Ramesh Kumar vs State of Haryana

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—This appeal has been brought by Ramesh Kumar, Appellant, against judgment dated 29.11.2001 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra holding him guilty and convicting him for the offence punishable u/s 302 of the I.P.C. and order of sentence dated 3.12.2001 sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of which, to further undergo imprisonment for two years. The case set up against the Appellant by Police Station, Sadar Thanesar is as under:

Satnam Singh, a resident of Taraori, District Karnal had taken some agricultural land in the area of village Samani, District Kurukshetra on lease. He has been cultivating the same by employing Jagdish Chand son of Bakhtawara Ram, resident of village Shamgarh, District Karnal as ''siri'' (crop sharer)/ servant. He had also Ramesh Kumar, Appellant, in his employment as driver on his tractor, used for cultivation of that land.

On 11.7.2000 at about 7.30 P.M., Ram Kumar, PW13, a cousin brother of Jagdish Chand (deceased) came to see him at the tubewell of said Satnam Singh. Ram Kumar had been coming often to see him there. When on 11.7.2000, Ram Kumar reached there, he found the Appellant and Jagdish Chand abusing each other. On his enquiry, the Appellant told him that Jagdish Chand had promised to prepare chicken in the evening, but he had failed to keep his promise. Ram Kumar pacified both of them and staying thereafter there for some time, he came back.

On 11.7.2000, Baldhari,PW11, along with Subhash, his relation, had gone to Nilokheri to book tent articles for ''Devi Jagran''. At about 11.30 P.M., they started back from Nilokheri for village Jirbadi, District Kurukshetra. They were pedaling their cycles. At about 12.30 or 12.45 A.M., they were near a liquor vend situated on the road in the area of village Samani adjoining the fields of said Satnam Singh. They noticed a person coming running to the road from the side of fields of Satnam Singh. Baldhari and Subhash spotted him and on being spotted, he stopped there. On enquiry, that person told his name as Ramesh Kumar. He also told that he was employed as driver on the tractor of Satnam Singh and that he was going to Taraori. Thereafter, Baldhari and Subhash went to village Jirbadi and the Appellant left towards Taraori.

On 11.7.2000 itself, Ajmer Singh, a cousin brother of Jagdish Chand, deceased, had gone to village Charuni Jattan to see his in-laws. He left that place on 12.7.2000 for village Shamgarh. He was driving his car. On the way, he thought of seeing Jagdish Chand, his cousin brother in village Samani. He came to the tubewell of Satnam Singh where Jagdish Chand was working as ''siri''. When he reached the same, he found the door of the room of tubewell of Satnam Singh lying open. He did not find Jagdish Chand in the said room. Ajmer Singh looked around for Jagdish Chand and he was shocked to find the dead body of Jagdish Chand lying in a nearby water-course. He noticed a ''parna'' wrapped around the neck of Jagdish Chand. He also saw that two teeth of Jagdish Chand were missing. Ajmer Singh was able to notice other injury mark on the chin of Jagdish Chand and saw some blood lying near the dead body. He also noticed some drag-marks from the room of the tubewell to the place where the dead body was lying. Hearing about some murder having taken place at the tubewell of Satnam Singh, Baldhari along with Subhash came there. Ajmer Singh, while asking Baldhari and Subhash to keep a watch on the dead body of Jagdish Chand, as also at the place of occurrence, started for Police Station, Sadar Thanesar. He, however, came across Bir Bhan, S.I., S.H.O., Police Station, Sadar Thanesar at Umri Chowk, Kurukshetra. He lodged a report with the S.H.O. at that place. His statement, Exhibit PK was recorded on which Bir Bhan endorsed his recommendation, Exhibit PK/1 for registration of the case and had sent the same to Police Station, Sadar Thanesar. On the basis of the same, F.I.R., Exhibit PK/2 was recorded. Bir Bhan, S.I.,S.H.O. then accompanied Ajmer Singh to the place of occurrence. He conducted inquest proceedings with respect to the dead body of Jagdish Chand. He then dispatched the dead body of Jagdish Chand with Head Constable Tek Chand giving him a written request for conducting post mortem examination on the dead body at LNJP Hospital, Kurukshetra. In the meanwhile, Mehar Chand, District Police Inspector, Kurukshetra reached the spot and took up the investigation from Bir Bhan, S.I., S.H.O.

On 12.7.2000 itself, at about 10.00 P.M., Narsing Dass, PW12 was present in ''Baithak'' of his house in village Shamgarh with Krishan Kumar, a Panch of his village. The Appellant came there and told Narsing Dass that he had committed a blunder. He further disclosed that he was employed as driver on the tractor of Satnam Singh, who had taken some land in the area of village Samani on lease. He further revealed that Jagdish Chand was also employed as ''siri'' by the said Satnam Singh. He then disclosed that on the previous night, he had a tiff with Jagdish Chand during which they exchanged abuses. He further disclosed that he then picked up the lift of the tractor which was lying there and caused a blow with the same on the neck of Jagdish Chand. It was also disclosed by him that Jagdish Chand then fell down on the ground on receipt of the said blow. He then gave another blow with the lift on the mouth of Jagdish Chand and then he took up a knife which was used there for cutting vegetables and caused a blow with the same on the neck of the deceased. It was then stated by the Appellant that Jagdish Chand then became unconscious, but he did not stop there and wrapped ''parna'' of Jagdish Chand round his neck and strangulated him and dragged him and threw him in the water-course near the tubewell. He further stated that he kept sitting on the chest of Jagdish Chand till he was sure that Jagdish Chand had died. He also disclosed that when he was running towards G.T. Road and reached the road, he came across two cyclists, who were coming from the side of Nilokheri and told his name and about his employment with Satnam Singh to those persons on enquiry. He further claimed that he had lost his peace of mind and on account of being greatly disturbed, he wanted to surrender before the police. He further told Narsing Dass that since the latter had cordial relations with the police, he requested him to arrange for his surrender before the police. He then stated that the police might be chasing him. Narsing Dass told him that though he could save him from the wrath of the police, yet he would have to undergo punishment for the offence to which the Appellant agreed. The Appellant then left the place on the pretext of urination, not to return thereafter. In the evening of the same day, Narsing Dass along with Krishan Kumar came to the place of occurrence in village Samani and told Mehar Chand, Inspector in this regard.

Mehar Chand, Inspector besides recording the statement of Narsing Dass, had recorded the statements of Satnam Singh, Ajmer Singh and others and picked up blood stained earth from the spot. He gave it the shape of parcel, sealed it and took it into possession by way of recovery memo. He also prepared a rough site plan of the place of occurrence. Mehar Chand, Inspector then proceeded towards Taraori in search of the culprit accompanied by Baldhari and Subhash. When they were near a khokha adjoining the premises of M/S United Riceland, the Appellant was found there and on his identification by those persons, Mehar Chand, Inspector had arrested him. The Appellant was found wearing blood stained shirt which was taken by the police, sealed and taken into possession by way of recovery memo.

On 13.7.2000, Mehar Chand, Inspector interrogated the Appellant, who had made the disclosure statement, Exhibit PQ to the effect that he had kept concealed the lift of the tractor and the knife in the adjoining paddy field of Satnam Singh after washing the same with water. He also disclosed that none except him had knowledge of the same and that he could get the same recovered. In pursuance of the disclosure statement, the Appellant led the police party to the place where the knife and the lift had been kept by him and got the same recovered. Rough sketches of the knife and the lift of the tractor were prepared. They were given the shape of parcels and were sealed. They were taken into possession by way of recovery memo Exhibit PQ/3. A rough site plan of the place of recovery was prepared.

Dr. Jagmal Singh, PW9 along with Dr. G.D. Mittal and Dr. Surinder Kumar conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Jagdish Chand on 13.7.2000 and had found the dead body to have seven injuries. According to them, Jagdish Chand had died due to asphyxia which was a result of strangulation which was ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. They had taken the ''parna'' from the dead body and sealed the same. It was handed over to the police. After completion of the investigation, challan against the Appellant was submitted to the court.

The charge was framed against the Appellant by Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra for an offence punishable u/s 302 of the I.P.C. vide order dated 8.11.2000, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The prosecution had examined fifteen witnesses at the trial. Their statements would be discussed at the appropriate places in the judgment.

The Appellant was then examined under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein he had admitted Satnam Singh, a resident of Taraori to have taken some land on lease in village Samani. He had also admitted Jagdish Chand, deceased, a resident of village Shamgarh to have been employed by the said Satnam Singh as his ''siri'' for cultivation of that land. He had further admitted his own employment with Satnam Singh as driver of his tractor. He, however, had denied the other prosecution evidence put to him in the shape of questions and had claimed himself to be innocent against whom the witnesses had deposed falsely. He did not lead any evidence in his defence.

Hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State and learned Counsel for the defence, learned Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra found the Appellant guilty for the offence punishable u/s 302 of the I.P.C. vide judgment dated 29.11.2001. Convicting him for the said offence vide that judgment, hearing on quantum of sentence was given on 3.12.2001 and the sentence mentioned above had been awarded to the Appellant.

We have heard Shri Yogesh Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Shri Saurabh Mohunta, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the Respondent-State. We have gone through the record carefully.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant has contended that the case against the Appellant is based on circumstantial evidence for its proof. According to him, the circumstances from which inference of guilt is sought to be drawn should not only be cogently and firmly established, but should have definite tendency to point to the guilt of the accused person and the said circumstances should form a complete chain so as to exclude any probability of the offence having been committed by some person other than the accused. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that in this case, there are circumstances of last seen and extra judicial confession. He has further submitted that Baldhari, PW11 has stated that during the night intervening 11th and 12th July,2000, he was returning along with Subhash to village Jirbadi from Nilokheri and at about 12.30 or 12.45 A.M. when they were near the liquor vend situated on the road in the area of village Samani, they saw the Appellant coming running from the side of the fields of Satnam Singh to the road. According to him, he has stated the reason for coming to Nilokheri as booking of tent articles for ''Devi Jagran''. He has submitted that this statement on behalf of Baldhari of booking of tent articles and returning from Nilokheri in the night cannot be believed so as to make him able to reach village Samani at about 12.30 or 12.45 A.M. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has further submitted that Baldhari and Subhash are residents of different villages. According to him, Baldhari is a resident of village Jirbadi in District Kurukshetra while Subhash is a resident of village Dhand in District Kaithal. He has further submitted that if they had returned in the night to their villages, they could not again come to the spot listening about the murder of someone at the tubewell of Satnam Singh. He has, thus, submitted that this evidence of Baldhari is not reliable.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant has then submitted that other circumstance projected by the prosecution is appearing in the statement of Ram Kumar, PW13. According to him, he is cousin brother of Jagdish Chand, deceased. He has further submitted that on 11.7.2000, he claimed to have reached the tubewell of Satnam Singh at 7.30 P.M. and found Jagdish Chand and the Appellant abusing each other over the matter of preparing chicken. This witness has further stated that he had pacified the two and left the place. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has contended that this witness has further stated that on 12.7.2000, he came to know about the murder of Jagdish Chand and despite this, he made a statement to the police only on 14.7.2000 which casts a veil of suspicion on the veracity of his statement.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant has further submitted that the third circumstance supporting the prosecution case against the Appellant is the extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by him to Narsing Dass. According to him, there is discrepancy in the evidence of Narsing Dass about his being personally familiar with the Appellant previously or not. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has contended that there was no occasion for the Appellant to have gone to Narsing Dass to confess his guilt before him. He has further contended that the evidence of extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. He has submitted that relying upon this circumstance, learned trial court has found the prosecution to have succeeded in bringing home guilt of the Appellant for the murder of Jagdish Chand. He has further submitted that the judgment of conviction, therefore, cannot be sustained on the aforesaid evidence.

On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana has submitted that learned trial court has properly appreciated the evidence and has rightly found the circumstances projected by the prosecution to have been well established. According to him, the said circumstances pointed to the guilt of the Appellant to which no exception could be taken. He has submitted that the conviction of the Appellant on the evidence led by the prosecution. is, therefore, well founded.

The first question that arises for consideration is as to whether reliance could be place on the statement of Baldhari, PW11. Baldhari is a resident of village Jirbadi. Nothing appears in his cross-examination to show any motive on his part in supporting the prosecution case or making statement against the Appellant. It is certainly odd time for Baldhari and Subhash to return from Nilokheri after booking tent articles. However, for this reason alone, the statement of Baldhari cnanot be discarded. Baldhari was before the defence, but nothing was asked from him as to when they reached Nilokheri and had booked the tent articles. It has also not been asked from him as to when they started back from Nilokheri. There may be circumstances in which the two could become late in starting back for village Jirbadi.

Baldhari is a resident of Jirbadi while Subhash, the person accompanying him in the night of 11/12.7.2000, is a resident of village Dhand. The two villages are situated in two different districts. On first impression, their being together in the morning of 12.7.2000 appears to be a bit unnatural. However, a careful perusal of the statement of Baldhari, PW11, in his cross-examination, shows that they were together in village Jirbadi on that night. He has stated that Subhash is his relation and he had been called by him in connection with ''Jagran''. There is nothing apparent in the statement of Baldhari to disbelieve this part of his statement. If Subhash is relation of Baldhari and had been called by him for the purpose of ''Devi Jagran'', he was expected to stay with him at village Jirbadi till ''Devi jagran'' was over. Therefore, they can be believed to be together at village Jirbadi in the morning of 12.7.2000 and coming to know of the murder of some person at the tubewell of Satnam Singh, they could go together to that place. Inability of Baldhari to tell the name of person from whom he came to know of the murder is not a serious matter sufficient for discarding his evidence. Such like news spread like wild fire. In such a case, the name of the informer does not remain relevant.

Ram Kumar, PW13 is a relation of the deceased. As is stated by him, Jagdish Chand was son of Bakhatwara Ram, his uncle. It is natural for a person to visit his cousin, who is living away from the village in connection with his work as ''siri'' for some cultivator. The only circumstance highlighted for disbelieving his statement is that he made statement to the police in this regard on 14.7.2000.

On 11.7.2000, after staying for some time with Jagdish Chand, Ram Kumar, PW13 left the tubewell. He came to know of the death of Jagdish Chand while he was in the premises of Punjab National Bank, Karnal in connection with some business transaction of his employer on 12.7.2000. It was at about 3.30 P.M. when he left Karnal on receipt of this information from his wife on phone and reached the liquor vend at 4.30 P.M. He, however, did not go to the tubewell of Satnam Singh because near the liquor vend, he came across Satish Kumar, his another cousin, who told him that the dead body of Jagdish Chand had already been shifted to LNJP Hospital, Kurukshetra for post mortem examination. Coming to know about it, Ram Kumar, PW13 left for the hospital where he claimed to have remained till 5.30 P.M. He has stated that he then left for his village Shamgarh. He has further added that at the hospital, the police was not found by him. He has also added that on the next day i.e. 13.7.2000, they took the delivery of the dead body and cremated the same. He has stated that on that day also, the police did not meet him. He has further stated that on 14.7.2000, he met the police at the aforesaid tubewell and his statement was recorded there. There is nothing unreasonable or unbelievable in this explanation of PW13 for non-recording of his statement in the meanwhile.

The evidence of the extra judicial confession is argued to be a weak piece of evidence. Narsing Dass, PW12 is a witness of the extra judicial confession made to him by the Appellant on 12.7.2000. The first reason given by the learned Counsel for the Appellant for disbelieving his statement is that there is some discrepancy about the fact that he previously knew the Appellant or not. The statement of Narsing Dass, PW12 was recorded by Mehar Chand, Inspector on 12.7.2000 and in that statement, there is no mention of the Appellant being known to Narsing Dass previously. The supplementary statement of Narsing Dass was recorded by Mehar Chand, Inspector on 5.4.2000. It is true that the time gap between recording of the two statements of Narsing Dass is quite large, yet the statement of Narsing Dass cannot be suspected on this ground. Narsing Dass has not stated in his first statement that the Appellant was not known to him previously. Had it been there, the subsequent statement about his being familiar with the Appellant previously would have become unreliable. So, the first statement does not speak anything in this regard and this is at the best an omission about which statement could be made even at the time of trial.

Narsing Dass is a retired police inspector and undoubtedly he could be believed by the Appellant to have some links with the police. This itself might have given reason to the Appellant to think that Narsing Dass could save him from the wrath of the police. Narsing Dass is also husband of Sarpanch of his village and his respectability in that area cannot be held in doubt. Narsing Dass, moreover, is neither a person of the caste of the deceased nor in any other way related to him. There is no reason for him to have deposed falsely about the extra judicial confession made to him by the Appellant.

It is an admission on the part of the Appellant that he was employed as a driver with Satnam Singh with whom Jagdish Chand was working as ''siri''. By the nature of their employment with Satnam Singh, the two were to work together. The key of the tractor of Satnam Singh was supposed to be with the Appellant. The fact that the same was found at the spot by the side of the dead body of Jagdish Chand is another circumstance indicating the involvement of the Appellant in the murder of Jagdish Chand.

It is not the case of the Appellant that he used to go every evening to his village Taraori and that he was not staying with Jagdish Chand. It is also not his case that he came from Taraori on 12.7.2000 and was falsely implicated by the police. The evidence of arrest of the Appellant on 12.7.2000 from near a khokha adjoining the premises of M/S United Riceland with shirt on him stained with human blood, he himself having no injuries on his person, would be a circumstance supporting the prosecution case. Though, the specific time of arrest of the Appellant has not come on record, yet PW14-Mehar Chand, Inspector has stated that he started in search of the Appellant after 6.50 P.M. from the spot. There is nothing appearing in the cross-examination of Baldhari,PW11 and Mehar Chand, PW14 sufficient to discredit the factum of arrest of the Appellant on 12.7.2000 after 6.50 P.M. If it is so, then he could be asked as to why he did not go to the tubewell of Satnam Singh in connection with his duty as driver of the tractor in the morning of 12.7.2000.

Section 106 of the Evidence Act lays down that the onus to prove a fact, especially in the knowledge of a person, is on that person. The Appellant did not come out with the facts as to when he left the tubewell of Satnam Singh where Jagdish Chand was found murdered. He has also not disclosed as to how the key of the tractor could be found near the dead body of the deceased. He has no explanation for putting on a shirt stained with human blood. These circumstances are strong links in the chain of circumstantial evidence set up by the prosecution and if taken together, they definitely and unerringly point to the guilt of the Appellant. They are, moreover, inconsistent with any hypothesis of innocence of the Appellant.

In these circumstances, we find no merit in the submissions made before us assailing the prosecution evidence or the judgment of the conviction of the Appellant. Finding no reason to interfere with the same, the appeal is dismissed.