Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 10 (PNJ)

Ram Avtar v. State of Haryana

2000-01-10

K.S.KUMARAN

body2000
JUDGMENT K.S. Kumaran, J. - F.I.R. No. 193 dated 23.6.1998 has been registered at Police Station Sadar Bahadurgarh, under Sections 302, 201, 148, 149, 120-B Indian Penal Code and under Section 25 of the Arms Act, on the statement of Laxmi Chand, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Lohat, whereunder he reported about the finding of dead body of an unknown young man with multiple fire arm injuries on 23.6.1998 in the pucka drain of the field of one Umed Singh of village Kadipur. 2. The petitioner-Ram Avtar had approached the the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, for bail but his application of bail was dismissed. Therefore, petitioner has approached this Court under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code for bail. 3. I have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the records on file. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this dead body was subsequently identified on 24.6.1998 as that of Jaiveer @ Bhana. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that one Rajesh had given a statement that he had seen deceased Jaiveer lastly on 22.6.1998 at 2 p.m. He also points out that one Basant Singh had also given a statement on 24.6.1998 that on 22.6.1998 at 6 p.m. when he was present at his house co-accused Bijender came and enquired about Jaiveer but Jaiveer was not present at that time at the house and, therefore, he had asked his (Basant Singhs) other brother Ashok to accompany Bijender on his scooter but, subsequently Jaiveer came to the house and he also left the house on being informed by Basant Singh about what had happened. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that on 29.6.1998 another dead body which was asked putrefied and unidentifiable, was recovered from Rajwaha near village Badli, which is stated to be the dead body of Ashok. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that Vijay Singh one of the brothers of the two deceased had allegedly given a statement on 24.6.1998, that he had seen his deceased brothers in the company of petitioner-Ram Avtar and his Co-accused at 8.30 p.m. on 22.6.1998. The learned counsel for the petitioner further points out that on 4.7.1998, the petitioner and four other co-accused were arrested and a knife was allegedly recovered from the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner further points out that on 4.7.1998, the petitioner and four other co-accused were arrested and a knife was allegedly recovered from the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that the petitioner is alleged to have caused knife injuries to deceased-Ashok. 7. Pointing out these aspects, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the entire case of the prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence as there is no eye witness for this occurrence. He also contends that the time of the occurrence itself is disputed. He points out that the autopsy of Jaiveer was performed on 25.6.1998 at 9 a.m. and the Doctor opined that the time that had lapsed between death and post mortem examination was 3 to 5 days, and if that be so, death should have occurred between 9 a.m. on 20.6.1998 to 9 a.m. of 22.6.1998 and, therefore, the statement of Vijay Singh that he had seen the petitioner and the other accused along with both the deceased at 8 p.m. or 8.30 p.m. on 22.6.1998 is not correct. He further contends that the allegations against the petitioner that he had caused knife blow to the other deceased-Ashok. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the post mortem report relating to Ashok, wherein the Doctor has opined that death of Ashok Kumar had occurred due to ante mortem fire arm injury, but the stab wound and strangulation by ligature are post mortem in nature. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated by stating that he had given knife blows to the deceased whereas the stab wound found on Ashok as well as the ligature marks were caused after the death. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, even shows that there was no blood on the knife. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that even the statement of Vijay has been ante dated because he has referred to therein about the death of Ashok also due to fire arm injuries. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the body of Ashok Kumar was found on 29.6.1998 only whereas even on 24.6.1998 Vijay Singh is alleged to have made a statement that he suspects that his brothers have been killed by using fire arms. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the body of Ashok Kumar was found on 29.6.1998 only whereas even on 24.6.1998 Vijay Singh is alleged to have made a statement that he suspects that his brothers have been killed by using fire arms. 9. The learned counsel for the State also concedes that Ashok had died of fire arms injuries only. In these circumstances, without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the main case, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. 10. Petition is allowed. 11. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak/Ilaqa Magistrate. Petition allowed.