Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1230 (PNJ)

Suraj Bhan v. State of Haryana

2005-12-01

MEHTAB S.GILL, PRITAM PAL

body2005
JUDGMENT PRITAM PAL, J. 1. This appeal by Suraj Bhan and Ranjit Singh appellants is directed against judgment and order dated August 18, 2001, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, whereby they were convicted under Sections 302/201 read with Section 34 of I.P.C, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. They were further sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years with a fine of Rs. 3000/- each under Section 201 read with section 34 of I.P.C. and in defauolt of payment of fine, they were also ordered to undergo further R.I. for one year. However, the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, as described and established at the trial is as under:- On April 01,1998, at about 4 p.m., PW 9 Ishwar Singh complainant was informed by his niece, namely Jyoti, daughter of Prem Singh regarding disappearance of Vinod, her younger brother. Thereafter, the complainant accompanied by his cousin brother Hukmi, lauched a messive search. When they reached near their fields, appellant Suraj Bhan carrying a palli (a sheet of plastic) came across with them. He (complainant) asked about Vinod. There-upon he (Suraj Bhan) replied that he had not seen Vinod. After that, the complainant further enquired about the purpose for carrying the palli. Then he (Suraj Bhan appellant) replied that he would bring barseem (a kind of grass) in the said palli. On this reply, the complainant asked him that he had no barseem there in the fields. On this, he (Suraj Bhan) fled away towards the village ‘saying’ what business they had got to enquire. The complainant and his cousin Hukmi, then reached near the village and also enquired about Vinod from the children, who were playing there. Then they (children) told that Vikas (a juvenile facing separate trial) was seen carrying Vinod on a cycle. In the meantime, they came across with said Vikas and when he was asked about the whereabouts of Vinod, he became perplexed. However, he (Vikas) told that in case, he is saved, he would divulge the truth. Then Vikas told that accused Suraj Bhan and Ranjit Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellants) had asked him to bring Vinod to their gher (compound) by inducement and he acted accordingly. However, he (Vikas) told that in case, he is saved, he would divulge the truth. Then Vikas told that accused Suraj Bhan and Ranjit Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellants) had asked him to bring Vinod to their gher (compound) by inducement and he acted accordingly. He further informed that as per their plan, they had taken Vinod in a room containing chaff and there he was strangulated with the help of a rope. Thereafter, dead body of Vinod was put in a gunny bag. Then, it was covered with a plastic palli and two bricks were also tied with the said plastic palli and then they had thrown the dead body of Vinod in an abandoned well situated in the fields of Dariya Singh, father of Suraj Bhan appellant. After coming to know about the said information from Vikas accused, the complainant along-with Hukmi, Rajbir and Dhoop Singh rushed to the said well. They put a hook in the well and found that dead body of Vinod was lying in the water. Thereafter, the complainant left for Police Station to lodge the report, but on the way at bridge of river of village Ahulana, a police party headed by ASI Ishwar Singh (PW-8) met him at about 11 p.m. There, he made statement Ex PF in the above narration of facts. Then ASI Ishwar Singh made his endorsement Ex.PF/1 and sent the same to Police Station, Ganaur, where FIR Ex.PE was recorded at 12.15 a.m. (after mid night) on April 02,1998 by Rajinder Singh ASI (PW 6) under Sections 302/201/120-B of I.P.C. Special Report was handed over to the Illaqa Magistrate, Sonepat on April 02 1998 at 4.30 a.m. After receiving the aforesaid information, PW 14 Inspector Sube Singh, then S.H.O, Police Station, Ganaur, rushed to village Ahulana and reached at the abandoned well, where many villagers were already present. He then managed to take out the dead body of Vinod from that well. Thereafter, he conducted inquest proceedings vide his report Ex.PB prepared in that behalf. He also took into possession palli, gunny bag, a piece of rope and two bricks vide recovery memo Ex.PJ. At the spot, he also prepared rough site plan Ex.PK with correct marginal note in his hand and also recorded the statements of the witnesses U/S 161 Cr. Thereafter, he conducted inquest proceedings vide his report Ex.PB prepared in that behalf. He also took into possession palli, gunny bag, a piece of rope and two bricks vide recovery memo Ex.PJ. At the spot, he also prepared rough site plan Ex.PK with correct marginal note in his hand and also recorded the statements of the witnesses U/S 161 Cr. P.C. Thereafter, he despatched the dead body of Vinod to General Hospital, Sonepat for post mortem examination through UGC Pale Ram (PW 7). 3. On April 07, 1998, both the appellants were produced by PW-13 Ram Singh, Ex-Sarpanch and Dalbir before PW-16 Inspector Ravinder Kumar. There-upon, both the appellants were formally arrested in this case, whereas co-accused Vikas (a juvenile) was also arrested from near Railway crossing Ganaur. During investigation, their disclosure statements were recorded and they got recovered the case property i.e. Cycle, plastic palli, rope and bricks etc., which were taken into possession during investigation of this case. After completion of formal investigation, report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. was put in the Court against all the three accused of this case. 4. However, appellants Suraj Bhan and Ranjit Singh were charged under Section 302/201 read with Section 34 of I.P.C., by the learned trial Court, vide its order dated September 15, 1998. They pleaded ‘not guilty’ to the charge and claimed trial, while the case of third accused Vikas, being a juvenile, was separated. 5. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case against the appellants, examined as many as 16 witnesses, namely, PW-1 Dr. Arun Garg, Medical Officer General Hospital, Sonepat, he proved the post mortem report Ex. PA of Vinod deceased; PW-2 Krishan Chander Patwari, he proved scaled site plan Ex.PC of the place of recovery of dead body; PW-3 Constable Inder Pal, Draftsman, he prepared scaled site plan Ex.PD of the place of occurrence; PW-4 Constable Jagmander Singh, he delivered the special report Ex.PE to the Illaqa Magistrate; PW-5 Kamal Sharma, Photographer, he proved photographs Exs. P-6 to P-16 and negative thereof from Exs. P-6 to P-16 and negative thereof from Exs. P-17 to P-27; PW-6 ASI Rajinder Singh, he recorded the formal F.I.R. Ex.PE; PW-7 UGC Pale Ram, he got conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Vinod deceased and handed over rope Ex.P1 and clothes of the deceased to the Investigating Officer Inspector Sube Singh; PW-8 ASI Ishwar Singh, he recorded the statement Ex.PF of complainant Ishwar Singh; PW-9 Ishwar Singh, he is a complainant in this case; PW-10 Jit Singh, he is a witness to the last seen; PW-11 Inspector Prem Singh, he partly investigated this case at the initial stage; PW-12 Dhup Singh, he had seen the accused carrying the dead body of Vinod in a bundle; PW-13 Ram Singh, he is Ex-Sarpanch, before whom both the appellants had made extra judicial confessions before their arrest; PW-14 Inspector Sube Singh, he partly investigated this case; PW-15 Ramesh, he is a witness to the disclosure statements of the appellants and recovery memos of cycle, plastic palli etc and PW-16 Inspector Ravinder Kumar, he recorded disclosure statements of the appellants. 6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the appellants were examined in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein, they denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against them and in answer to last question No.23, appellant Suraj Bhan submitted as under:- “I am innocent. It is a blind murder. PW-9 Ishwar Singh, PW-10 Jit Singh, PW-12 Dhup Singh, PW-13 Ram Singh and PW-15 Ramesh are blood relations of Prem Singh, father of Vinod deceased. They all have deposed falsely and all the remaining witnesses are official and interested witnesses. There was dispute over purchase of immovable property and they have jointly purchased land from Mahajan and also sold plots in Ganaur town. There was also civil litigation between the parties and as such, the complainant party bore grudge against the accused. With the active connivance of Ganaur police, I and my co-accused have been falsely implicated in this case”. Similarly, other appellant Ranjit Singh also toed the same line of defence as taken by Suraj Bhan appellant. However, they led no evidence in defence. 7. After appreciating the entire evidence led by the prosecution and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants, as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. However, they led no evidence in defence. 7. After appreciating the entire evidence led by the prosecution and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants, as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. This is how feeling aggrieved, they have come up in this appeal. 8. We have heard Mr. S.R. Hooda, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. S.K. Garg, Narwana, learned Addl. Advocate General, appearing on behalf of State of Haryana and with their assistance, have gone through the file carefully. 9. Mr. S.R. Hooda, learned counsel for the appellants at the very outset submitted that in fact, it is a blind murder case and the prosecution has also not been able to connect any of the appellants with the commission of crime on the basis of circumstantial evidence. In that behalf, he pointed out the discrepancies occurred in the statements of PW-10 Jit Singh and PW 12, Dhup Singh. In order to buttress his this argument, he made reference to the statement of PW-10 Jit Singh, who got recorded his statement in this case only on June 21, 1998, whereas PW-12 Dhup Singh also could not join the searching party on April 01, 1998 at about 6.15. p.m., as on that date, he was stated to have gone to his place of posting at Delhi. Next limb of the arguments of Mr. Hooda is that the prosecution story is also not believable when PW-13 Ram Singh, Ex-Sarpanch said that both the appellants had appeared before him and had made their extra judicial confessions regarding commission of crime of this case. In this regard, he vehemently argued that in fact, he (Ram Singh) is a person, who belongs to the complainant party, being a cousin of Prem Singh, who is father of Vinod deceased. At the fag end of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellants had contended that in fact, all the non-official witnesses are interested witnesses, being the relatives of the deceased and as such, their testimony is not reliable for basing conviction of the appellants. Before concluding his arguments, the also submitted that role of Ranjit Singh appellant, is a very little and the case again him is not established beyond any reasonable doubt, therefore, he at least be acquitted of the charges framed against him. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Before concluding his arguments, the also submitted that role of Ranjit Singh appellant, is a very little and the case again him is not established beyond any reasonable doubt, therefore, he at least be acquitted of the charges framed against him. 10. On the other hand, Mr. S.K. Garg, Narwana, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana, has repelled the aforesaid points of arguments raised on behalf of the appellants. At the first place, he referred to the motive part of having old enmity of complainant party with father of Suraj Bhan appellant as mentioned in the FIR itself and also admitted by the appellants in their receptive answer to last question of their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At the same time, he also stated that in fact, Vinod deceased, who was studying, in 5th Class at B.S.T. School, Ganaur, was sent to her sister’s house at Ganaur by his father Prem Singh, who himself is serving in Maharshi Dayanand University at Rohtak. Vinod, the sole of his parents, was apprehending danger to his life, that is why, he was shifted from village Ahulana to B.S.T. Ganaur. When he had come for a week from Ganaur to his village Ahulana, the appellants who are also of village Ahulana committed his murder in furtherance of their common intention. In support of aforesaid arguments, Mr. Garg also made reference to the recoveries got effected by the appellants in pursuance of their respective disclosure statements. Further, he also made reference to the statement of PW-10 Jit Singh, who is a witness to the last seen and he was of the age of 12/13 years at the time of occurrence. No doubt, his statement was recorded at a belated stage by the Investigating Officer, but on that count, prosecution case cannot be thrown to the winds, an no explanation in that behalf has been sought either from PW Jit Singh or the Investigating Officer. At the last leg of his argument. Mr. Garg submitted that in fact, PW-13 Ram Singh Ex-Sarpanch is not closely related to the complainant party, rather he is a neutral witness, 75 years of age. Thus, his testimony and that of other witnesses who are reliable cannot be discarded just on the ground of their having some distant relations with the deceased. Mr. Garg submitted that in fact, PW-13 Ram Singh Ex-Sarpanch is not closely related to the complainant party, rather he is a neutral witness, 75 years of age. Thus, his testimony and that of other witnesses who are reliable cannot be discarded just on the ground of their having some distant relations with the deceased. He then contended for dismissal of the appeal. 11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid points of arguments raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties and find no force in any of the above pleas put-forth by the learned counsel for the appellants for the reasons given hereinafter :- 12. In this case, the FIR recorded against the appellants is so prompt that there could not be any chance to implicate them falsely for committing the murder of Vinod, a innocent boy of 12 years. Occurrence in this case had taken place in the evening of April 01, 1998 at about 4.p.m. The dead body of Vinod deceased was seen by complainant Ishwar Singh, Ex.PF was recorded at about 9/10 p.m., on the same day. Thereafter, statement of Ishwar Singh, Ex.PF was recorded at 11.p.m. , that on that very date and ultimately, a formal FIR Ex.PF was recorded at 12.15. a.m. i.e. on the night intervening April 01/02,1998, in Police Station, Ganaur, which is at a distance of 15 kilometers from the place of occurrence. Special Report of this case reached to the Illaqa Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat at 4.30.p.m.i.e. in the early morning of April 02, 1998. All these facts go a long way to show that there was hardly any time to give a coloured version in the FIR, which corroborates the version of the complainant as well as other material witnesses examined by the prosecution. According to PW- 12 Dhup Singh, who had come back from his duty, had seen all the appellants going together on April 01,1998 and at that time, Suraj Bhan was carrying a bundle on his head, while appellant Ranjit Singh was going ahead of him, whereas Vikas (a juvenile) was following Suraj Bhan. Further, in the company of his brother’s son Bijender, he also observed a noise of being thrown something in the well of Dariya Singh, father of Suraj Bhan appellant. Further, in the company of his brother’s son Bijender, he also observed a noise of being thrown something in the well of Dariya Singh, father of Suraj Bhan appellant. It is further evident on the file that PW-12 Dhup Singh and Bijender Singh PW when reached to their houses, they came to know from PW-9 Ishwar Singh complainant and Hukmi about the entire story pertaining to the commission of murder of Vinod as already divulged by Vikas accused (a Juvenile) to said Ishwar Singh and Hukmi. As stated earlier, Vikas had already told to complainant Ishwar Singh the manner in which murder of Vinod was committed by the appellants. Statement of other material witness, namely, PW-13 Ram Singh, before whom both the appellants had made extra judicial confessions of April 07, 1998, is most relevant. Both the appellants confessed their guilt before him and they narrated the details and the manner in which murder of Vinod was committed. Both the appellants were then produced before the police. Thereafter, PW-16 Inspector Ravinder Kumar, who is the main Investigating Officer in this case, interrogated both the appellants. First of all, he recorded the disclosure statement Ex.PM of Suraj Bhan appellant, in pursuance of which, he got recovered plastic palli Ex. P32, which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PM/1. Suraj Bhan appellant also identified the abandoned well vide memo Ex.PM/2, from where dead body of Vinod deceased contained in a katta(gunny bag) was recovered, the said katta was further found wrapped in a palli Ex.P30. This appellant also identified the place of occurrence vide memo Ex.PM/3. Similarly, appellant Ranjit Singh during interrogation by PW-16 Inspector Ravinder Kumar also got identified the place of occurrence vide memo Ex. PN and the abandoned well vide memo Ex.PN/1 in pursuance of his disclosure statement Ex.PN/2. All these factors disclosed by the appellants are admissible and relevant in evidence under Sections 27 and 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and at the same time, go a long way to connect both the appellants with the commission of crime of this case. All these factors disclosed by the appellants are admissible and relevant in evidence under Sections 27 and 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and at the same time, go a long way to connect both the appellants with the commission of crime of this case. No doubt, there are some minor variations occurred in the statements of the witnesses relating to the times, sequence of events and wearing of karra in the hand of deceased Vinod, but they do not go to the root of this case, inasmuch as with the passage of time, such kind of contradictions are bound to occur even in the statements of truthful witnesses. Further, it is also pertinent to mention here that ocular version consisted in the statements of material witnesses, namely, PW-9 complainant Ishwar Singh, PW-10 Jit Singh, PW-12 Dhup Singh, PW-13 Ram Singh and PW-15 Ramsh also finds corroboration from the medical evidence contained in the statement of PW-1 Dr. Arun Garg. According to this Doctor, who had conducted that post mortem examination on the dead body of Vinod, there was a 1/2" wide rope (nylone) tide all around the neck with knot on the left side of the neck The ligature was removed after cutting from the side. There was a 1.5cm wide ligature mark all around the neck just above the thyroid cartilege reddish in colour. He further also observed that there was a toora (hay) all over the body and on the clothes. He further deposed that cause of death was asphyxia as a result of strangulation which was ante-mortem and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The death occurred instantaneously and probable time that elapsed between death and post mortem was within 24 hours. 13. Now adverting to the last contention of learned counsel for the appellants pertaining to the relationship of non-official witnesses with the deceased and little role of Ranjit Singh appellant; we have minutely and cautiously gone through the statements of all the above material witnesses and find that they all are consistent through-out on all the material points embodied in this case. They may be having distant relationship with the deceased but their testimony in the given facts and circumstances of this case as discussed above, cannot be discarded merely on the ground of their having some distant relationship with the deceased. They may be having distant relationship with the deceased but their testimony in the given facts and circumstances of this case as discussed above, cannot be discarded merely on the ground of their having some distant relationship with the deceased. It is well settled that relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if a plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the Court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse the evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible . Hence, the ground that the witnesses being close relatives and interested should not be relied upon, has no substance. Further, it is also well established on the file that appellant Ranjit Singh had not only caught hold of the legs of the deceased Vinod but he also pulled up from one end of the rope while strangulating the deceased. Thus, the above last contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is also held to be devoid of any merit. 14. In the totality of the circumstances as discussed above, we have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has successfully formed a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all probability, the crime was committed by the appellants and none else. 15. In the result, we find no infirmity or any illegality in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court. Hence, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.