Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1142 (PNJ)

Joginder Singh v. State Of Haryana

2005-11-07

MEHTAB S.GILL, PRITAM PAL

body2005
Judgment Mehtab S.Gill, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment/order dated 19/21.4.2001 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, whereby he convicted appellant Joginder Singh son of Sita Ram under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. 2. The learned trial Court had charged Sukhbir, Roshan, Billu, Ramesh Pandit, Rakshi Arora along with appellant Joginder Singh for the murder of Ajit. The learned Court, in its wisdom, acquitted Sukhbir, Roshan, Billu, Ramesh Pandit and Rakshi Arora. 3. The prosecution case is unfolded by the statement of Ved Wati @ Bedo wife of Ram Kumar, who made her statement, Ex. P-8, before Sharni Ram, ASI, in Police Station, Hisar at 2.50 P.M. on 29.5.1995. She stated that she is resident of Mohalla Mori Gate, Hisar. She had three sons, namely, Ajit, Anil and Ashok @ Pappu. She had one daughter, namely, Sunita. Her son Ajit was married with Bala daughter of Vilayati Ram, resident of Kaithal. Ajit was residing in Kaithal with his children for the last two years. Her daughter Sunita was married with Joginder son of Ved Parkash in village Keorak. She along with her sons Ashok Kumar and Anil Kumar were living in Mori Gate, Hisar. Her husband Ram Kumar was residing separately for the last 10-15 years. On 28.5.1995, her son Anil did not come home. At about 8.30 P.M. Ashok Kumar came to the house and told her that he had quarrelled with Billu, Joginder, Ramesh Pandit, Rakshi Arora and 2-3 other boys and he had a narrow escape. He further stated that he is going somewhere and told his mother to be careful and to be on guard. Complainants son Ajit, who had come from Kaithal at about 9.00 P.M., to attend to a Court case, asked his mother to prepare some meals, as he was hungry, but as she was not feeling well, she asked him to get some food from a hotel for her and himself. Ajit went to the city to get some food, but he did not return back the whole night. On 29.5.1995 complainants son Ashok Kumar came to the house and told his mother that Ajit had been murdered by some unknown person and was lying at Parav Chowk in front of Kumhar Dharamshala near the khel of water. Ajit went to the city to get some food, but he did not return back the whole night. On 29.5.1995 complainants son Ashok Kumar came to the house and told his mother that Ajit had been murdered by some unknown person and was lying at Parav Chowk in front of Kumhar Dharamshala near the khel of water. She along with Ashok Kumar reached the place of occurrence and saw her son Ajit lying dead. She noticed that there was an injury on his body with a sharp edged weapon on the left side, where the string of the pajama is tied. She suspected that her son was murdered by some unknown person. 4. On the basis of the statement of complaint Ved Wati, formal FIR, Ex. P-14, was recorded. 5. Prosecution, to prove its case, brought into the witness box Shamsher Singh, Draftsman (PW-1), Om Parkash, Head Constable (PW-2), Dr. R.J. Bishnoi (PW-3), Sukhbir Singh, Constable (PW-4), Prithvi Singh, ASI (PW-5), Ved Wati @ Bedo (PW-6), Ashok Kumar (PW-7), Anil (PW-8) and Sarni Ram, retired S.I., (PW-9). 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued, that the alleged eye witnesses Ashok Kumar (PW-7) and Anil (PW-8) did not, in fact, witness the occurrence. They have been implanted lateron. There is a delay of 18 hours in lodging the First Information Report. The names of Ashok Kumar (PW-7) and Anil (PW-8) do not find mention in the statement of complainant Ved Wati @ Bedo and in the FIR, Ex. P-14. The Investigating Officer Sarni Ram, ASI, (PW-9) has stated in his testimony that he did not know the names of the accused till the inquest report was prepared. Ashok Kumar (PW-7) and Anil (PW-8), if present at the place of occurrence, would have intervened to save their brother from being stabbed by the appellant. Further, even if the appellant had stabbed the deceased, both Ashok Kumar (PW-7) and Anil (PW-8), being the real brothers of deceased Ajit, would have immediately taken him to the hospital. Dr. R.J. Bishnoi (PW-3) has opined that, with the injury on the person of the deceased, he could have lived for one or two hours without medical aid. Further, even if the appellant had stabbed the deceased, both Ashok Kumar (PW-7) and Anil (PW-8), being the real brothers of deceased Ajit, would have immediately taken him to the hospital. Dr. R.J. Bishnoi (PW-3) has opined that, with the injury on the person of the deceased, he could have lived for one or two hours without medical aid. It is not only that Ashok Kumar (PW-7) and Anil (PW-8) did not take their brother deceased Ajit to the hospital, but they also did not go to the police station, which was only 200 yards away from the place of occurrence. The place of occurrence was not more than 20 to 30 feet away from their own house, where their mother was living. It is strange that instead of taking or informing their mother complainant Ved Wati, they ran away 2 Kms. and spent the night in the house of their friend, namely, Azad. The conduct of the alleged eye witnesses is suspect. In fact, they were brought on to the scene on the next day and introduced as eye witnesses. Application. Ex. P-3, submitted by the Investigating Officer for conducting of the post mortem does not mention anything about the occurrence nor is the name of the accused mentioned. 7. In the alternative, learned counsel for the appellant has argued, that at the most, appellant can be convicted under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. Injury received by the deceased, was on the upper portion of the joint in between the leg and the hip. It was not a deep injury, but unfortunately, the blood vein of the deceased got cut and he bled the death. If Ashok Kumar (PW-7) and Anil (PW-8) or some other person had taken the deceased to the hospital, his life would have been saved. Since the murder had taken place in the night by some unknown person and no one took the deceased in the hospital, he, unfortunately, lost his life. 8. Learned counsel for the State has argued, that the name of appellant Joginder Singh finds mention in the F.I.R. Ex. P-8. The occurrence had taken place very close to the house of the complainant and the eye witnesses to the occurrence, i.e., Ashok Kumar (PW-7) and Anil (PW-8), are in fact natural witnesses. 8. Learned counsel for the State has argued, that the name of appellant Joginder Singh finds mention in the F.I.R. Ex. P-8. The occurrence had taken place very close to the house of the complainant and the eye witnesses to the occurrence, i.e., Ashok Kumar (PW-7) and Anil (PW-8), are in fact natural witnesses. Due to fear of the appellant, they ran away and hid themselves in the house of their friend, namely, Azad. It was on the next day that they came and told their mother about the occurrence, who picked up courage to inform the police. There is no suggestion of enmity between the complainant party and the accused. Both the eye witnesses Ashok Kumar (PW-7) and Anil (PW-8) along with their mother Ved Wati @ Bedo (PW-6) would not falsely implicate some other person and let the actual culprit go scot free. It has come in the testimony of the witnesses that they did not go to the police, as they feared that the murder of their brother Ajit may be implanted on them by the police. All of them had a criminal record and thus, they were fearing that the police may falsely implicate them. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State and perused the record with their assistance. 10. The case of the prosecution hinges on the statements of the two eye witnesses, namely, Ashok Kumar (PW-7) and Anil (PW-8), who are no other persons than the real brothers of deceased Ajit. Though the name of the assailant has not been mentioned in the FIR, Ex. P-8, but we cannot be oblivious of this fact that Ashok Kumar (PW-7), when he came to his house to tell his mother about the occurrence, has stated that he had a quarrel with appellant Joginder Singh in a hotel. He further warned his mother to be careful to this effect that appellant Joginder Singh may cause harm to her. It is thereafter when Ashok Kumar (PW-7) left, that deceased Ajit came from Kaithal. He then went to get some food from a hotel for himself and his mother, that deceased Ajit was attacked by the appellant with a knife. He further warned his mother to be careful to this effect that appellant Joginder Singh may cause harm to her. It is thereafter when Ashok Kumar (PW-7) left, that deceased Ajit came from Kaithal. He then went to get some food from a hotel for himself and his mother, that deceased Ajit was attacked by the appellant with a knife. Ashok Kumar (PW-7) and Anil (PW-8) have categorically stated in their testimony before the Court, that appellant Joginder Singh along with the acquitted accused quarrelled with them in the hotel of Vijay Pandit. This incidence had taken place before the murder of Ajit had taken place. Ashok Kumar (PW-7) along with his brother Anil (PW-8) escaped from the hotel and saved themselves. At about 9.30 P.M. when Ashok Kumar (PW-7) along with his friend Azad were going to their own house, they met deceased Ajit and Anil (PW-8). As they were talking, appellant Joginder Singh armed with a Chhuri (knife, Ex. P-12) came there and inflicted a blow on the right dub, (upper portion of the leg) of Ajit. On seeing Ajit being injured with a knife, Ashok Kumar (PW-7) and Anil (PW-8) out of fear, ran away from the spot. They feared that they would also be attacked. They spent the night in the house of Azad and when they came back in the morning, they saw Ajit lying dead. They then went to their house and narrated the incident to their mother. It has come in the testimoney of Ashok Kumar (PW-7) that about 20 to 25 cases were pending against him. He had been convicted in more than 15 cases. Anil (PW-8) was facing prosecution in about 12 criminal cases. Deceased Ajit was facing trial in two cases, one pertaining to the Excise Act and the other under the Indian Penal Code. Complainant Ved Wati was also prosecuted in many criminal cases. From the statement of Ashok Kumar (PW-7), it comes out, that the whole family was facing trial in a number of criminal cases. This was the reason for Ashok Kumar (PW-7) and Anil (PW-8) to run away from the spot and not to go to the police, as they feared that the police might falsely implicate them. This, in fact, has been stated by Ashok Kumar (PW-7) in his testimony. This was the reason for Ashok Kumar (PW-7) and Anil (PW-8) to run away from the spot and not to go to the police, as they feared that the police might falsely implicate them. This, in fact, has been stated by Ashok Kumar (PW-7) in his testimony. He has stated that he did not go to the police because he was facing trial in several cases. He apprehended that he may be arrested by the police in this case and he may be falsely implicated. Anil (PW-8) has stated in his testimony that all the accused chased them upto a distance of 1/2 KM. It is thereafter that they escaped to the house of Azad. They kept sitting in the house of Azad for the whole night and in the morning went to the place of occurrence. He has further stated that the occurrence lasted 15 to 20 minutes, meaning thereby that the chase of the complainant party by the appellant and the injury being inflicted on the person of Ajit, lasted for about 15 to 20 minutes. He also got scared that he may be assaulted by the appellant and thus ran away. S.I. Sarni Ram, the Investigating Officer (PW-9), has stated in his testimony that the body of deceased Ajit was lying in Mohalla Gujar. The house of complainant Ved Wati is about 4 to 5 Killas from the place of occurrence. The discrepancy in the statements of Ashok Kumar (PW-7), Anil (PW-8) and S.I. Sarni Ram (RW-9), qua the distance of the house of complainant Ved Wati from the place of occurrence is solely for the reason that Ashok Kumar (PW-7) and Anil (PW-8) are labourers and they have only given approximate distance of the place of occurrence and their house, but the Investigation Officer after measuring the distance has stated that the dead body was lying 4 to 5 Killas away from the house of the complainant. The testimony of the eye witnesses Ashok Kumar (PW-7) and Anil (PW-8) is truthful, cogent and convincing. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued, that there is an unexplained delay of 18 hours in lodging the First Information Report. Occurrence had taken place on 28.5.1995 at 9.30 P.M. and FIR, Ex. P-14, was recorded on 29.5.1995 at 3.05 P.M. This delay has been adequately explained by Ashok Kumar (PW-7) and Anil (PW-8). 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued, that there is an unexplained delay of 18 hours in lodging the First Information Report. Occurrence had taken place on 28.5.1995 at 9.30 P.M. and FIR, Ex. P-14, was recorded on 29.5.1995 at 3.05 P.M. This delay has been adequately explained by Ashok Kumar (PW-7) and Anil (PW-8). They have stated that they did not go to the police station out of fear, lest they be falsely implicated by the police. It was night time. They also feared that appellant Joginder Singh along with some other persons had already injured their brother Ajit seriously, may also attack them. 12. We are in consonance with the argument put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant that the case of appellant Joginder Singh falls under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. Dr. R.J. Bishnoi (PW-3) in his testimony before the Court has stated that there was an incised penetrating wound in the middle of the right inguinal region. The size of the wound was 2 cms x 0.5 cm. It was deep up to the peritoneal cavity. The common iliac vessels were cut and the peritoneal cavity was full of blood. It is clear from the statement of Dr. R.J. Bishnoi (PW-3) that death occurred due to the iliac vessels being cut. Deceased bled profusely. If deceased Ajit had been taken to the hospital, his life could have been saved. The cause of death in the opinion of Dr. R.J. Bishnoi (PW-3) was shock and haemorrhage because of this injury. He has further stated in his testimony that there was a possibility, that the deceased could have survived for one or two hours, after the receipt of the injury. If the deceased had got medical aid within this period, probably, he would not have lost his life, but as his real brothers Ashok Kumar (PW-7) and Anil (PW-8) out of fear, had run away and it being night time, no one from the locality came forward to save deceased Ajit. The reason for no one coming from the locality could be that deceased Ajit along with his brothers Ashok Kumar (PW-7) and Anil (PW-8) and his mother Ved Wati @ Bedo (PW-6) had a criminal record. They were all facing criminal trials. Deceased Ajit died due to excessive bleeding. In fact, Dr. The reason for no one coming from the locality could be that deceased Ajit along with his brothers Ashok Kumar (PW-7) and Anil (PW-8) and his mother Ved Wati @ Bedo (PW-6) had a criminal record. They were all facing criminal trials. Deceased Ajit died due to excessive bleeding. In fact, Dr. R.J. Bishnoi (PW-3) has opined that his peritoneal cavity was full of blood. 13. Conviction of appellant Joginder Singh is modified from Section 302 to 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant is sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment. Fine shall remain intact. With the above modifications in conviction and sentence, appeal of the appellant is dismissed.