Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 531 (PNJ)

Surjeet @ Sheelu v. State Of Haryana

2008-02-26

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, S.D.ANAND

body2008
Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. The appellant challenges his conviction under Section 302 for which he has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo further RI for six months. 2. Case of the prosecution is that on 19.9.1996 at 7-00 P.M., deceased Raj Kumar and his cousin PW-6 Satbir Singh alongwith the appellant Surjeet @ Sheelu, resident of Village Chirod had gone to Siwani on a Ford tractor. While returning, they halted at a hotel for refreshment. The appellant brought liquor from his tractor and consumed the same alongwith the deceased. Satbir Singh PW-6 took tea. When Satbir Singh was making payment to the owner of the hotel, the appellant made the deceased to sit on the mud guard of his tractor and drove away the tractor speedily towards Village Barwa. Satbir Singh PW-6 shouted for stopping the tractor but the appellant did not listen and sped away the tractor. Satbir Singh followed on foot and at 10-45/11-00 P.M., he saw the tractor-trolley standing on the kutcha path on the side of the road. The appellant had made Raj Kumar to fall on the ground and was driving the tractor backward and forward. Raj Kumar was shouting that the appellant will kill him and he had already run the tractor over him. Satbir Singh did not intervene out of fear and went to his village and informed the wife of Raj Kumar as well as Balbir and Ved Pal, brother and nephew of Satbir Singh. Later, he came back to Barwa, at the place of occurrence and met Jai Lal, Chowkidar PW-4 and Roshan Lal, who were sitting on a cot on the side of the road in front of their shop. They told him that the appellant had sped away with his tractor, leaving the trolley there. They had informed the police and Raj Kumar had been taken to Siwani. Satbir Singh alongwith Balbir and Ved Pal went to the Police Station, Siwani, where they were advised to go to the hospital. Satbir Singh went to the hospital and after seeing Raj Kumar in unconscious condition, he went back to Village Chirod to collect money, leaving Balbir on the spot. When they came back, Raj Kumar had died. Satbir Singh alongwith Balbir and Ved Pal went to the Police Station, Siwani, where they were advised to go to the hospital. Satbir Singh went to the hospital and after seeing Raj Kumar in unconscious condition, he went back to Village Chirod to collect money, leaving Balbir on the spot. When they came back, Raj Kumar had died. According to him, the appellant had caused the death of Raj Kumar on account of altercation at the hotel as the deceased had money dealings with the appellant. His statement was recorded by ASI Om Parkash PW-8 at 9-10 A.M. which led to registration of FIR. ASI Om Parkash PW-9 had earlier received a telephonic message at the police station at 10-45 P.M. on 19.9.1996 that a person had been run over by a tractor and he had gone to Village Barwa. On going to the place of occurrence, he found Raj Kumar and removed him to the hospital where he was given medical aid and MLR was prepared at 1-20 A.M. He received a message from the hospital on 20.9.1996 at 8-10 A.M. regarding the death of the injured, on which he went to the hospital and prepared inquest report. He also recorded statement of Satbir Singh PW-6. He then sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. He recorded statement of Balbir Singh also, but thereafter, the investigation was handed over to SI Jagdish Chander PW-7, who went to the place of occurrence, recorded the statement of Jai Lal PW-4 and Roshan Lal and also took other steps for investigation. He arrested the accused and recovered the tractor in pursuance of disclosure statement. He got the tractor mechanically examined from PW-3 Mahinder Kumar. After completing investigation, PW-10 Daya Nand, SI filed final report in Court. 3. Dr. K.K. Garg, PW-1 conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 20.9.1996 at 4-20 P.M. and found the following injuries: I noted the following injuries: 1). Abrasion 3 cm. x 11/2 cm. on the left frontal region, 2 cm. lateral to eye brow, clotted blood was present. On dissection,there was extra-vasation of blood in the soft tissues. 2). Abrasion 3 cm. x 4 cm. transversely on the back of right upper part upper one third with extravasation of blood in the soft tissues. 3). Abrasion 3 cm. x 11/2 cm. on the left frontal region, 2 cm. lateral to eye brow, clotted blood was present. On dissection,there was extra-vasation of blood in the soft tissues. 2). Abrasion 3 cm. x 4 cm. transversely on the back of right upper part upper one third with extravasation of blood in the soft tissues. 3). Bluish discoloration on the back in right lumber region in front of the right iliac fossa with soft tissue rupture with collection of blood. On opening, there was fracture of right pelvic bone. There was blood in the pelvic cavity. 4). Abrasion 5 cm. x 4 cm. on back of left thigh upper one third. On dissection, extra-vasation of blood in the soft tissues. 5) Abrasions of various shapes and sizes in left lumber region. 4. He did not give the cause of death, pending receipt of report of Chemical Examiner. Later, on 2.1.1997, he gave opinion that cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 5. The prosecution examined PW-1 Dr. K.K. Garg, PW-2 Dr. B.S. Nain, PW-3 Mahinder Kumar, PW-4 Jai Lal, PW-5 Shamsher Singh, Draftsman, PW-6 Satbir Singh, PW-7 Jagdish Chander, PW-8 ASI Om Parkash, PW-9 Sushil Kumar, Photographer and PW-10 SI Daya Nand. 6. The accused denied the prosecution allegations and stated that he was falsely implicated. He also examined DW-1 Hari Singh, a member of Panchayat of Village Barwa, who proved the affidavit Ex.DB sworn by Jai Lal PW-4, to the effect that Jai Lal was lessee of Raj Kumar deceased and that he had not seen the occurrence. 7. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court accepted the version of the prosecution by believing the account given by PW-4 Jai Lal and PW-6 Satbir. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the account given by PW-4 Jai Lal and PW-6 Satbir was not reliable and thus, case of the prosecution could not be held to have been proved. 9. We find merit in the contention raised. 10. We will first analyse the evidence of PW-6 Satbir Singh. He supported the version given by him in his statement before the police. 9. We find merit in the contention raised. 10. We will first analyse the evidence of PW-6 Satbir Singh. He supported the version given by him in his statement before the police. He deposed that all the three had gone together on a tractor at about 7-00 P.M. and at about 11-00 P.M., the appellant took the deceased on the tractor. He does not mention what transpired before the sudden move of the appellant to take the deceased on the tractor, leaving the said witness alone. He claims to have followed the tractor on foot and also shouted for stopping of the tractor. He did not seek anyones help after suspecting foul play when accused was not listening to him. He did not even mention this fact to any employee of the hotel. He has not even disclosed the name of the hotel or its owner or Manager or employee nor any such person has been associated in the investigation. Though he found that his cousin was being killed, he claims to have gone to his village. He informed the wife of the deceased but she has also not been examined. No other person, whom he had informed, has also been examined, though he claims to have arranged a conveyance and turned back alongwith Balbir Singh and Ved Pal. He then claims to have met Jai Lal PW-4, sitting on a cot near the place of occurrence. The said Jai Lal has been examined as PW-4. If Jai Lal was present at the place of occurrence, there was no reason for Satbir Singh PW-6 to have run away out of fear and not to have met Jai Lal at the time of occurrence. His village is nearby, but he does not seem to have treated the matter urgent for coming back after arranging the conveyance. The occurrence took place at 11-00 P.M. and PW-6 Satbir Singh returned back long after the injured had already been removed to the hospital at 1-30 A.M., which is the time given by PW-2 Dr. B.S. Nain on arrival of injured to the hospital. This conduct of PW-6 Satbir Singh makes him unreliable. If he had seen the occurrence, either he would not have gone to his village or he would have returned soon. He would also not have failed to meet Jai Lal, who claims to be an eyewitness. B.S. Nain on arrival of injured to the hospital. This conduct of PW-6 Satbir Singh makes him unreliable. If he had seen the occurrence, either he would not have gone to his village or he would have returned soon. He would also not have failed to meet Jai Lal, who claims to be an eyewitness. He would also have named the owner or Manager of the hotel and would have talked to him. The wife of Raj Kumar deceased would have been examined to support his version. He would also have tried to seek some medical help or police help. He reached the hospital only at 6-30 A.M., which shows that he may not have reached the place of occurrence prior to that. 11. We find the statement of PW-4 Jai Lal to be equally unreliable. If PW-4 Jai Lal was present at the place of occurrence, either his name would have been mentioned in the police record for his having informed the police, as claimed by him or for his having been present at the place of occurrence when the police came. He would have also seen PW-6 Satbir Singh. Being a Chowkidar, he would have taken some further steps and would not have kept quite. He did not accompany the injured to the hospital. His statement was not recorded by the police till the next day at 12-00/1-00 P.M. The manner of occurrence given by PW-4 Jai Lal and PW-6 Satbir Singh, of running over the tractor by moving the same forward and backward, is also contradicted by medical evidence. There are only four abrasions and the doctor was not able to given cause of death immediately. If the story of PW-4 Jai Lal and PW-6 Satbir Singh is to be believed, there would have been crush injuries of serious nature and the doctor would have immediately identified the cause of death. According to the crossexamination, the doctor sent the viscera for chemical examination for detection of alcohol or poison and deferred the giving opinion of cause of death, pending receipt of report. The doctor also agreed that the injuries did not have symptoms of crush injuries. He also did not record having noticed any tyre marks on the clothes of the deceased. The doctor also agreed that the injuries did not have symptoms of crush injuries. He also did not record having noticed any tyre marks on the clothes of the deceased. PW-4 Jai Lal did not deny having signed Ex.DB that he had not seen the occurrence, but stated that he had done so under the influence of the accused. He further stated that he had come to the road to urinate and he saw the man falling from the tractor, on which, the tractor ran over the said person. He and Roshan were present but did not intervene. He also did not note the tractor number. He asked about the name and address of the injured person, but the injured could not speak. He gave his name and address to the police on telephone. He also told these facts to Rajinder Thakur, owner of the flour mill. He did not make any effort to remove the injured to the hospital. He also did not inform any respectable of the village. The police came to the spot but he did not make any statement to the police. He also did not accompany the injured and the police to the hospital. He and Roshan remained sitting at the spot for 2-3 hours, before the family members of the deceased came. He did not accompany Satbir Singh to Siwani. He went back to his house. He did not know what was recorded by the police in his statement. 12. Thus, the statement of PW-4 Jai Lal and PW-6 Satbir Singh cannot be held to be reliable. If the said witnesses had actually seen the occurrence, their conduct would have been different. No doubt different persons may react differently, but on the whole, the version of a witness must be reliable. Ex.PF is a letter written by ASI Om Parkash to the doctor intimating that he found the deceased, who was described as an unknown person, at 1-45 A.M. under intoxication of liquor lying on the road. The Court has to judge the evidence by its intrinsic worth in the light of peculiar facts of the case without giving latitude either to the prosecution or the accused. Yardstick of probabilities has to be applied to the evidence led. The Court has to judge the evidence by its intrinsic worth in the light of peculiar facts of the case without giving latitude either to the prosecution or the accused. Yardstick of probabilities has to be applied to the evidence led. On an overall view of the matter, having regard to conduct of PW-4 Jai Lal and PW-6 Satbir Singh, as reflected in their statements and having regard to medical evidence on record, we are of the view that evidence of PW-4 Jai Lal and PW-6 Satbir Singh cannot be held to be reliable. In absence thereof, there is no clinching evidence to connect the accused with the crime. In these circumstances, we are unable to hold that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. We are, thus, constrained to give benefit of doubt to the accused. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant are set-aside and he is acquitted.