Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1095 (PNJ)

Salamudeen v. State Of Haryana

2001-10-08

A.S.GARG, HARJIT SINGH BEDI

body2001
Judgment Harjit Singh Bedi, J. 1. Mehandi Hassan aged about 12 years son of Fakira (PW- 4), the first informant, had abused accused Salamudeen in the morning of June 19, 1995. At about 8.00 A.M. the same day, Mehandi Hassan, accompanied by Imran and Yamin (PW- 3) also of his age, went to the Government forest adjoining the village for grazing the cattle. A short while later, Fakiria also followed to collect fire wood. At about 11.00 A.M., he heard the cries of his son from the side of the drain and on going that side saw him lying on the ground and the accused attacking him with an axe. Imran and Yamin also came running to the spot. On seeing the three coming forward, the accused ran away into the jungle carrying the axe with him. On a close look, the three found that Mehandi Hassns neck had been almost severed from the body killing him almost instantaneously. The dead body was taken to the village and was kept in the Baithak of Fakirias house while Fakiria made his way to Police Station, Chhachhrauli and lodged a report at 7.00 P.M. giving full details of the incident. The special report was delivered to the Illaqa Magistrate at 11.00 P.M., the same night. Salamudeen was arrested subsequently and on the completion of the investigation, he was charged for an offence punishable under Section 30 of the Indian Penal Code and as he pleaded not guilty, was brought to trial. 2. In order to prove its case, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PWs. 3 and 4 Yamin and Fakiria, respectively, the two eye-witnesses and PW-5 Dr. M.R. Passi, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body and had found 5 incised wounds thereon. 3. The prosecution case was then put to the accused and his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied the allegations and pleaded false implication. 4. The trial Court accepted the evidence of the two witnesses, namely Yamin (PW-3) and Fakiria (PW-4) by holding that there presence at the spot was probable in the circumstances pointed out by them. He denied the allegations and pleaded false implication. 4. The trial Court accepted the evidence of the two witnesses, namely Yamin (PW-3) and Fakiria (PW-4) by holding that there presence at the spot was probable in the circumstances pointed out by them. The Court also held that though Yamin was 12 years of age yet he was capable of understanding the questions put to him and as he was absolutely an independent witness and had no relation with the deceased, his evidence already proved the case. It was also held that Fakiria would have no occasion to tell a he with respect to a solitary accused involved in the murder of his son. The Court also held that the eye-witness account given by these witnesses was fully corroborated by the evidence of Dr. M.R. Pasi (PW-5), who stated that the injuries could have been caused with the axe in question. The Court also found corroboration for the prosecution story from the recovery of the axe at the instance of the accused. The Court also rejected the defence version that the murder was a blind one as both the witnesses had explained their presence at the spot. Likewise, the court observed that Fakiria had given a valid explanation for not going to the police station immediately after the dead body had been brought home inasmuch as he had stated that he had waited for his father to return and had thereafter left for the Police Station. The Court further held that even assuming for a moment that Fakirias presence was doubtful, the presence of Yamin (PW 3) stood proved beyond doubt. The trial Court accordingly convicted the accused for the offence for which he stood charged and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. 5. Hence this appeal. We have heard Mr. B.S. Bhalla, the learned counsel appearing for the accused and Mr. Ram Avtar Singh, Additionaldvocate General, Haryana. Mr. Bhalla has argued that there was an inordinate delay in the lodging of the F.I.R. and the time so taken had been utilised to concoct a false story in what was clearly a blind murder. Hence this appeal. We have heard Mr. B.S. Bhalla, the learned counsel appearing for the accused and Mr. Ram Avtar Singh, Additionaldvocate General, Haryana. Mr. Bhalla has argued that there was an inordinate delay in the lodging of the F.I.R. and the time so taken had been utilised to concoct a false story in what was clearly a blind murder. He has further urged that the presence of the two witnesses was absoutely improbable as no tenable explanation had been given as to what had brought them to the spot at the crucial time. 6. As against this, Mr. Ram Avtar Singh stated that of the two, Yamin (PW-3) aged about 12 years was a totally disinterested and independent witness whereas Fakiria, the father of the deceased, would have no occasion to tell a lie with respect to a solitary accused involved in the murder of his son. 7. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. The incident is said to have happened at 11.00 A.M. in village Ibrahimpur. The F.I.R. had been lodged at Police Station, Chhachrauli at about 7.00 P.M. Fakiria has explained that he did not immediately go to the police as he was waiting for the arrival of his father. In the circumstances, we accept his explanation. It is significant that Salamudeen is the first cousion Fakiria, being his uncles son. As no previous enmity has been suggested and the incident had apparently happened as the deceased had abused Salamudeen in the morning, though in a light hearted manner, but it appears that the accused had taken ill of those remarks. Moreover, we find that the evidence of Yamin inspires confidence beyond any doubt. Yamin was cross-examined at length and nothing, which could dislodge his testimony, was found. He stated that he along with Imran, the brother of accused, had gone to the forest to graze the cattle and it was then that the accused had come attacked the deceased killing him at the spot. 8. We also find that the corroboration is available for the prosecution story from the evidence of Dr. M.R. Passi (PW-5), who clearly deposed that the injuries on the person of the deceased could have been caused with the axe in question. 8. We also find that the corroboration is available for the prosecution story from the evidence of Dr. M.R. Passi (PW-5), who clearly deposed that the injuries on the person of the deceased could have been caused with the axe in question. Moreover, we find that the axe recovered from the accused was found by the Laboratory to be stained with human blood, leading further corroboration to the story. In this view of the matter, there is no infirmity in the judgment under appeal. Dismissed.