occurrence. Learned counsel further submitted<\/p>\n
that this alleged motive has not been proved by any witness. Only PW5-<\/p>\n
Dilbagh Singh, before whom the alleged extra-judicial confession was made<\/p>\n
by accused Surender, had stated in his statement that accused Surender had<\/p>\n
disclosed before him that his wife was having illicit relation with deceased<\/p>\n
Sunil, therefore, he planned to kill him in collusion with his wife. Learned<\/p>\n
counsel further submitted that the alleged extra-judicial confession was<\/p>\n
manipulated by the police in connivance with the aforesaid witness, who<\/p>\n
undisputedly is close relative of deceased Sunil, being his real uncle.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel submitted that as per the defence taken by the accused and<\/p>\n
the statement of defence witness DW1, both the accused were taken into<\/p>\n
custody by the police on 25.4.2002 from village Nidana where they had
\n         Crl.A. No. 322-DB of 2003                                -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
gone to attend the marriage of the daughter of uncle of accused Surender,<\/p>\n
and subsequently, the extra-judicial confession, their disclosure statements<\/p>\n
and recoveries were manipulated. He submitted that even as per the FSL<\/p>\n
report regarding blood on the knife, no conclusive report was given which<\/p>\n
establishes that the alleged knife (Ex.P29) was planted subsequently. He<\/p>\n
further submitted that in addition to the alleged evidence of extra-judicial<\/p>\n
confession, the recoveries and the FSL report, the trial Court has also relied<\/p>\n
upon the statements of PW3-Jaswant Singh and PW4-Raj Singh, who stated<\/p>\n
that they had last seen the accused in the company of the deceased just prior<\/p>\n
to the date of occurrence on 19.4.2002. Learned counsel submitted that as<\/p>\n
per the statement of PW3-Jaswant Singh, his statement (Ex.DA) was<\/p>\n
recorded by the police on 20.4.2002 at 10.30 a.m. in which he stated that he<\/p>\n
had seen the deceased with the accused on previous night while going<\/p>\n
towards the place of occurrence. At that time, accused Surender was having<\/p>\n
a tumbler and a bottle of water whereas Sunil was having a quarter of liquor<\/p>\n
with him. Learned counsel submitted that if that statement (Ex.DA) was<\/p>\n
available with the police, then this fact should have been mentioned in the<\/p>\n
inquest report (Ex.PZ) which was prepared later on. Therefore, the<\/p>\n
statement of this witness that he had last seen the deceased with the accused<\/p>\n
is not trustworthy and should not be relied upon.\n<\/p>\n
            Similarly, the statement of PW4-Raj Singh, who stated that on<\/p>\n
the previous date, i.e., 19.4.2002 he went to the shop of accused Surender to<\/p>\n
purchase a matchbox where he and the deceased were planning to have<\/p>\n
liquor, also should not be relied upon.\n<\/p>\n
            Learned counsel further pointed out that the FSL report (Ex.PJ)<\/p>\n
where the finger prints of tumbler (Ex.P11), empty plastic bottle (Ex.P12)
\n         Crl.A. No. 322-DB of 2003                                  -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
and empty half of liquor bottle (Ex.P13) were found to be tallying with the<\/p>\n
finger print of accused Surender, cannot be relied upon as those finger<\/p>\n
prints were sent to the FSL Laboratory after more than one month and<\/p>\n
before that, the same remained in the custody of the police. He submitted<\/p>\n
that the possibility of changing those prints at the behest of real uncle of the<\/p>\n
deceased, cannot be ruled out. Therefore, it is not safe to rely upon those<\/p>\n
evidence which has been collected by the police during the investigation.<\/p>\n
             Regarding accused Sham Lata, learned counsel submitted that<\/p>\n
there is no evidence on the record on the basis of which she can be<\/p>\n
convicted under Section 201 IPC. Learned counsel submitted that as far as<\/p>\n
charge of conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC is concerned, the same has<\/p>\n
not been proved and the trial Court has already come to the conclusion that<\/p>\n
the prosecution has failed to prove the said charge. As far as the offence<\/p>\n
under Section 201 IPC is concerned, the prosecution version is that after<\/p>\n
committing the crime, when accused Surender went to his house, his wife<\/p>\n
Sham Lata got removed the blood stained clothes from his body and after<\/p>\n
burning them, threw the ashes on the Kurdi of the village. Learned counsel<\/p>\n
submitted that to establish this allegation, except the FSL report (Ex.PJ),<\/p>\n
according to which, the ash was of cotton fabric, no other evidence has<\/p>\n
been led by the prosecution. Learned counsel further submitted that vide<\/p>\n
recovery memo (Ex.PS\/1), the alleged ash was recovered after seven days of<\/p>\n
the occurrence from the Kurdi of the village. Learned counsel submitted that<\/p>\n
it is a common knowledge that everyday in the village so much garbage is<\/p>\n
thrown in the Kurdi and that taking of the sample of the ash after seven days<\/p>\n
is not possible. Therefore, on the basis of the alleged evidence the<\/p>\n
conviction of the accused under Section 201 IPC is highly unsafe. Learned
\n         Crl.A. No. 322-DB of 2003                                 -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
counsel further argued that there are vital contradictions between the<\/p>\n
statement of PW2-Jagdish and the statements of other witnesses. Therefore,<\/p>\n
the statement of this witness is not trustworthy and cannot be relied upon.<\/p>\n
               On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State<\/p>\n
supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the<\/p>\n
trial Court.\n<\/p>\n
               After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going<\/p>\n
through the record of the case, we are of the opinion that as far as accused<\/p>\n
Surender is concerned, the prosecution has fully proved the commission of<\/p>\n
the offence of committing the murder of deceased Sunil son of Jagdish<\/p>\n
against him under Section 302 IPC. Therefore, he was rightly convicted by<\/p>\n
the trial Court under Section 302 IPC. Regarding commission of the offence<\/p>\n
under Section 201 IPC by both the accused is concerned, we are of the<\/p>\n
opinion that the same has not been established.\n<\/p>\n
               From the medical evidence available on the record, i.e., Post-<\/p>\n
mortem report (Ex.PA\/1) and the statement of PW1-Dr.Mahesh Parkash, it<\/p>\n
has been established that the deceased Sunil had died due to twelve injuries<\/p>\n
found on his person which were ante-mortem in nature and were sufficient<\/p>\n
to cause death. As per the prosecution, those injuries were caused by knife<\/p>\n
(Ex.P29) which was got recovered by the accused vide disclosure statement<\/p>\n
dated 27.4.2002(Ex.PL\/2). In his cross-examination, PW1 has stated that<\/p>\n
since the knife (Ex.P29) was having irregular edges specially of lower part,<\/p>\n
so injury no.3 could be caused by it. It was further stated by the said witness<\/p>\n
that this injury could be caused by the said weapon by means of cutting<\/p>\n
from those sharp points and not by way of thrusting. He further stated that<\/p>\n
injuries no.1 to 4 could be caused by this weapon when used vertically. The
\n         Crl.A. No. 322-DB of 2003                                 -10-<\/span><\/p>\n
suggestion put to this witness that this injury could not have been caused by<\/p>\n
the knife (Ex.P29), was denied by him. The other important factor, which<\/p>\n
was noticed during the post-mortem of the deceased, is that in the stomach<\/p>\n
of the deceased, there was liquid and undigested food and smell of alcohol<\/p>\n
was also present. This fact corroborated the prosecution version that before<\/p>\n
committing the murder of the deceased, liquor was consumed by the<\/p>\n
deceased. On the basis of a disclosure statement (Ex.PL) made by accused<\/p>\n
Surender about concealing the knife, the knife (Ex.P29), which was used in<\/p>\n
the crime, was got recovered by the accused vide recovery memo dated<\/p>\n
27.4.2002(Ex.PL\/2). The said recovery of knife has been duly proved by<\/p>\n
independent witness Om Parkash-PW14. In addition to this evidence, the<\/p>\n
prosecution has proved the finger prints of the accused on glass tumbler,<\/p>\n
empty plastic bottle and empty half of English liquor bottle lying at the<\/p>\n
place of the occurrence vide FSL Report (Ex.PJ). As per the prosecution<\/p>\n
version, Smt. Sudershan Kumari-PW11 was called from the S.P. office,<\/p>\n
Rohtak for taking finger prints from the glass, plastic empty bottle and one<\/p>\n
empty half of English wine, which were lying on the spot. In her statement<\/p>\n
as PW11, she has categorically stated that on 20.4.2002 she had gone to the<\/p>\n
spot and taken the finger prints from the glass, plastic empty bottle and one<\/p>\n
empty half of English wine, and thereafter, the finger prints of those articles<\/p>\n
were duly sealed. According to the FSL Report (Ex.PJ), the finger prints,<\/p>\n
which were found on these articles, are duly tallying with the finger prints<\/p>\n
of accused Surender. The contention of the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellants that those finger prints could not have been relied upon because<\/p>\n
the same were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory after more than 20<\/p>\n
days, cannot be accepted. On examination of the record, we found that after
\n         Crl.A. No. 322-DB of 2003                               -11-<\/span><\/p>\n
arrest of the accused, the finger prints of the accused were finally taken on<\/p>\n
10.5.2002 with the permission of the Court. Thereafter, the same were sent<\/p>\n
to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. We do not find any<\/p>\n
delay in sending the specimen finger prints as well as the finger prints<\/p>\n
collected at the spot for examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory.<\/p>\n
Even otherwise,Jai Narain-PW12, who had compared the finger prints of<\/p>\n
accused Surender, had stated that the finger prints taken by Smt.Sudershan<\/p>\n
Kumari on the spot were received in a sealed cover and the same was very<\/p>\n
much intact. Therefore, we find that there was no possibility of changing the<\/p>\n
finger prints taken from glass, plastic empty bottle and one empty half of<\/p>\n
English wine lying on the spot.\n<\/p>\n
            We have carefully examined the statement of PW5-Dilbagh<\/p>\n
Singh, before whom extra-judicial confession was made because the said<\/p>\n
witness is related to the complainant. The said witness is educated and also<\/p>\n
remained as Member of the Cooperative Society and was also a Member of<\/p>\n
Gram Sabha of village Bhagwatipur. In our opinion, he had no enmity with<\/p>\n
the accused and no reason to depose against him falsely, and his statement<\/p>\n
cannot be discarded only on the ground that he was related to the<\/p>\n
complainant.\n<\/p>\n
            Another important evidence available on the record is the<\/p>\n
statement of PW3-Jaswant Singh, who had last seen the deceased in the<\/p>\n
company of the accused. This witness has categorically stated that on<\/p>\n
19.4.2002 at about 8.00\/8.15 p.m. when he was returning from his fields,<\/p>\n
then he met accused Surender and deceased Sunil in the fields of Prem.<\/p>\n
Surender accused was having a tumbler and a bottle of water whereas Sunil<\/p>\n
was having a quarter of liquor with him. When he enquired from them
\n         Crl.A. No. 322-DB of 2003                                  -12-<\/span><\/p>\n
where they were going. Then they replied that they were going towards their<\/p>\n
fields. The statement of this witness, in our opinion, cannot be discarded<\/p>\n
merely on the ground that the police did not mention about the statement in<\/p>\n
their inquest report. This witness is an independent witness not related to<\/p>\n
either of the parties and there is no reason of his false deposing against the<\/p>\n
accused. Similarly, PW4-Raj Singh, who is another independent witness,<\/p>\n
had categorically stated that on 19.4.2002 when at about 7.45 p.m. when he<\/p>\n
had gone to the shop of the accused for purchasing matchbox, the accused<\/p>\n
and the deceased were in the shop and were about to take liquor. The<\/p>\n
testimony of this witness, in our opinion, cannot be doubted. Therefore,<\/p>\n
there is no reason for discarding the statement of this witness. Regarding<\/p>\n
motive, though the evidence is not clear, but the motive has also been<\/p>\n
established in this case. Since the wife of the accused Sham Lata and Sunil<\/p>\n
(deceased) were residing in the same village, and as per the facts came on<\/p>\n
the record the possibility of having illicit relation cannot be ruled out.<\/p>\n
             In our opinion, from all above facts and circumstances and<\/p>\n
evidence, the prosecution has clearly proved the commission of the offence<\/p>\n
of murder against accused Surender. In our opinion, all these facts and<\/p>\n
circumstances so established by the prosecution are consistent and are of a<\/p>\n
conclusive nature. The chain of the evidence is complete and there is no<\/p>\n
reasonable ground to come to the conclusion about the innocence of the<\/p>\n
accused. Thus, in our opinion, the trial Court has rightly come to the<\/p>\n
conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt against the accused<\/p>\n
beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, we confirm the conviction and sentence of<\/p>\n
accused Surender for the offence under Section 302 IPC for committing the<\/p>\n
murder of Sunil.\n<\/p>\n
         Crl.A. No. 322-DB of 2003                                 -13-<\/span><\/p>\n
            Now it is to be considered whether in light of the evidence<\/p>\n
available on the record, the conviction of accused Surender as well as<\/p>\n
accused Sham Lata under Section 201 IPC is to be sustained or not. The<\/p>\n
only allegation for committing the offence under Section 201 IPC is that<\/p>\n
when accused Surender went to his house after committing the offence, his<\/p>\n
wife Sham Lata had taken-off his blood stained clothes and after putting<\/p>\n
them on fire, she had thrown the ash in a Kurdi. The said ash was alleged to<\/p>\n
have been recovered from the said Kurdi after seven days vide recovery<\/p>\n
memo (Ex.PM\/1), and according to the FSL report, the said ash was of<\/p>\n
cotton fabric. In our opinion, this version of the prosecution is highly<\/p>\n
improbable and doubtful and cannot be believed. Generally, an ash put in a<\/p>\n
Kurdi cannot be found in the same position after a period of seven days. It is<\/p>\n
general experience that in the village, everyday the inhabitants of the village<\/p>\n
used to throw garbage in the Kurdi. Therefore, it cannot be believed at all<\/p>\n
that after seven days the ash, which was thrown by accused Sham Lata,<\/p>\n
could be found in the same position, and the same was taken into possession<\/p>\n
by the police at the instance of disclosure statement made by said accused.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the allegation of the prosecution that the accused had caused<\/p>\n
disappearance of the evidence and, thus, committed the offence under<\/p>\n
Section 201 IPC, cannot be believed. Except that evidence, there is no other<\/p>\n
material\/evidence available on the record. Consequently, in our opinion, the<\/p>\n
conviction of both the accused under Section 201 IPC cannot be sustained at<\/p>\n
all. Therefore, the conviction of both the accused for the said offence is<\/p>\n
hereby set aside.\n<\/p>\n
            In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. Since
\n         Crl.A. No. 322-DB of 2003                                -14-<\/span><\/p>\n
accused Sham Lata was only convicted under Section 201 IPC, therefore,<\/p>\n
she is acquitted of the charge levelled against her under Section 201 IPC.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                       (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL)\n                                                JUDGE\n\n\n\nJanuary 14, 2009                          ( DAYA CHAUDHARY )\nvkg                                            JUDGE\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Surender And Another vs State Of Haryana on 14 January, 2009 Crl.A. No. 322-DB of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.A. No. 322-DB of 2003 DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 14, 2009 Surender and another …..APPELLANTS Versus State of Haryana ….RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-48283","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSurender And Another vs State Of Haryana on 14 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surender-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-14-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Surender And Another vs State Of Haryana on 14 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surender-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-14-january-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-01-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-17T10:27:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surender-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-14-january-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surender-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-14-january-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Surender And Another vs State Of Haryana on 14 January, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-17T10:27:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surender-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-14-january-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3945,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surender-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-14-january-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surender-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-14-january-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surender-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-14-january-2009\",\"name\":\"Surender And Another vs State Of Haryana on 14 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-01-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-17T10:27:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surender-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-14-january-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surender-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-14-january-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/surender-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-14-january-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Surender And Another vs State Of Haryana on 14 January, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Surender And Another vs State Of Haryana on 14 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surender-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-14-january-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Surender And Another vs State Of Haryana on 14 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surender-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-14-january-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-01-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-17T10:27:53+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surender-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-14-january-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surender-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-14-january-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Surender And Another vs State Of Haryana on 14 January, 2009","datePublished":"2009-01-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-17T10:27:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surender-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-14-january-2009"},"wordCount":3945,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surender-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-14-january-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surender-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-14-january-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surender-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-14-january-2009","name":"Surender And Another vs State Of Haryana on 14 January, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-01-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-17T10:27:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surender-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-14-january-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surender-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-14-january-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/surender-and-another-vs-state-of-haryana-on-14-january-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Surender And Another vs State Of Haryana on 14 January, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48283","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=48283"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48283\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=48283"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=48283"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=48283"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}