Hukam Singh vs State Of Haryana

Sureshwar Thakur, J

The instant appeal is directed against the impugned verdict, as made on 18.7.2008, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Gurgaon, upon Sessions Case No. 96 of 2006, wherethrough, he proceeded to convict the accused, in respect of an offence punishable under Section 304-I of the IPC. Moreover, vide a separate sentencing order, drawn on 21.7.2008, he proceeded to impose, upon the convict, the sentence of life imprisonment qua an offence punishable under Section 304 Part 1 of the IPC, besides in respect thereof, imposed a sentence of fine, as comprised in a sum of Rs. 5,000/-, and, also, upon default of payment of fine amount, the convict became sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto a period of two years.

The convict becomes aggrieved from the above recorded verdict of conviction, and, also, from the consequent therewith sentence(s) of the imprisonment, and, of fine, as became imposed, upon him, and, hence becomes led to constitute thereagainst the instant appeal before this Court. Factual Background

The present convict was inmated in jail in FIR No. 332/2005, constituting therein offences punishable under Sections 302/201 of the IPC. During the spell of his being inmated in the prison concerned, he is alleged to murder deceased Ganesh, who was also inmated in jail, in respect of FIR No. 586/2006, constituting therein offences punishable under Sections 399/402 of the IPC.

In respect of the crime event, which occurred inside the prison, the Superintendent of Central Jail, Gurgaon, made an application on 7.10.2006 to the Incharge, Police Post Bhondsi, whereins allegations were made, that at about 2.00 P.M., on 7.10.2006, when accused Ganesh was in custody in FIR (supra), then the present convict, who was also inmated in the same prison, after lifting hearth (angithi), his striking the same on the head of the deceased Ganesh. The above striking of hearth (angithi), by the convict, on the head of deceased Ganesh, resulted in serious injuries, becoming entailed, upon his person. An alarm was raised by the Duty Warder, leading the Superintendent of the jail concerned, to open the block of the prison. The injured was removed to the jail hospital, from where he was referred to General Hospital, Gurgaon, where he was declared brought dead.

The above narrations, as carried in the appeal FIR, to which Ex. PN/1 is assigned, becomes rested, upon Ex. PA, which became authored by Superintendent, District Jail, Gurgaon. After registration of the FIR (supra), the investigating officer concerned, launched investigations into the appeal FIR, and after conclusion of investigations thereinto, he proceeded to CRA-D-637-DB-2010 (O&M) -3- institute a report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., before the learned committal Court concerned.

Committal Proceedings

The learned committal Court concerned, through an order made on 21.11.2006, proceeded to commit the accused for facing trial to the Court of Session.

Trial Proceedings

Consequently, the learned trial Judge concerned, after applying his mind, to the relevant incriminatory material, as became placed before him, came to a conclusion, that a prima face case for trying the accused for an offence under Sections 302 of the IPC is made out, as such, he drew a charge in respect thereof against the accused, and, also put the afore charge to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty, and, claimed trial.

In proof of its case, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses, and, thereafter the learned Public Prosecutor concerned, closed the prosecution evidence. Subsequently, the learned trial Judge concerned, proceeded to draw proceedings, under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., but thereins, the accused pleaded innocence, and, claimed false implication. The accused did not lead any witness, in his defence.

Submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant

The learned counsel for the aggrieved convict-appellant herein, has made an argument before this Court, (I) that the impugned verdict of conviction, and, consequent therewith sentences (supra), as imposed, upon the convict-appellant, require interference. He rests the above submission on the ground, that except for the drawing of a disclosure statement, and, also the thereafter made recoveries, as made through the apposite recovery memo, there is no credible ocular account in respect of the crime event. Therefore, he has submitted that even the above drawn memos loose their evidentiary worth. (II) Furthermore, he has submits that since the FSL concerned, in its report, to which Ex. PJ is assigned, has not thereins, hence on the examined relevant blood stained incriminatory items, rather made any conclusive opinion about the blood group(s) thereof, matching with the blood group of the deceased. Therefore, he contends that the evidentiary worth of the above memo(s) also becomes completely eroded.

Submissions of the learned State counsel

On the other hand, the learned State counsel has argued before this Court, that the judgment, as challenged before this Court, is well merited, and, does not warrant any interference.

Reasons for rejecting the above submission Depositions of the prosecution witnesses

PW-13, in his examination-in-chief, testifies that at the relevant time, he had heard emanation of noises from Block No. 9, to the effect that 'maar diya' 'maar diya'. He further testifies, that he along with his senior, went to Block No. 9, and, after opening the said block, both noticed that one Ganesh son of Niwaran, was in a serious injured condition, besides blood was oozing from his head. On an inquiry, being made resulted in the other inmates of Block No. 9, intimating him that the convict had struck Ganesh, with an angithi, as he was sleeping on the berth, allotted to the convict. Obviously, PW-13 was not an eye witness to the occurrence, but though, he deposed that an intimation about the convict striking the head of deceased Ganesh, with an angithi, was purveyed to him, by the other inmates, but yet when he has not revealed the names of the other co-inmates, nor when they stepped into the witness box, resultantly his testimony does not enclose any vivid ocular account, in respect of the crime event. Moreover, his testification, with respect to only an intimation, being made to him by co-inmates about the incriminatory participation of the convict, in the crime event, does also obviously become inadmissible hearsay evidence.

Motive for the crime

Be that as it may, the above occupation of the berth, allotted in the jail, to the present convict, being allegedly occupied, at the relevant time by deceased Ganesh, becomes propagated by the prosecution, to comprise the motive for the convict murdering the deceased Ganesh. Even if the taints (supra) are enveloping the testification of PW-13, but yet when PW-16, who is also a co-inmate in the prison concerned, makes an echoing, in his examination-in-chief, that when he was asleep, he heard the noise of dhamaka, which led him to arouse from slumber. He thereafter testifies, that it was then that he noticed, that the convict was standing near his bed, and, that blood was oozing from the head of Ganesh. He further testifies, that one bhatti was lying near Ganesh. Moreover, he testifies that when the investigating officer concerned, visited the crime site, and, made inquiries in his presence, from the convict about the relevant crime incident, then the convict replied that since the deceased, despite his making repeated requests to not sleep on the berth, allotted to him in the jail, the deceased rather not relenting, resultantly in his being led to commit the murder of the deceased.

Even if PW-16 did not witness the relevant crime event, but when he was in the close vicinity of the crime site, besides when he awoke from slumber, and, then he noticed that the convict was standing near his bed, and, blood was oozing from the head of Ganesh. Moreover, since he further deposed that a bhatti was lying near Ganesh, resultantly, the factum of presence of the convict in proximity of the deceased, as also, the factum of the convict in his presence, making a confession of guilt to the police, does clinch a conclusion from this Court, that the above made confession, in the presence of PW-16 to the police, fostering an inference from this Court, that it does carry some evidentiary vigour. The reason for forming the above inference becomes grooved in the factum, that in the cross-examination, as made, upon him, by the learned defence counsel, the latter excepting his eliciting an affirmative answer to a suggestion, that he was not an eye witness to the occurrence, rather meteing no further suggestion to him to bely the imperative fact of his, after arousing from slumber, his noticing the convict to be in the close proximity of the deceased. In addition no further suggestion became put to him to erode the effect of the vital echoing, occurring in his examination-in-chief, inasmuch as, appertaining to his speaking therein, that then he noticed that the bhatti was lying near Ganesh. Moreover also no suggestion became meted to PW-16 to bely his speakings, in his examination-in-chief that after his awakening from slumber, on his hearing a dhamaka, his then noticing that the convict was standing near his bed, and, also noticing that blood was oozing from the head of deceased Ganesh. Consequently, non-meteings of suggestions (supra), does stem a conclusion from this Court, that the confession of guilt, as made by the convict, to the police, in his presence, does become proven. Moreover, a further inference is also sparked, that the motive ascribed to the convict, inasmuch as, his becoming enraged from the deceased, rather not relenting to his repeated requests to vacate the berth allotted to the convict, hence ultimately resulting in the convict committing the crime event, also becoming fully established.

Disclosure statement

During the course of investigations, being made into the appeal FIR, the investigating officer concerned, recorded the thumb marked disclosure statement of the convict, to which Ex. PH is assigned. In Ex. PH, the convict, not only confessed his committing the offence, but also has proven the motive (supra), as became ascribed to him. A disclosure also occurs thereins, that the “hearth”, which he struck on the head of the deceased, was left by him at the spot.

Recovery memo

In pursuance to the thumb marked disclosure statement of the convict, to which Ex. PH is assigned, the “hearth”, which was struck on the head of the deceased, by the convict, was taken into possession vide recovery memo, to which Ex. PB is assigned, besides a blood stained blanket of the deceased was also taken into possession, through a recovery memo to which Ex. PB is assigned.

Inference from the above drawn memo(s)

Since the disclosure statement, Ex. PH is thumb marked by the convict, therefore, unless he had not only ably denied his thumb mark, as occurring thereons, but also had ably proven the denial, thereupon, alone probative sanctity may not have been assigned to Ex. PH, otherwise not. However, the above endeavour never became recoursed by the convict, resultantly the confession of guilt, as made thereins by the convict, acquires evidentiary strength. Since the relevant incriminatory recoveries were also made through Ex. PB, as such, that they too corroborate the thumb marked disclosure statement of the convict, as carried in Ex. PH, especially when the making of recovery memo (supra), is not proved to be either fictitious or invented.

Medical Evidence

The post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by PW-14, in the presence of PW-4, and, PW-5. PW-14, in his examination-in-chief, has proven the post-mortem report Ex. PM, which became co-authored by PW-14, and, Dr. Subhash Sindhu, whose signatrues on Ex. PM, also became identified by PW-14. During the course of his examination-in-chief, he has echoed, that on the above making of an autopsy on the body of the deceased, his noticing thereons the hereinafter extracted injuries.

“1. There was bleeding from left ear and from both nostrils of nose.

There was a contused abrasion on left side of face, nose centre of forehead and right cheek and size varied from 1 cm x .5 cm to 3cm x 3cm.

Hair of scalp were soaked in blood.

There were multiple hammragic over the brain with fracture temporal bone and there was overlying haemotoma over the scalp.

Brain was contused and there was bleeding around medulla oblomgata.”

The opinion, as carried therein about the demise of deceased, is extracted hereinafter.

“All injuries are ante mortem in nature and death in this case is due to hemorrhage, shock and injury to vital organs i.e. brain and sufficient to cause death in normal cause of life.”

Since the demise of the deceased is opined, in the post-mortem report, Ex. PN, to ensue from hemorrhage, and, shock, arising from head injuries, resultantly the above cause of demise of deceased Ganesh, falls in alignment with the thumb marked disclosure statement, as made by the convict, and, to which Ex. PH is assigned. In addition, corroboration therefrom is also acquired by the testification of co-inmate PW-16. Consequently, the verdict of conviction, as drawn by the learned convicting Court, against the convict, does not merit any interference.

FSL Report

Though, the FSL concerned, in its report, as made, upon the blood stained incriminatory items, as became sent to it for examination, and, to which Ex. PJ is assigned, has not made any conclusive opinion about the stains of blood carried on the relevant incriminatory items, belonging to the blood group of the convict, but yet no leverage can be drawn therefrom, by the convict. The reason being that apart, from the collection(s) besides despatch to the FSL concerned, of the above blood stained incriminatory items, the FTM card detailing thereins the blood group of the deceased, neither became collected from the family members of the deceased, by the investigating officer concerned, nor became sent to the FSL concerned. Since the collection by the investigating officer concerned, of the FTM card of the deceased, rather from his family members, was but imperative to ably facilitate the FSL concerned, to make apposite best comparisons, and, to thereafter make a conclusive opinion with respect to the blood stains, occurring on the relevant incriminatory items, belonging or not belonging to the blood group of the deceased.

Necessarily, the above omissions, do not reiteratedly, give any valid ground to the counsel, for the convict to argue, that through any inconclusive opinion about the stains of blood, as, carried on the relevant incriminatory items, rather belonging to the blood group of the deceased, that a verdict of acquittal, becoming pronounced qua the convict.

Final order

The result of the above discussion, is that, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal, and, is constrained to dismiss it. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned verdict of conviction, and, the consequent therewith sentence(s), as becomes imposed upon the convict-appellant, by the learned convicting Court, is maintained, and, affirmed. If the convict is on bail, thereupon, the sentence of life imprisonment, as imposed, upon the convict-appellant, be ensured to be forthwith executed by the learned trial Judge concerned, through his drawing committal warrants. The case property be dealt with, in accordance with law, but after the expiry of the period of limitation for the filing of an appeal.

Records be sent down forthwith.

The miscellaneous application(s), if any, is/are also disposed of.