Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 556 (PNJ)

Raghbir Singh v. State Of Haryana

2010-01-22

HEMANT GUPTA, JASWANT SINGH

body2010
Judgment HEMANT GUPTA, J. 1. The present appeal by Raghbir Singh son of Hira Lal, Pritam Singh, prem Pal and Jai Bhagwan @ Balli sons of Raghbir Singh, is against the judgment of conviction dated 30.1.2002 and order of sentence dated 1.2.2002, whereby they were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 148/302/149 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each for the offences under Sections 302/149 IPC. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Sec.148 IPC. Bhira, brother of Jeeta-deceased has lodged a complaint Ex. PA on 20.10.1999 at about 9.00 AM. The occurrence was purportedly said to have taken place on 19.10.1999 at about 9.00 PM. It has been stated by Bhira in his statement (Ex. PA) that he has seven brothers. Out of the aforesaid seven brothers, he, Jeeta, Krishan and dheeru are living in Daya Nagar Basati Taraori in separate houses, whereas pritam Singh, Prem Pal, Balli, Puran sons of Raghbir Singh are also living in his neighbourhood. Both the parties are Ahir by caste. He stated that on 19.10.1999 at about 9.00 PM, Pritam Singh, Balli, Prem Pal, Puran and their father Raghbir Singh under the influence of liquor, were quarreling and were causing injuries to each other and calling bad names. He further stated that his brother Jeeta intervened and tried to persuade the accused, but they did not bother. He further stated that at that time, the said four brothers and their father Raghbir Singh armed with lathies chased Jeeta. Raghbir Singh gave lalkara that Jeeta should be finished as he daily intervenes. Then Pritam singh, Balli and Prem Pal hurled lathi blows on the different sides of head of jeeta as a result of which, he (Jeeta) fell down. Thereafter, Puran and his father Raghbir Singh also gave repeated lathi blows, while he was lying on the ground. Kela wife of Raghbir Singh also after picking up brick threw upon his brother Jeeta, which hit on his private part. He (Bhira) and his nephew karambir saw the occurrence from the outside of the house. They raised hue and cry and rushed towards Jeeta for his rescue. Kela wife of Raghbir Singh also after picking up brick threw upon his brother Jeeta, which hit on his private part. He (Bhira) and his nephew karambir saw the occurrence from the outside of the house. They raised hue and cry and rushed towards Jeeta for his rescue. He further stated that then Puran gave a lathi blow to him and to save himself, he raised his left hand and the lathi hit on his little finger of left hand. Thereafter, a number of men and women of the locality came at the spot and the accused after seeing them fled away from the spot alongwith their respective lathies. He and his nephew karambir lifted Jeeta and started to go towards his house. There was heavy rush and his brother Jeeta ran away towards rajbaha. In the morning, they found his (Jeeta) dead body on a cot in front of the house of Gobinda S/o Balaka Ram R/o Futti Taraori, due to injuries caused during night. 2. The prosecution in support of its case has examined Dr. Shashi prabha as PW-3, who has conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Jeeta at 1.10 PM on 20.10.1999. The post-mortem report is Ex. PC. Dr. Shashi prabha (PW-3) has deposed that the probable time that has been elapsed was variable, but duration between death and post mortem report was 36 hours. She has also reported that all the injuries were ante- mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in normal course of life. On dissection of scalp haemotoma was present under the scalp on the right frontal parietal temporal and occipital region of the scalp. She has deposed that following injuries were found on the person of Jeeta: 1. Lacerated wound 1 cm x 1 cm on right fronto parietal region of scalp, its anterior end 8 cm from right pinna and posterior and 10 cm above right pinna. 2. A lacerated wound 3 cm x 1 cm on right temporal parietal region of scalp. Its anterior end was 7 cm above right pinna and posterior end was 9 cm above right pinna. 3. Swelling 6 cm x 5 cm on the occipital region of scalp. 4. Right eye was black. 5. Red contusion 8 cm x 3 cm on the back of left shoulder. 6. Its anterior end was 7 cm above right pinna and posterior end was 9 cm above right pinna. 3. Swelling 6 cm x 5 cm on the occipital region of scalp. 4. Right eye was black. 5. Red contusion 8 cm x 3 cm on the back of left shoulder. 6. Reddish contusion 10 cm x 3 cm on the left side of back of mid thoracic region 5 cm away from the mid line. 7. Reddish contusion 7 cm x 3 cm on left side of back of thoracic region 3 cm below the injury No.6. 8. Reddish contusion 8 cm x 3 cm on left side of back 1 cm above the injury No.1. Vertically placed. 9. Reddish contusion 8 cm x 3 cm on right mid scapular region. 10. Reddish contusion 6 cm x 1 cm on right lumber region. 11. Reddish contusion 8 cm x 3 cm on right side of back of lower thoracic region. 12. Reddish contusion 5 cm x 3 cm along the post axillary line of right axilla. 13. Reddish contusion 6 cm x 3 cm on right lateral side of chest 4 cm below injury No.8. 14. Reddish contusion 8 cm x 3 cm on the right hip in the middle. 15. Reddish contusion 8 cm x 3 cm, 2 cm medial to injury No.14. 3. Apart from the medical evidence and other official witnesses, the prosecution has also examined Bhira (PW-7) and Karambir (PW-8), the eye-witnesses to prove the guilt against the accused. It has also come on record during the course of cross- examination of Karambir (PW-8) that the distance between the house of gobinda and house of Jeeta is one kilometer. Bhira (PW-7), brother of the deceased has admitted in his cross-examination that the blood was oozing from the injuries of his brother Jeeta from his head and other part of his body. He further stated that he lifted Jeeta after the occurrence and then he left the spot and went to the house of his friend. He further stated that he has not tried to take Jeeta to the hospital at that time because he also sustained injuries. He did not inform the police as well. Even after return from the hospital, he did not inform the police. Dr. He further stated that he has not tried to take Jeeta to the hospital at that time because he also sustained injuries. He did not inform the police as well. Even after return from the hospital, he did not inform the police. Dr. A. P. Bhatia (PW-5), who has medico-legally examined Bhira at Nilokheri, at some distance from the village of occurrence, has found that there was diffused swelling on the anterior surface of little finger left side and in the middle phalanx, lacerated wound of 2 cm x.5 cm lying obliquely skin deep. As per the medico-legal report Ex. PE, the injury received by Bhira was minor injury on the little finger of left hand. 4. As per the post-mortem report (Ex. PC), the deceased has fracture of ribs and has received injuries on the head. As per the testimony of Bhira (PW-7), the blood was oozing out. It is impossible for any person to run one kilometer to the house of Gobinda with such kind of injuries, as propounded by the prosecution. The testimony of Bhira (PW-7) is that of a untruthful witness. He saw his brother Jeeta being given mercilessly beatings, but he did not try to remove his brother to hospital, but get himself examined during the night of 19.10.1999 for a minor injury, which is on his little finger of left hand. The other witness namely Karambir (PW-8) is none else, but real nephew of the deceased. In his cross-examination, he specifically stated that the injured himself has left the spot and they did not try to take him to the hospital. Even the said statement is of a untruthful witness. The conduct of Bhira (PW-7)and Karambir (PW-8) in not attending to the grievously injured, a near relation, makes the entire prosecution story as doubtful. 5. It may be further noticed that the lathies, which were used in the commission of crime, were not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory nor the blood stained earth was lifted from the place of occurrence for chemical examination. The prosecution has, thus, failed to fix the scene of occurrence of crime to prove the guilt against the accused. 5. It may be further noticed that the lathies, which were used in the commission of crime, were not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory nor the blood stained earth was lifted from the place of occurrence for chemical examination. The prosecution has, thus, failed to fix the scene of occurrence of crime to prove the guilt against the accused. Since the entire prosecution story has been found to be doubtful, we accept the present appeal by granting benefit of doubt to the appellants and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court. All the appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them. If the appellants are on bail, they shall stand discharged of their bail bonds. If they are in custody, they shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.