Dilshad vs State of Haryana

A.N. Jindal, J.—Accused-appellant Dilshad (herein referred as ''the accused'') and Ismail (since acquitted) along with Sheru (since proclaimed offender) have been prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 427, 429, 332, 353, 486 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 8 of the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (herein referred as ''the Act''), on the allegations that they ran the truck bearing registration No. HR112054 loaded with wreck and feeble cows, over the police jeep causing injuries to C. Manohar Lal, Shamshudeen, Maqsood and HC Sarup Singh and damaging the jeep badly. Consequently, learned Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, vide its judgment dated 21.10.1999 convicted and sentenced the accused as under:

Under Section 307 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-. Under Section 332 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-. Under Section 353 IPC : Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-. Under Section 8 of the Act : Rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-.

All the substantive sentences were to run concurrently. However, accused Ismail was acquitted of the charges framed against him.

The brief resume of facts is that on 12.9.1996 HC Rajpal was present on Nuh Taoru road in connection with checking of cow slaughtering along with other police officials. In the meantime, secret information was received to the effect that Sheru son of Ahmad Ali after loading feeble and wreck cows in the truck bearing registration No. HR11-2054 for the purpose of slaughtering, was going towards Rajsthan through Chuharpur valley and on timely action, the cows could be saved from slaughtering. Finding the information to be reliable, a raiding party was organized and a private jeep bearing registration No. HR-6C-3063 owned by Maqsood was arranged and a trap was laid near Haryana Rajasthan border. In the meantime, the accused while driving truck loaded with cows came from Chor Chabutra Nuh Taoru road at a very high speed. Despite signal given to it, the truck was not stopped, but the accused Sheru, with an intention to kill the raiding party hit HC Sarup Singh as also the jeep as a result of which Manohar Lal, Shamshudeen and Maqsood Constables were also injured and the jeep was damaged. However, getting undue benefit of the accident, Sheru fled away. From the search of the truck, five dead cows, 14 wreck cows and 5-6 cows who were struggling for life were recovered. The accused and the truck were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PE. The jeep was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PF. Formal FIR Ex.PH was registered by ASI Baljit Singh for the offence punishable u/s 307/427/429/332/353/486 read with Section 34 IPC and u/s 4(a), 8(2) and 2/80 of the Act. Rough site plan Ex.PH was prepared, the injured were medically examined, statements of the witnesses were recorded and completion of the investigation was followed by a report u/s 173 Cr.P.C.

The accused were charged under Sections 307/332/353 read with Section 34 IPC and u/s 8 of the Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and opted to contest.

In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined C. Shamshudeen (PW1), HC Ram Singh (PW2), Madan Mohan Photographer (PW3), Dr. M.S. Ranga Medical Officer (PW4), HC Rajpal (PW5), HC Sarup Singh (PW6), ASI Bijender Singh (PW7), ASI Om Parkash (PW8), Hasan Mohammad Patwari (PW9), Razak (PW10) and Khursheed (PW11).

On closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. However, they did not lead any evidence in defence.

On scrutiny of the evidence, the trial court while acquitting the accused Ismail @ Ismaily, convicted Dilshad and sentenced him accordingly.

Arguments heard. Record perused.

At the very outset, learned Counsel for the appellant urged that no offence u/s 307 IPC could be made out from the facts and circumstances as led by the prosecution.

Having pondered over the arguments, no merit could be found in the same. Before discussing legal issues, I need to reproduce the medcial evidence. Dr. M.S. Ranga, Medical Officer (PW4), who on 12.9.1996, medically examined the injured found the following injuries on the person of Shamshudeen:

3 x 1 cms abrasion placed over the left patella, central region with no significant swelling or tenderness. Abrasion was red in colour.

Contused abrasion 2.5 cms x 2 cms placed over the right tibial tubersity anterio lateral aspect with moderate tenderness. However movements healthy, injury was bright red in colour.

Linear abrasion 4 cms placed over the dorsum of the left hand with no significant swelling or tenderness. However movements restricted.

He opined that the injuries No. 1 and 2 to be simple in nature and injury No. 3 was subjected to x-ray examination. All the injuries were caused with blunt weapon and the probable duration was six hours.

On the same day, he also medically examined HC Sarup Singh and found the following injuries on his person:

Swelling 4 cms x 2 cms placed over the dorsum of the right hand just below the wrist joint with moderate tenderness and restriction of the joint movements.

Lacerated wound superficial in depth placed over the left knee joint placed anterior laterally with no significant swelling or restriction of movements.

Abrasion 3 cms x 5 cms placed over the right elbow placed posterior laterally with no significant swelling of tenderness.

Contusion 4 cms x 2 cms placed over the right shoulder on posterior aspect with no significant swelling, tenderness or restriction of movements.

He declared the injuries No. 2 to 4 to be simple in nature caused with blunt weapon and the injury No. 1 was subjected to x-ray examination.

It may further be observed that the prosecution story stands established from the testimony of HC Rajpal (PW5) and HC Sarup Singh (PW6). Both being the injured witnesses have consistently re-iterated the prosecution version stating that Sher Mohd while driving truck bearing registration No. HR11-2054, loaded with the wreck and feeble cows, came from Gurgaon side and despite giving signal to stop the truck, he did not stop the same, rather tried to run over the jeep after hitting HC Sraup Singh. As a result of which, Shamshudeen, Manohar Lal and Maqsood constables were injured and the jeep was damaged. On search of the truck, out of the total 19 cows, 5 cows were found dead. They have also proved the possession memo Ex.PC regarding taking into possession the truck and the cows and the memo Ex.PF regarding taking jeep into possession. Both have withstood the test of cross examination. Their reliability and credibility could not be challenged in any manner. The mechanical report with regard to damage to both the vehicles has also been proved on the record so also the photographs of the spot.

Now coming to the prime contention that no offence u/s 307 IPC is made out. It would be relevant to reproduce Section 307 IPC which reads as under:

Section 307: Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as to hereinbefore mentioned.

On bare perusal of the section, in order that if a person is guilty of attempt to murder, the following ingredients of the offence must be present:

(a) an intention or knowledge of committing murder;

(b) the doing of an act towards it.

For the purpose of Section 307 IPC, what is important, is the intention or the knowledge and not the consequences of actual act done for the purpose of carrying out the intention. Section 307 IPC clearly contemplates an act which is done with an intention of causing death but which fails to bring out the intended consequences on account of the intervention of a cause operating independently of the volition of the agent. The nature of injury actually caused may some times afford a clue to find requisite intention to kill was present or not. But, in order to reach the conclusion as to if the offence falls u/s 307 IPC, the courts are to see whether the act irrespective of its result was done with the intention or knowledge and under the circumstances mentioned in the section. Thus, the prime feature to be examined is the intention and the knowledge of the accused and the circumstances under which it was done. The intention provides the act attributed to the accused, therefore, the intention is to be gathered from all the circumstances and not merely from the consequences that ensue. The nature of the weapon used, the manner in which it is used, the motive for the crime, severity of the blow, the part of the body where the injury is inflicted are some other factors that may be taken into consideration to determine the intention. Similar observations were made by the Apex Court incase Hari Kishan Vs. Sukhbir Singh and Others, .

Now taking the facts and circumstances of the present case, it may be reiterated that the police party consisting of the Investigating Officer and other police officials was present while holding a picket to nab the truck of the accused loaded with cows being taken for the purpose of slaughtering. The accused Sheru (since absconding) along with the accused came while driving the truck at a high speed knowing that he may not be apprehended, instead of obeying to the command of the Investigating Officer to stop the truck, tried to ran the same over the jeep injuring HC Rajpal and two other police officials and also damaging the jeep. The circumstances reveal that the accused Sheru as well as Dilshad appellant had shared the common intention to attack the police party, so that they could be successful in avoiding their arrest and taking away the truck loaded with cows. There was every likelihood of killing and injuring all the occupants of the jeep as well as HC Sarup Singh who was standing outside by running the jeep over them. The truck was not a such article that could not cause any death, as such the act of the accused is certainly covered u/s 307 IPC. The accused appear to have had the necessary intention and knowledge that if the truck is run over the jeep occupied by the police party, then they could be killed.

I also do not find any merit in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the cows were not being taken for slaughtering and mere recovery of the cows is not sufficient to prove the offence against the accused. This contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is brushed aside as sufficient material could be found on appreciation of the testimony of the witnesses that the accused were taking the cows for the purpose of slaughtering. All the three witnesses namely C. Shamshudeen (PW1), HC Rajpal (PW5) and HC Sarup Singh (PW6) have consistently stated that there were five dead cows in the truck. It is not explained by the accused in any manner that for what other purpose these dead cows were being taken by the accused.

Further more, the conduct of the accused that he instead of stopping the truck, on giving signal by the police, straight away hit the jeep causing injuries to the humans and the cows in the truck also. Had there been any other motive with the accused, then they would have immediately explained to the police about the purpose for which these cows were being taken. The motive which lay hidden in the minds of the accused came out when they tried to fled away while leaving cows at the spot.

Another circumstance that they were apprehended near the border of Rajasthan while going through the hilly terrain with the accused feeble and wreck cows also goes a long way to prove that the accused were carrying the cows for the purpose of slaughtering. Non examination of the doctor who had examined the cows is not in any way fatal to the prosecution case.

No other argument has been raised.

Thus, from the medical, oral as well as the documentary evidence on record, it is fully established that the accused tried to commit murder of the police party who were present at the picket in order to nab them by hitting their jeep, as a result of which three police officials were injured. No plausible defence has been led in order to explain as to how the occurrence had taken place and for what purpose they were taking the cows.

Now coming to the quantum of sentence, the accused-appellant appears to be dare devil. He and his companions had no respect or regard to the police machinery who is one of a major organizations of the State to check the crime. They pre-planned and attacked them in order to achieve their own object. As such, the appellant does not deserve any leniency on the quantum of sentence.

Resultantly, finding no merit in the appeal the same is dismissed.