Karam Chand vs State of Haryana

Pritpal Singh, J.

Karam Chand, Surinder, Rajpal, Om Parkash, Iqbal, Bhim Singh, Billu alias Amar Singh and Buta alias Jagdish, residents of village Debarki in district Karnal, have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, and each of them has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. They have been convicted under Section 148 of the Code and sentenced to three months'' undergo imprisonment, each. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. From this order two appeals have arisen; one filed by Karam Chand, Surinder, Rajpal, Prem and Om Parkash (Crl. Appeal No. 336DB of 1985) and the other by Iqbal, Bhim Singh, Billu alias Singh and Buta alias Jagdish (Crl. Appeal No. 357DB of 1985). For obvious reasons both the appeals are being decided together.

Karam Chand, Surinder and Rajpal accused are brothers. Iqbal accused is their cousin. Prem and Om Parkash accused are also brothers and so are Bhim Singh, Billu alias Amar Singh and Buta alias Jagdish. Sucha Singh deceased, who is the murder victim in this case, had criminal litigation with Om Parkash, Prem, Rajpal, Surinder and Iqbal accused. The relations between the deceased and the accused were, therefore, strained. Gist of the prosecution case is that on February 5, 1985 the deceased Sucha Singh along with his mother Gurbachan Kaur (PW5) and brother Davinder Singh (PW6) left their framehouse, situated at a distance of about 11/2 K.M. from village Debarki at about 4.00 p.m. to go to village Nalipur in order to realize money from one Nakli Ram who was their erstwhile servant. They reached near the school of village Debarki at about 5.00 p.m. All the nine accused emerged from behind the school building. Three of them, namely, Karam Chand, Surinder and Rajpal were armed with lathis and the rest of them unarmed. They surrounded Sucha Singh deceased. The accused armed with lathis started showering lathi blows on him felling him to the ground and thereafter further lathi blows were given to him while he was lying down. The remaining accused gave him fist blows Gurbachan Kaur (PW5) and Davinder Singh (PW6) ran away to their farmhouse from where they brought a cart to the place of occurrence and found that Sucha Singh was lying unconscious. The accused had already left the spot. Sucha Singh was brought to the Civil Hospital, Karnal, at 11.15 p.m. where he succumbed to the injuries at 5 minutes past midnight. Dr. Susheel Kumar Bathla (PW2) sent information to the Police Station Sadar, Karnal. In pursuance thereof Assistant Sub Inspector Madan Lal (PW7) reached the hospital and recorded the statement of Gurbachan Kaur (PW5) at 1.35 a.m. On the basis of this statement of formal First Information Report was registered at the Police Station. A.S.I. Madan Lal prepared the inquest report (Exhibit PD/3) and subsequently arrested the accused.

Autopsy performed on the dead body of Sucha Singh by Dr. N.K. Mehta (PW.3) revealed the following injuries :

(1) 2 cms. x 1 cm. contusion was present on the forehead, 5 cms. above the right eyeblow.

(2) Irregular shaped 5 cms. x 1.15 cm. contusion on the left side forehead 4 cms. above the eyeblow.

(3) On the outer aspect of nose, contusion 2 cms. x 1 cm and on opening the nasal bone was fractured. Bleeding from both the nostrils was present.

(4) Left eye lids were swollen, odematous, reddish bluish coloured and also adjoining lateral forehead was contused.

(5) Just lateral to injury No. 4 there was a boggy swelling 5 cms. x 4 cms. skin was contused. On opening the scalp there was haematoma below the scalp underlying parietal bone was fractured in pieces. Underlying brain was lacerated. Subdural and intercerebral haematoma was present.

(6) 2.5 cms. from the mid line of the neck in middle part on the left side, contusion of 3 cms. x 11 cm. was present.

(7) Contusion 1 cm. x 1 cm. was present on the right ear lobule.

(8) On the right shoulder contusion 2 cms. x 1 cm. on the outer aspect was present.

(9) On the back of the chest and trunk there were multiple irregular contusions which were present more on the back of trunk.

(10) On the back of trunk, railway track bruise extending from the inferior angle of right scapula ending towards midline, 25 cms. below the root of neck. The length was 24 cms. and width of each bruise was 1 cm. and the distance between the two bruises was 1.5 cms.

(11) 20.5 cms. below injury No. 10 similar railway track bruise was present in the same direction.

(12) 11 cms. below the right shoulder on outer aspect of arm. Railway track bruise of similar width and distance as described injury No. 11 was present. Length was 7 cms.

(13) 10 cms. below injury No. 12 similar (railway) track bruise on the arm were present.

(14) On the both buttocks there were multiple railway track bruises and contusions.

(15) On the left shoulder on outer aspect contusion 20 cms. x 10 cms.

(16) 1.5 cms. x 1 cm. contusion on the left upper thigh 3 cms. below the anterior iliac spine.

(17) Contusion 2.5. cms. x 1 cm. on the lateral part of left thigh, 12 cms. x below the anterior iliac spine.

(18) 0.5 cm. x 0.75 cm. contusion on the dorsum of left hand in middle part.

(19) 3.5 cms. x 1 cm. contusion on the left leg, 2 cms. below kneecap.

(20) 3 cms. x 0.5 cm. contusion on the left leg, 10 cms. below the tibial spine.

(21) 2.3 cms. x 1.5 cms. contusion on the right kneecap.

In the opinion of the doctor these injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Injury No. 5 in dividually was also sufficient to cause death.

The prosecution case was supported by Gurbachan Kaur (PW5) and Davinder Singh (PW6) at the trial. The accused, when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, denied complicity in the crime and alleged false implication. The learned trial Court, placing reliance on the testimony of the eyewitnesses convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned above.

We have scrutinised the evidence with the help of the learned Counsel. The crucial point to be decided in this case is whether Gurbachan Kaur (PW5) and Davinder Singh (PW6) were present when injuries were causd to Sucha Singh deceased. There are certain interest infirmities in the prosecution case which indicate that the witnessing of the occurrence by the alleged eyewitnesses is not free from doubt. It is stated that the deceased and the eyewitnesses were proceeding from their farmhouse to village Nalipur in order to realize some money from their previous servant Nakli Ram. The statement of Gurbachan Kaur (PW5) indicates that route to village Nalipur from their farmhouse was from the backside of the school of village Dabarki and not from the front of the school. The place of occurrence is, however, in front of the school building. This place did not fall in the route and there is no explanation as to why the deceased and the eyewitnesses had come in front of the school. Thus, the prosecution story regarding the deceased and the eyewitnesses proceeding from their farmhouse to village Nalipur becomes doubtful.

Then there is the subsequent conduct of the eyewitnesses which is most unnatural. Statedly the accused had surrounded the deceased in their presence and had started giving injuries to him. The natural reaction of the mother and the brother of the deceased was expected to be their rushing to the nearby village abadi to secure help in order to save the deceased. However, surprisingly both the eyewitnesses went away to their farmhouse which is at a distance of 11/2 kms. and returned to the place of occurrence after two hours, Admittedly, they did not talk about the occurrence with anyone during this period. This unnatural conduct of the mother and brother of the deceased is indicative of the fact that they were probably not present when the occurrence took place.

The manner in which the accused are stated to have inflicted injuries on the deceased as deposed by the eyewitnesses is also unbelievable. Their averment is that after the deceased fell on the ground, Karam Chand, Surinder and Rajpal accused showered lathi blows on him and simultaneously the remaining accused gave him fist blows. As to how this was possible is beyond our comprehension. If the unarmed accused were giving fist blows to the accused learning over him, the accused armed with lathis could not have simultaneously given lathi blows to him. The eyewitness account of the occurrence is, therefore, most improbable and unworthy of reliance. Another fact worth noticing is that the statement of Davinder Singh (PW6) was recorded by A.S.I. Madan Lal (PW7) at 3.30 p.m. on February 6, 1985 i.e. almost 24 hours after the occurrence. The explanation offered by the eyewitnesses is that after the death of Sucha Singh (PW6) he went away to inform the relations. He admitted that he returned to the hospital at about 7.00 a.m. and at that time A.S.I. Madan Lal (PW7) was present. Even if the story regarding the going away of Davinder Singh (PW6) to inform the relations is accepted, there is no explanation why his statement was not recorded at 7.00 a.m. when he returned to the hospital and why the recording of his statement was deferred till 3.30 p.m.

From all these facts we find that the presence of Gurbachan Kaur (PW5) and Davinder Singh (PW6) at the time of occurrence cannot be accepted without reservations. On the contrary, it is doubtful that they had witnessed the occurrence and it will be hazardous to convict the accused on their testimony.

Taking this view, both the appeals are allowed, the conviction and sentence of the appellants are set aside and they are hereby acquitted.

Appeals allowed.