Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1725 (PNJ)

Harun v. State Of Haryana

2007-09-20

A.N.JINDAL, MEHTAB S.GILL

body2007
Judgment Mehtab S.Gill, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment/order dated 21.9.2004/24.9.2004 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat whereby he convicted appellants Harun son of Matloob and Saleem son of Matloob under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default, to further undergo RI for one year. They were also convicted under Section 201 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default, to further undergo RI for six months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement Ex.PB of Lila Sarpanch of Village Garhi Basic. Lila stated that he was in friendly terms with Matloob son of Kutub. Matloob used to tell him that his sons Harun and Saleem quarreled with him. Harun suspected that Matloob was having illicit relations with his wife. Lila called Harun and convinced him that his father did not have any illicit relations with his wife. On 1.2.2002 Salmo daughter of Matloob came to the house of Lila and told him that Matloob had disappeared and was not seen since Tuesday evening. She further told him that both her brothers were also missing since Wednesday. Lila went to the house of Matloob and saw blood stains in the room where Matloob used to sleep. Salmo stated that she had gone to the fields and found something buried in the wheat fields. Jamil Numberdar and Jinda son of Kutub went to the fields. They inspected the spot and found the stains of blood on the wall of the residential room of Matloob. Thereafter they went to the fields and found the earth soft in a part of the wheat fields. The matter was reported to the police. On the basis of this statement F.I.R. Ex.PB/1 was recorded on 1.2.2002 at 6.40 p.m. Special report reached the Illaqa Magistrate at Panipat on the same day at 7.40 p.m. 3. The prosecution to prove its case, brought into the witness-box Constable Virender Singh PW-1, ASI Mukesh Kumar PW-2, Constable Rajesh Kumar PW-3, HC Rohtash PW-4, Constable Naresh Kumar PW-5, Dr.R.K.Garg PW-6, Lila PW-7, Rajinder Gehlot PW-8, Sadda PW-9, Sheokat PW-10, Krishan PW-11, Salmo PW-12, Booba PW-13 and SI Sandeep Singh PW-14. 4. The prosecution to prove its case, brought into the witness-box Constable Virender Singh PW-1, ASI Mukesh Kumar PW-2, Constable Rajesh Kumar PW-3, HC Rohtash PW-4, Constable Naresh Kumar PW-5, Dr.R.K.Garg PW-6, Lila PW-7, Rajinder Gehlot PW-8, Sadda PW-9, Sheokat PW-10, Krishan PW-11, Salmo PW-12, Booba PW-13 and SI Sandeep Singh PW-14. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that nothing was recovered from appellant Saleem, nor did he have any motive to commit the murder of his father Matloob. The only eye-witness to the occurrence Booba PW-13 gave his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to the Investigating Officer on 1.2.2002. Occurrence had taken place on the night of 29.1.2002. No explanation has come forward, from his side as to why he kept silent for 2 days. Kassi and Pharsa were recovered from appellant Harun and apart from this recovery, there is no evidence with the prosecution to show that appellant Harun was the one who committed the murder. No witness has been produced to prove the motive, that deceased Matloob, father of the appellants was having illicit relations with appellant Haruns wife. 5. Learned counsel for the State has argued that Salmo PW-12, though was declared hostile as she did not support the prosecution case but in her statement in examination-in-chief admitted that her father Matloob had illicit relations with appellant Haruns wife. Death of Matloob had taken place in the house of appellants. Blood was found on the walls of the room where deceased Matloob was murdered and used to stay. 6. As per the F.S.L. report Ex.PS, the blood found on the walls and on the person of the deceased i.e. the shirt and Payjama which were recovered by the Investigating Officer, had human blood. 7. Booba PW-13 was a neighbour who saw the occurrence. He had last seen the deceased in the company of the appellants. 8. No explanation has come forward from the side of the appellants as to what happened to their father Matloob on the night of 29/30.1.2002, though all of them were staying together in the same house. 9. There is no delay in lodging of the F.I.R. The occurrence had taken place on the night intervening 29/30.1.2002. 8. No explanation has come forward from the side of the appellants as to what happened to their father Matloob on the night of 29/30.1.2002, though all of them were staying together in the same house. 9. There is no delay in lodging of the F.I.R. The occurrence had taken place on the night intervening 29/30.1.2002. F.I.R. Ex.PB/1 was recorded on 1.2.2002 at 6.40 p.m. and the special report reached the Illaqa Magistrate at Panipat on the same day at 7.40 p.m. This itself goes a long way in proving thecase of the prosecution. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. 11. Motive for the commission of the offence in this case assumes significance, as the deceased is no other person than the father of the appellants. Salmo PW-12 sister of the appellants and daughter of deceased Matloob though was declared hostile, but she has stated in her testimony before the Court that her father Matloob had illicit relations with the wife of her brother Harun. Similarly, Lila PW-7 who is the Sarpanch of the village and is author of the F.I.R. Ex.PB/1, has also stated that deceased Matloob told him, that his sons suspected him for having illicit relations with the wife of Harun. Lila PW-7 tried to convince appellant Harun that his father Matloob and Haruns wife were not having any illicit relations. But appellant Harun was not ready to believe it. No explanation is coming from the side of the appellants as to how and by whom injuries were caused to their father Matloob, though all the three of them stayed in the same house. The shirt and Payjama of the deceased which were taken into custody, as per the F.S.L. report Ex.PS, were having human blood. Booba PW-13 neighbour of the appellants, has stated that on the night intervening 29/30.1.2002 he had gone to urinate at 12/12.30 p.m. He heard a noise from the house of Matloob. Electric light was on. He saw the appellants beating Matloob with a Kassi and a Pharsa Exs.P9 and P6 respectively. As he did not have good relations with deceased Matloob, he did not disclose this to anyone for 2/3 days. Thereafter he reported the matter to the police. Recovery of Pharsa Ex.P6 is from the person of appellant Harun. No weapon of offence was recovered from appellant Saleem. As he did not have good relations with deceased Matloob, he did not disclose this to anyone for 2/3 days. Thereafter he reported the matter to the police. Recovery of Pharsa Ex.P6 is from the person of appellant Harun. No weapon of offence was recovered from appellant Saleem. Learned counsel for the appellants, has rightly argued that appellant Saleem did not have any motive to commit the murder of his own father. If Appellant Harun had the motive and the grievance to kill his father, whom he suspected, was having illicit relations with his wife. At the most, Saleem can be punished under Section 201 I.P.C. for causing disappearance of the body of deceased Matloob. We have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that it was appellant Harun who committed the murder of his father Matloob. He was helped by appellant Saleem by digging a pit and burying the body of Matloob in it, so that dead-body could be destroyed. Appeal qua appellant Harun is dismissed. Conviction and sentence of appellant Saleem under Section 302 I.P.C. is set is aside and he is acquitted of the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. Appellant Saleem is convicted under Section 201 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years. With the above observations and modification in conviction and sentence of appellant Saleem, appeal is dismissed.