Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 349 (PNJ)

Vikas v. State of Haryana

2007-03-02

ARVIND KUMAR, MEHTAB S.GILL

body2007
JUDGMENT Mehtab S.Gill, J.:- Criminal Appeal No.207-DB of 2006 and Criminal Appeal No. 393-DB of 2006 have been filed by Vikas son of Bijender, Vinod son of Kishan and Jitender Singh son of Sat Pal against their conviction by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, Section 364 read with Section 34 IPC, Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC and they have been sentenced for various terms by the learned trial Court. 2. The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement Ex.PE of Raj Pal Singh given to ASI Nand Lal PW6 at Bus Stand Police Post, Panipat. Raj Pal Singh stated that he is a resident of Siwah, P.S. Chandni Bagh District Sonepat. He had four brothers. His younger brother Narinder Singh had a Maruti Esteem Car No.DL-CD-3991, which he used as a taxi. He used to park his vehicle near the circus ground. On 2.7.2000 at about 9.00 a.m., Narinder Singh went to Taxi Stand Panipat, but did not come back in the night. Raj Pal Singh and his brother Rajbir went to the taxi stand to enquire about Narinder Singh. The Head of the taxi stand told them that as per his record, on 2.7.2000 at 10.00 a.m. Sanjay son of Raj Kumar, resident of Prem Nagar, Panipat had taken the vehicle on rent. Narinder Singh along with his passengers had gone to Village Bitavada. Thereafter, Narinder Singh had not come back with his taxi. Raj Pal Singh told ASI Nand Lal that he had a doubt that Sanjay had kidnapped his brother Narinder Singh. On the basis of this statement, FIR Ex.PE/1 was recorded on 5.7.2000 at 6.40 p.m. and the special report reached the A.C.J.M., Panipat on the same day at 11.15 p.m. The dead body of Narinder Singh was recovered after about six months i.e. on 11.1.2001. 3. The prosecution to prove its case brought into the witness box Dr. Basant Lal as PW1, Raj Pal as PW2, ASI Nand Lal as PW3, Dr. 3. The prosecution to prove its case brought into the witness box Dr. Basant Lal as PW1, Raj Pal as PW2, ASI Nand Lal as PW3, Dr. K.L.Chopra as PW4, SI Ramesh Kumar as PW5, ASI Bijender Singh as PW6, Rajesh Kumar as PW7, ASI Ram Dia as PW8, SI Prithvi Raj as PW9, HC Surinder Singh as PW10, Constable Ishwar Singh as PW11, HC Brij Pal Singh as PW12, SI Sardar Singh as PW13, Jagdish as PW14, Ashok Kumar as PW15, Om Parkash as PW16, Narender as PW17, Kuldeep Singh as PW18, Satpal Singh as PW19, HC Jasmer Singh as PW20, HC Om Parkash as PW21, Inspector Vinod Kumar as PW22, HC Sushil Kumar as PW23 and Constable Suresh Kumar as PW24. 4. Learned counsel for appellants Vikas and Vinod, Mrs. Vandana Malhotra has argued, that the identity of the deceased could not be established. As per the site plan Ex.PHH, skeleton was found at point A, clothes at point B, chappal at point C and at point D the knife has been allegedly thrown into Gang Nahar. As per the statement of Inspector Vinod Kumar PW22, the skeleton of deceased Narinder Singh was found in the deep jungle. He has admitted that people come to cremate bodies on that place near Gang Nahar. Dr. Basant Lal PW1 has not given the height of the deceased. The body was identified by Jagdish PW14 and one Rajbir. Rajbir was given up by the prosecution as being unnecessary. In fact he was a necessary witness, which the prosecution purposely withheld, as they knew that he would spill the beans. 5. The injuries, which caused the death, as per Dr. Basant Lal PW1, were with a chain. The chain was not sent to the FSL, to see whether it had blood marks on it or not. He further in his crossexamination has opined, that he cannot tell whether the death was by strangulation or not. The knife allegedly used to stab the deceased was not recovered, though it has been made out that appellants Vikas and Vinod are the ones, who gave the knife injuries. No DNA test was held. The clothes of the deceased were found in a scattered position all over. There was no need for the appellants to leave the clothes and the body in the jungle. No DNA test was held. The clothes of the deceased were found in a scattered position all over. There was no need for the appellants to leave the clothes and the body in the jungle. It would be more safe for them to throw the body of the deceased in the Gang Nahar, so that it could be washed away with the water. The last seen evidence, as spelt out by Narender PW17, does not inspire confidence, as his statement has been made after 2-½ months. Jagdish PW14, who was the neighbourer has stated, that the clothes were smeared with blood and mud. The sides of the pants were missing. The witness to the extra judicial confession Ashok Kumar PW15, did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile. There was no motive for the commission of the offence and if the motive was to steal the Maruti Esteem car, then the appellants would have done so after disposing of the car of Narinder Singh deceased and would not have kept the car for 15 days with them. The chain of events is not complete and there is no evidence that the appellants had committed the murder of Narinder Singh deceased. Mr. Harbinder Singh Baidwan, learned counsel for appellant Jitender has adopted the arguments of Mrs. Vandana Malhotra. He has further added, that Ashok Kumar PW15 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case, as he is the only witness qua the alleged extra judicial confession already made by appellant Jitender. Appellants Jitender and Vikas have been identifed by Satpal Singh PW19, after a lapse of many months. Appellant Jitender was arrested on 12.12.2000 and in his disclosure statement Ex.PZ made to Ram Dia ASI PW8, he has stated that the purse of the deceased was thrown near the Gang Nahar. The Investigating Officer Vinod Kumar Inspector PW22 has stated, that he took appellant Jitender with him to recover the skeleton. In fact there is nothing mentioned in the disclosure statement Ex.PZ, allegedly made by appellant Jitender regarding that he knew anything about the skeleton. 6. Learned counsel for the State has argued, that the chain of events has been established. The Investigating Officer Vinod Kumar Inspector PW22 has stated, that he took appellant Jitender with him to recover the skeleton. In fact there is nothing mentioned in the disclosure statement Ex.PZ, allegedly made by appellant Jitender regarding that he knew anything about the skeleton. 6. Learned counsel for the State has argued, that the chain of events has been established. Name of Sanjay was given by Raj Pal PW2, who had come to the taxi stand to hire a taxi, but on investigation it was found that there was no such person as Sanjay living in Prem Nagar, Panipat, as there is no locality in the name of Prem Nagar. In fact one of the appellants gave his name as Sanjay. Maruti Esteem car No. DL-CD- 3991 was recovered by ASI Bijender Singh PW6 on 18.7.2000 from Police Station Chhaproli, District Bagpat. He has stated, that the record was also taken into possession. ASI Ram Dia PW8 prepared the recovery memo Ex.PK and arrested appellant Jitender on 12.12.2000 and on 15.12.2000 got recovered a steel chain Ex.PM from near the Gang Nahar. Though Ashok Kumar PW15 has been declared hostile, but if we go through his statement, it is clear, that he has been won over by the accused. Actually appellant Jitender had made the extra judicial confession before him (PW15). Appellants Vikas and Vinod were taken into custody by Inspector Vinod Kumar PW22, when these appellants were arrested in a murder case and were produced before the Court at Ghaziabad. They made disclosure statements Ex.PDD and Ex.PEE and got recovered bones and clothes from near the Gang Nahar. Appellants Vikas and Vinod were arrested on 4.1.2001. Jagdish PW14, who was a neighbourer and after seeing chappals Ex.PQ and clothes Ex.PS, he identified them to be of the deceased. He has further stated, that the clothes were smeared with blood and mud. Bones were scattered for the reason that vultures and other animals had fed on the body. Satpal Singh PW19, who is a worker on the taxi stand, identified appellants Jitender and Vikas, who are the ones who had taken the taxi. There was no need for a DNA test, as identity of Narinder Singh deceased had been established by his clothes, chappals and other articles, which were recovered. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. There was no need for a DNA test, as identity of Narinder Singh deceased had been established by his clothes, chappals and other articles, which were recovered. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. FIR Ex.PE/1 was recorded on 5.7.2000 at 6.40 p.m. As per the FIR, deceased left his house on 2.7.2000 in his Maruti Esteem car No.DL-CD-3991, which he used as a taxi. Appellants had hired it. The motive for the appellants to take the car was to sell it and make money. SI Ramesh Kumar PW5 took into possession the receipt book Ex.P1, from the taxi stand. In the receipt book it was mentioned that one Sanjay had taken the taxi and it was signed by Sanjay. ASI Bijender Singh PW6 was informed that a stolen Maruti Esteem car No.DL-CD-3991 was standing at Police Station Chhaproli, District Bagpat. ASI Bijender Singh PW6 took into possession the Maruti Esteem car on 18.7.2000 and also took all the record into possession. Satpal Singh PW19, in his testimony before the Court has stated, that on 2.7.2000 he was at the taxi stand at Panipat. Two boys came there and asked for a taxi. They had discussions with different taxi drivers. Satpal Singh PW19 was sitting and watching everything. They made an agreement with Narinder deceased. He enquired from them about the address. One of them disclosed his name as Sanjay Kumar son of Ajay Kumar. Sanjay appended his signatures on the notebook and counterfoil of the receipt. Thereafter, the deceased along with them went to Village Bitawada (UP). On the third day, the family members of Narinder deceased came to him and enquired about the whereabouts of Narinder deceased. He on seeing the counterfoil Ex.P36 and receipt book Ex.P36/1 of the receipt book, told that one Sanjay had hired the taxi. This witness identified the appellants to be the very persons, who had hired the taxi. Ashok Kumar PW15, who though was declared hostile, was the one before whom the extra judicial confession was made by appellant Jitender. He produced appellant Jitender, who was arrested by ASI Ram Dia PW18 on 12.12.2000. Appellant Jitender made a disclosure statement Ex.PZ on 15.12.2000 and got recovered the steel chain Ex.PM and purse from the banks of Gang Nahar. Ashok Kumar PW15, who though was declared hostile, was the one before whom the extra judicial confession was made by appellant Jitender. He produced appellant Jitender, who was arrested by ASI Ram Dia PW18 on 12.12.2000. Appellant Jitender made a disclosure statement Ex.PZ on 15.12.2000 and got recovered the steel chain Ex.PM and purse from the banks of Gang Nahar. Appellants Vikas and Vinod were arrested on 4.1.2001 and as per statement of Inspector Vinod Kumar PW22, the Investigating Officer, they had been arrested in a murder case at Ghaziabad and it is there, they confessed that they had committed the murder of Narinder Singh deceased. They were taken into custody as per Ex.DD and Ex.EE. They also pointed out the place where the bones of the deceased, clothes and other articles were lying near the Gang Nahar. Jagdish PW14 was a witness to the recovery. He identified and recognised the clothes, shirt and pant of the deceased. He has stated, that the bones were scattered and the shirt and pant were smeared with blood and mud. Bones being scattered, was for the reason that vultures and other animals had fed on the body. There was no necessity for a DNA test, as identity of the deceased has been clearly established by an independent witness Jagdish PW14. Constable Ishwar Singh PW11 took into custody the deck of the car Ex.DB. 8. The surrounding circumstances clearly point to the guilt of the accused. Maruti Esteem car No. DL-CD-3991 was recovered from them. The clothes, bones and steel chain, which was used to strangulate the deceased, were recovered on their disclosure statements. The last seen evidence, as spelt out by Narender PW17, is cogent and convincing. The chain of events is built by the circumstances proved by the statements of the witnesses. We do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned trial Court. Appeal is dismissed. -----------------------------