Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2013 DIGILAW 617 (SC)

Puran Chand v. State of Haryana

2013-05-22

B.S.CHAUHAN, DIPAK MISRA

body2013
ORDER : This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 10.7.2009 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl.Appeal No. 564-DB of 2000, by way of which, it has affirmed the judgment and order dated 16/30.5.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (I), Faridabad in Case No. 3 of 1999, convicting the appellant under Section 148 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as `the IPC') and awarding him the sentence of one year; and further under Section 302 IPC imposing the sentence of imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 500/-. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that: A. On 8.10.1998, Tarun Kumar (deceased) and Gagan (PW.2) touched a burning cigarette on the body of Vinay for showing bulling attitude (Dadagiri). On 11.10.1998, when Tarun Kumar (deceased) along with his friends Gagan, Yogesh Chopra and Rinku were talking outside his house, appellant, Vinay, Rohit and other co-accused came there and started beating Tarun Kumar (deceased) and Gagan (PW.2) saying that they had become big miscreants and they would teach them a lesson, how they dare to put the burning cigarette on the body of Vinay. On this, Tarun Kumar (deceased) and his friends tried to run away from there. Tarun Kumar (deceased) and his friends had reached near the park, accused Vinay, Rohit, Raju, Puran (appellant), Santa and Rajesh along with others came there. Some co-accused caught hold of the Tarun (deceased) and the appellant gave a knife blow on his chest. The incident was witnessed by the father of deceased, namely, Lekh Raj (PW.1) from some distance. He reached the spot hurriedly but by the time, the accused persons ran away. Lekh Raj (PW.1) and Gagan took Tarun to hospital, however he succumbed to his injuries on the way. B. An FIR No. 376 under Sections 148, 302 and 149 IPC was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Faridabad on 11.10.1998 at 10.30 P.M. The appellant was taken into custody on 12.10.1998. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant and others. C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges against seven accused on 13.2.1999. After conclusion of the trial, the appellant was found guilty vide judgment and order dated 16/30.5.2000 and sentenced as referred to herein above. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant and others. C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges against seven accused on 13.2.1999. After conclusion of the trial, the appellant was found guilty vide judgment and order dated 16/30.5.2000 and sentenced as referred to herein above. The other accused, namely, Raju, Vinay, Rajesh, Shantu and Rohit were held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 323 r/w 149 IPC and the other three accused, namely, Mukesh, Sanjiv and Harshi stood acquitted. D. The appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 564-DB of 2000, which has been dismissed vide impugned judgment and order dated 10.7.2009. Hence, this appeal. 3. Shri Praveen Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has submitted that the prosecution case is totally improbable as its case has been that some of the accused caught hold of Tarun Kumar (deceased) and the appellant gave a knife blow on the chest, as a result of which, Tarun Kumar died. The other accused had been acquitted. It was not desirable for the courts below to convict the appellant alone under Section 302 IPC. The evidence including the depositions of Lekh Raj (PW.1) and Gagan (PW.2), have not been believed for conviction under Section 302 IPC of other accused. There are material discrepancies in the case of the prosecution which go to the root of the case. Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 4. On the contrary, Shri Kamal Mohan Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, has opposed the appeal contending that both the courts below have appreciated the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the appellant had caused the knife injury on the chest and Tarun Kumar died of the same within no time. Though, in the investigation, Rohit and Shantu had been exonerated but they had been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and they also faced the trial and stood convicted. So, no fault can be found with the judgments and orders of the courts below. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. We have examined not only the impugned judgments and orders but also the evidence on record. So, no fault can be found with the judgments and orders of the courts below. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. We have examined not only the impugned judgments and orders but also the evidence on record. There is no reason for Lekh Raj (PW.1), father of the deceased, and Gagan (PW.2) to falsely implicate the appellant and spare the real culprits. It is not the case that the other accused had not been convicted at all. 7. Dr. P.S. Parihar (PW.3) had conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Tarun Kumar on 12.10.1998 and found the following injuries: "1. A spindal shaped sharp edged would 2 x 1 cm which was transversely placed over the left side of the chest and situated 3 cms below the left nipple. 2. Abrasion 1.5 x 1 cm situated 3 cm above and medial to the right nipple." In the opinion of the doctor, cause of the death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries to vital organ (heart). The injuries were antemortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 8. In view of above, we do not find any force in the submissions advanced by Shri Praveen Gupta that the conviction may be changed from under Section 302 to 304 Part I of the IPC and sentence may be reduced for the reason that the injuries had been caused on the vital part of the body i.e. heart. We do not see any reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgments of the courts below. The appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.