Ram Singh and Others vs State of Haryana

A. N. Jindal, J.—This judgment shall dispose of Crl. Appeal No. 701-DB of 2002 and Crl. Revision No. 2266 of 2002, as both have

arisen out of the same judgment. For reference, facts are taken from Criminal Appeal No. 701-DB of 2002.

Inter se rivalry between the parties was allegedly the cause for the accused to brutally murder Mahabir @ Tunda, which led to the prosecution

of accused-appellants Ram Singh, Ranbir Singh and Virender alias Kala (hereinafter referred to as the accused), who vide judgment dated

08.08.2002, were ultimately convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each, u/s 302 read

with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC).

Ram Singh and Virender alias Kala have expired. Therefore, the appeal qua them stands abated and the same survives only qua accused

Ranbir.

The factual matrix of the case is that the accused and the deceased had been indulging into the narcotics. The accused were doubting that

Mahabir (deceased) wanted to get Naresh son of Ram Singh-accused arrested. The police had chased Naresh, but he ran away; met with an

accident and died. As such, the accused were nursing a grudge against Mahabir @ Tunda.

On 05.07.2000, complainant-Pirthi along with his son Ram Singh was going to his field located on the eastern side of village Bari. At about 6.30

a.m, when they reached near the land of Karan Singh Pandit, his son Mahabir @ Tunda also came there. As soon as he reached near the land of

Nathi, all the three accused armed with iron ''davs'' (sharp cutting instrument) came on a scooter from the side of village Bari, after alighting from

the scooter, they stopped the cycle of Mahabir. Thereafter, Ram Singh exhorted that the deceased had helped the police in arresting Naresh,

therefore, he should be eliminated. At this, Mahabir, after leaving his cycle, started running towards the village to save himself. But, all the three

accused chased him. When Mahabir entered the land of Lakhi, Virender inflicted a ''dav'' blow while aiming at his neck, but in a bid to ward off the

blow, Mahabir put his left hand on the neck. Therefore, he received injury on the palm of his left hand. The witnesses tried to save the deceased,

but they were threatened by the other two accused that if they came near, then they would also be finished. After receiving the injury, Mahabir still

rushed and reached the field of Mai Dhan, where Virender again inflicted a ''dav'' blow on his neck. Resultantly, Mahabir fell down, whereupon

Virender inflicted number of injuries on the back of his head. Ranbir and Ram Singh also inflicted ''dav'' blows on his face, forehead and nose.

After the accused presumed that Mahabir had died, they dragged him up to the Jawar and Maize crop of Nathi, then after leaving him there, they

ran away towards village Bari on their scooter. Thereafter, the witnesses reached near Mahabir and found him dead. Pirthi went to the village to

inform her family members, whereas Ram Singh stayed there, but Pirthi again went to the spot and then went to the police station, however,

Investigating Officer met him near Ganaur, G.T., Road, where he got recorded his statement Ex.PA, on the basis of which, FIR Ex.PA/1 was

registered. Case was investigated. The Investigating Officer visited the spot, conducted the inquest report, dispatched the dead body for

postmortem examination, arrested the accused and got the weapons of offence recovered from them. On completion of investigation, charge

report was submitted in the Court.

On commitment, all the accused were charged for the offences u/s 302 read with Section 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed

trial.

In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses in all.

HC Jaipal Singh (PW-1), has deposed that on 05.07.2000 on receipt of the ruqa, Ex.PA, a formal FIR Ex.PA/1 was registered. On the same

day, Jagdish Parshad, Inspector, had deposited four sealed parcels with him, then on 14.07.2000, he had sent the said four sealed parcels to

F.S.L. Madhuban through Constable Hargian Singh. On 15.07.2000, Jagdish Chander, SHO, had deposited with him one sealed parcel

containing ''dav''. On 31.07.2000, he had deposited two sealed parcels containing ''dav'' with him. Then on 21.08.2000, he had sent all the three

parcels containing ''davs'' to F.S.L. Madhuban.

HC Dharambir Singh, (PW-2), has stated that on 21.08.2000, he had taken sealed parcels to F.S.L. Madhuban and deposited the same with

the seals intact.

HC Hargian Singh, (PW-3), has also supported the testimony of Jaipal (PW-1) by furnishing duly sworn affidavit Ex.PB.

Dr. A.S. Ahlawat, Medical Officer, Govt. Hospital, Sonepat (PW-4), had conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Mahabir on

05.07.2000 at 5.00 p.m. and observed the following injuries:

There was partial amputation of the neck at the level of C-1 vertebra. The margins of the wound were sharp edged. Only skin and muscles were

left in the anterior part of the neck. There was total amputation of vertebral column, spinal cord, eosophagus, trachea, blood vessels nerves. Only

few muscles and skin were spared in the anterior part of the neck. Clotted blood was present in and around the wound.

There were multiple incised wounds present all over the scalp (7 in number). The wounds were of varying sizes from 4 cms to 7 cms in length

and 0.5 cm in width. Clotted blood was present.

An incised wound measuring 7 cms x 1 cm was present on the right side of face. The wound was horizontally placed in front of the right ear.

An incised wound present on the dorsum of nose and right lateral surface of nose. The wound was 5 cms x 0.5 cm in dimension.

An incised wound 3 cms x 0.5 cm present over inner part of medial 1/3rd of left eyebrow which was horizontally placed.

Incised wound 2.5 cms x 0.25 cm vertically placed over forehead above left eyebrow.

Incised wound 6 cms x 0.5 cms was present over palm of left hand.

Incised wound 3 cms x 0.5 cm was present on dorsum of left hand.

Incised wound 4 cms x 2 cms present over the left thumb. On exploration, the underlying bone was fractured.

He also observed that brain and spinal cord were healthy. Other organs were also found healthy. Left side of the heart was empty, whereas the

right side was full of blood. All the organs in the abdomen were healthy. However, the large intestine, liver, spleen, kidney, bladder and organs of

generation were healthy and pale. He opined that the cause of death was due to haemmorhage and shock as a result of injuries described in the

postmortem report. He also stated that the time elapsed between injuries and death was instantaneous and the time elapsed between the death and

postmortem was 6 to 36 hours. While proving the copy of postmortem report Ex.P3, he identified the signatures of Dr. Purnima and Dr. Versha

over it, who were the members of the team with him at the time of conducting the autopsy. The Doctor was also shown the weapons of offence as

Ex.P1, Ex.P2 and Ex.P3. He opined that the injuries on the person of Mahabir could possibly be caused with the said wepons Ex.P1, Ex.P2 and

Ex.P3, shown to him. No effective cross-examination, except asking a question about food and a suggestion, was conducted upon this witness.

Med Singh, Patwari (PW-5), had prepared the scaled site plan.

PW-6 Pirthi Singh is the complainant and PW-7 Ram Singh is also his son and eye witness to the occurrence. Both have reiterated the

prosecution version.

On closure of the prosecution evidence, when examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing

against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. They have further stated that Mahabir-deceased was a vagabond and smuggler dealing

in the narcotic drugs and illicit liquor. He was murdered by somebody in the night, about which, they were informed by the owner of the fields,

where the dead body was lying. After reaching there, the complainant concocted the prosecution version and falsely involved them. After tendering

12 documents in defence, the accused closed their defence. The trial resulted into conviction.

Arguments heard. Record perused.

Learned counsel for the appellants-accused urged that the occurrence had taken place in the summer season in the fields of Lakhi, Nathi Singh

and Mai Dhan, which was a paddy sowing season. The owners of the fields were not examined to support the prosecution version. Even the

inquest report, the recovery memos Ex.PF, Ex.PG, Ex.PH, Ex.PJ, Ex.PK and Ex.PK/1 bore the signatures of Ram Singh and his sons, but none

came to attest the recovery memos, which indicates that all was not well with the case and the witnesses were highly interested to implicate them

falsely in the case. The presence of rigor mortis indicates that the occurrence did not take place at the time as indicated by the prosecution.

Having given our thoughtful consideration, we are not inclined to approve the arguments advanced by Shri R.S. Cheema, learned Senior

Advocate. Both the parties appear to be criminals, indulging in the business of narcotics. It has come in evidence that the motive behind the crime

was also that the police wanted to arrest Naresh son of accused-Ram Singh at the instance of Mahabir-deceased. Some cases were also pending

against Mahabir. Thus, apparently the accused had motive against Mahabir as he was the cause behind the death of Naresh.

As regards non-associating of independent witnesses, the witnesses were hailing from communal tribe and were not seeing eye to eye,

therefore, in such a situation, nobody comes forward to assist the prosecution agency for a fear of being eliminated or otherwise damaged, if they

support either party. Therefore, in case of a dispute between such parties, people try to keep themselves aloof and not siding any of the parties.

Even otherwise, nothing has come on the record, if the owners of the side by fields or those in whose fields the occurrence took place, were

present at the time of occurrence, but evidence reveals that some people had come after the occurrence and were seen when Ram Sing had

returned to the place of occurrence. The alleged recovery memos having been proved by the Investigating Officer and the weapons of offence, as

shown to the Doctor, so recovered from the accused, authenticate the recovery memos. The medical evidence is quite consistent with the ocular

version. The Doctor has specifically stated that the injuries could be caused with the ''davs'' Ex.P1 to Ex.P3, as recovered from the accused. At

the same time, it is noticed that the Investigating Officer when confronted with the fact of non-joining of the independent witnesses, specifically

stated that Sarpanch and other respectables of the village were asked to join the investigation, but they expressed their inability. The ''davs'' were

recovered from the accused u/s 27 of the Evidence Act. The said weapons are of specific variety and were got recovered by them from secluded

places, which were beyond the access of the general public. Such places could not be accessed to unless these are disclosed specifically. No

amount of cross-examination was conducted in order to vitiate the disclosure statements and the recoveries.

As regards the delay in lodging the FIR, it may be observed that there is no such delay which may invite some exaggeration, adition or

concoction in the prosecution version. No embellishment appears to have been made by the police. The occurrence in the case took place at about

6.30 a.m. Pirthi Singh (complainant) after leaving Ram Singh near the dead body, came to the village to inform the villagers and his relatives.

Thereafter, they all went to the place of occurrence and then he went to the police station when the Investigating Officer met the complainant

outside the Police Chowki in Ganaur Chowk, G.T. Road. He had to cover a distance of 8 kilometres for lodging the report. Some time must have

been spent to reach the Police Station. The statement of the complainant was completed at 11.30 a.m., on the basis of which, FIR was recorded

forthwith, which reached the Illaqa Magistrate at 4.45 p.m. Even otherwise, both the witnesses are quite consistent in their statements regarding the

time, place and the manner in which the occurrence had taken place. The doctor has identified that the injuries on the body of deceased could be

result of the ''Davs'' Ex.P1, Ex.P2 and Ex.P3, as recovered from the accused. Such a large number of injuries (i.e. fifteen) could not be the handi-

work of one person.

It is settled by now that where there is consistent testimonies of the eye witnesses supported by medical evidence, then the delay, if any,

assumes insignificance. The delay in this case stands duly explained.

Regarding the presence of the witnesses Pirthi Singh and Ram Singh at the time of occurrence, it may be observed that on examination of the

testimonies, we are not inclined to accept the contention and they also cannot be described as chance witnesses. The witnesses had their field

towards that side. It was the summer season. It is a matter of common experience that people in the villages, in such a sowing season go to their

fields to prepare the land to make it fit for sowing. The witnesses in all simplicity have stated that they were unarmed. As such, on the threat given

by the accused, they stayed back as the accused were armed with deadly weapons. The argument that if the witnesses were there, then they would

not have remained unharmed, also does not carry weight, as accused had a grudge against Mahabir for having a serious doubt against him that

Naresh son of Ram Singh-accused died on account of his fault. They were doubting that Mahabir had complained to the police against him and he

wanted Naresh to be arrested, but Naresh, in the process of running, was involved in the accident and died. As such, the accused were blindly

after Mahabir to suck his blood and they made him their target. The witnesses being unarmed did not intervene out of fear and accused having

grudge against Mahabir, the accused had chased the deceased and attacked him with deadly weapons.

The prosecution has also duly explained the injuries caused by the accused. All the injuries could not be explained by the witnesses as not only

one or two injuries, but at least 15 injuries were caused by them and it was very difficult to give narration regarding all of them. Some minor

discrepancies were indicated in order to belie their presence at the spot. It has been urged that Pirthi Singh testified that Ram Singh exhorted to kill

Mahabir-deceased, as he had helped the police in arresting Naresh @ Tunda, whereas Ram Singh had stated that Naresh was nabbed by the

police at the instance of Mahabir. In respect of this discrepancy, it may be stated that the discrepancy came on account of the way of talking by

these illiterate and simpleton witnesses. Actually, Ram Singh had intended to say that the police wanted to arrest Naresh, as Pirthi Singh clarified in

the subsequent part of the statement that Naresh was chased by the police when he met with the accident and died.

As regards the other discrepancy that PW-6 Pirthi Singh had stated that the accused had inflicted injuries on the head, neck and face of

Mahabir when he was lying, but PW-1 Ram Singh has stated that two injuries were inflicted on the person of Mahabir when he was running,

whereas, PW-6 Pirthi Singh has categorically stated that Mahabir received two injuries while he was running to save himself and while remaining

injuries were inflicted by the accused when Mahabir was lying on the ground. Further PW-6 Pirthi Singh has stated that accused inflicted injuries in

the fields of Mai Dhan, but PW-7 Ram Singh has stated that accused inflicted injuries in the field of Mahabir, but during the cross-examination, he

clarified that the occurrence took place in the field of Mai Dhan.

Having perused these discrepancies, it transpires that the discrepancies are not so material as to affect the substratum of the case. Actually,

two injuries were caused by Virender-accused when the deceased was in the process of running and the remaining injuries were caused by all the

three accused when he had fallen down in the field of Mai Dhan. The testimony of Ram Singh to the effect that the accused inflicted injuries in the

field of Mahabir, appears to be due to slip of tongue as it is nobody''s case that the deceased was inflicted injuries in the field of Mahabir. The

aforesaid minor discrepancies are bound to occur with the passage of time and are rather indicative of the truthfulness and naturalness of their

depositions. The witnesses are not expected to make parrot like version.

We are also unable to approve the contention of learned Senior counsel for the accused that the occurrence did not take place at the time as

indicated by the prosecution. In this regard, it is noticed that the occurrence, as stated, took place at 6.30 a.m., whereas postmortem was

conducted on the same day at 5.00 p.m. Postmortem report Ex.PC, reveals that rigor mortis was present on the body. As per Medical

Jurisprudence, the rigor mortis starts within 2/3 hours, sets in completely within 12 hours and then it starts receding and disappears completely after

another 12 hours.

As regards the, defence, the counsel for the appellants-accused has taken us through the applications Ex.D8 to Ex.D11 and postal receipts

Ex.D12 to Ex.D18 dated 18.07.2000, 21.08.2000 and 21.09.2000. These applications have not been proved according to law. In any case, the

same are much after the occurrence and could be an after thought version. The fact that Mahabir was involved in some cases, does not in any

manner affect the prosecution version, as the presence of the witnesses at the spot stands proved and they have given minute details of the

occurrence. They had no reason to substitute the accused by the real culprits. As such, no reliance could be placed on the defence set up by the

accused.

No other argument has been advanced.

Thus, for the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused-

appellant Ranbir beyond reasonable doubt. As such, finding no merit in Criminal Appeal No. 701-DB of 2002 qua Ranbir, the same is hereby,

dismissed.

Since the appellant Ranbir is on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled and he is directed to surrender himself before the jail authorities

immediately for completing remainder of sentence, failing which, the concerned authority shall proceed against the appellant in accordance with

law.

Finding no merit in Criminal Revision No.2266 of 2002, preferred by complainant Pirthi Singh and others, the same is also dismissed.