Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1545 (PNJ)

Babloo Alias Bhagat Singh v. State Of Haryana

2007-08-27

A.N.JINDAL

body2007
Judgment A.N.Jindal, J. 1. The accused-appellants Babloo, Sukha @ Kalyan and Rohtash were challaned by the Police Station, City, Palwal, under Sections 307, 506 IPC. Consequently, out of aforesaid accused, Rohtash was acquitted whereas Bablu and Sukha were convicted under Section 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each. It was further ordered that the fine, if recovered, shall be paid to PW Ramesh as compensation. 2. The facts in brief are that on 19.11.1997, at about 5:15 A.M. Ramesh along with his brother Laxman had gone for his usual morning exercise and race on Jodhpur road. When they were near the culvert of sewerage water the accused Bablu, Sukha @ Kalyan Singh and Rohtash came from the side of the Hospital. In the mean time Megh Raj and uncle of Ramesh also came from the side of Village Jodhpur and they started talking with the complainant Mahavir (hereinafter referred to be as the "complainant"). Thereafter Megh Raj went towards Palwal Town and Ramesh went towards the fields for easing himself. The accused while sitting in the car came from behind. Accused Babloo fired a shot hitting Ramesh on the right side of his abdomen and fired another shot hitting on the right arm. Sukha fired a shot hitting Ramesh on the right fore-arm and another shot on the right thigh. Ramesh fell down. When Laxman and Megh Raj came to rescue Ramesh, the accused while challenging to take the life of Ramesh, left the place. Laxman and Megh Raj took Ramesh to Escorts Hospital, Faridabad. 3. Motive behind the occurrence is that there was a dispute between Ramesh and his family over the piece of land which was under the cultivation of Duli Chand. 4. Mahavir in collusion with the accused, while distorting the facts, lodged the FIR on 19.11.1997 at about 6:30 a.m. However, Ramesh remained unfit to make the statement upto 22.11.1997. On 22.11.1997 At about 2 p.m, he made a statement Ex.PB before Ameer Singh Sub Inspector. Thereafter, he also recorded the statement of Laxman and Megh Raj. On the basis of said statement Ex. PB, the accused was arrested on 23.11.1997. Scaled site plan was also prepared. Accused Sukha was arrested on 16.10.1997 by Ram Niwas ASI. On completion of the investigation, the aforesaid accused were challaned. Thereafter, he also recorded the statement of Laxman and Megh Raj. On the basis of said statement Ex. PB, the accused was arrested on 23.11.1997. Scaled site plan was also prepared. Accused Sukha was arrested on 16.10.1997 by Ram Niwas ASI. On completion of the investigation, the aforesaid accused were challaned. Consequently, they were charged under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 506 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. During the trial, the prosecution examined Nawal Singh PW1, Mahavir Singh PW2, Duli Chand PW3, Ramesh PW4, Laxman PW5, Ram Niwas ASI PW6, Girraj Singh ASI PW7, Mahesh Kumar constable PW8, Amarjit Singh PW9, Amir Singh SI PW10, Dr. Neeraja Ajmani PW11, Dr. Abha Jyoti Parashar PW12 and Dr. Rakesh Singh CMO PW13. 6. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication. Mahender Singh was examined as DW1. 7. Since Mahavir had colluded with accused, therefore, while appearing as PW2 did not support the prosecution case. Yet from his testimony it stands established that on 19.11.1997, he had gone along with Duli Chand and on the way, he came across Maruti Car occupied by three persons. Nevertheless, prosecution case stands established from the testimony of PW4, Ramesh, who has given the minute detail of the time, place and the manner in which the occurrence had taken place. He has explained about the participation of the accused and the injuries suffered at their hands. Despite scorching cross- examination, his testimony could not be shattered. His contention does not suggest any animosity or hostility on his part to falsely implicate the appellants. His testimony stands corroborated by Laxman PW5. Again His testimony stands corroborated by Dr. Neerja Ajmani, PW11 and Dr. Abha Jyoti Parashar, PW12 and Dr. Rakesh Singh CMO, Faridabad, PW13. Both Doctors, Neerja Ajmani and Dr. Abha Jyoti, proved their reports and ultra sounds films. Both the doctors have proved the medico-legally report Ex.PK and testified that injuries suffered by Ramesh were the result of fire shots and its duration was six hours. 8. Since, the parties were known to each other and enmity between them stands established, therefore, the question of mistaken identity and false implication does not arise. 9. Both the doctors have proved the medico-legally report Ex.PK and testified that injuries suffered by Ramesh were the result of fire shots and its duration was six hours. 8. Since, the parties were known to each other and enmity between them stands established, therefore, the question of mistaken identity and false implication does not arise. 9. Mahavir PW is related to the family of accused Babloo and Duli Chand PW had cultivated the land of accused, therefore, the plausible explanation has come forward for the prosecution to say against them for not supporting the prosecution case. The ocular version given by Laxman PW5 brother of the injured and Ramesh PW4 injured fits in with the medical evidence. 10. The delay in making the statement by Ramesh injured, has also been duly explained by the prosecution. Ameer Singh ASI, while appearing into the witness box stated that he moved the application Ex.PH on 20.11.1997 at about 2:45 p.m., over which the Doctor made his opinion Ex.PH/1, stating that Ramesh was unfit to make statement. Similar opinion was made as Ex.PH/2 on 21.11.1997. Ultimately the Doctor declared Ramesh fit to make statement on 22.11.1997 at about 2 p.m. Therefore, delay in recording his statement does not create any dent in the prosecution case. The statement of Laxman also creates no doubt over the prosecution version. The motive behind the occurrence also stands fully established. The defence has also pleaded that there was a rivalry between the accused and injured which emanated from the elections of the Municipal Council. Therefore, the said motive could also drive the accused to attack Ramesh. As regards Rohtash, trial Court rightly acquitted him while taking abundant questions and holding that since Rohtash did not cause any injury to Ramesh, therefore, he cannot be said to have participated in the crime and shared common intention with the accused. 11. Faced with the situation, counsel for the appellants has urged that the accused have already undergone 4 years and 7 months and three years and nine months out of substantive sentence respectively, which is sufficient to meet the ends of justice and that they have faced a lot of agony due to the protracted trial, therefore, the lenient view may be taken. 12. 12. It may be observed from the records that the Babloo accused has suffered for 4 years and 7 months and Sukha had suffered for 3 years and 9 months out of substantive sentence and they are also ready to compensate the injured for the injuries suffered by them. The longevity of the case for the last 10 years may not be sufficient ground to condone the sentence passed by the trial Court as a whole, yet that can be treated as mitigating circumstance to take a lenient view in their favour. 13. Taking conspectus of the aforesaid circumstances, particularly the fact that the appellants did not repeat the offence and they are living peaceful life, since, when they were released on bail, therefore, the ends of justice would be met if the sentence suffered by them is reduced to the period already undergone. However, they are burdened to pay compensation to the injured to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- each in addition to the compensation awarded by the Trial Court. In case of non-deposit of compensation within three months, the appeal shall be treated as dismissed. 14. The copy of the judgment be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad, for compliance.