Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1998 (PNJ)

Rati Bhan v. State Of Haryana

2019-07-10

HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, RAJIV SHARMA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This appeal is instituted against judgment dated 31.08.2017 and order dated 04.09.2017, rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, in Sessions Trial No. 110 dated 30.05.2016, whereby appellants Rati Bhan and Sumit, who were charged with and tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, were convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 04.02.2016, Ramesh (PW.7) lodged report, vide complaint Ex.PE, with ASI Rajbir Singh (PW.15). According to the contents of the complaint, Mewa Singh, his younger brother, was an agriculturist. Mewa Singh was working as a sweeper for the last 6-7 years. On 03.02.2016, Mewa Singh was irrigating his fields. At about 7.30 PM, he (complainant) was on his way to his fields. At about 7.45 PM, as soon as he reached near the fields of Rati Bhan, he heard the cries of his brother Mewa Singh 'Mar Diya - Mar Diya'. He reached the spot. He found Mewa Singh lying on the ground. Accused Rati Bhan was pressing his neck. Accused Sumit son of Rati Bhan was giving kick blows on the chest and belly of Mewa Singh. Another person was present there. However, he could not identify him. The accused fled towards the mustard fields. Mewa Singh was bleeding from mouth and nose. Mewa Singh was unconscious. He informed his family members. Amarjeet (PW.8), the brother-in-law of Mewa Singh, was present in the house of his sister. He reached the spot with a vehicle. They shifted Mewa Singh to the hospital. The doctor declared him dead. The motive attributed to the accused in the complaint was that about 10-15 days prior to the occurrence, a minor altercation had taken place between accused Rati Bhan and Mewa Singh. FIR Ex.PF was registered. The body was sent for post mortem examination. The accused were arrested. The investigation was completed and challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities. 3. The prosecution examined a number of witnesses. The accused were also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the case of the prosecution. According to them, they were falsely implicated. They examined three witnesses in their defence. 4. The accused were arrested. The investigation was completed and challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities. 3. The prosecution examined a number of witnesses. The accused were also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the case of the prosecution. According to them, they were falsely implicated. They examined three witnesses in their defence. 4. The appellants were convicted and sentenced, as noticed herein-above. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. Learned counsel appearing for the State has supported the judgment and order of the learned Court below. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment and record very carefully. 7. Pw.1 Jamna Devi deposed that the police officials inspected the place of occurrence in her presence on 04.02.2016. The police took into possession blood stained earth and one broken number plate vide memo Ex.PA. 8. Pw.2 Kartar Singh deposed that his younger sister Sushila was married with deceased Mewa Singh. On 03.02.2016, he received a telephonic message from his brother Amarjeet regarding the murder of Mewa Singh. Amarjeet had disclosed that Rati Bhan and his son Sumit had caused the murder of Mewa Singh. He reached General Hospital, Bhiwani on 04.02.2016 and enquired the matter. 9. Pw.6 EHC Surender Singh deposed that SI/SHO Desh Raj had interrogated accused Rati Bhan and Sumit in his presence on 10.02.2016. They made disclosure statements Ex.PG and Ex.PH. They got demarcated the place of occurrence vide memos Ex.PJ and Ex.PK. Accused Sumit got recovered motor cycle No. HR-18A-6395. 10. Pw.7 Ramesh is the material witness. He testified that on 03.02.2016, Mewa Singh was irrigating the fields. At about 7.30 PM, he was going to their fields. When he reached near the fields of accused Rati Bhan at about 7.45 PM, he heard the noise raised by his brother, 'Bachao - Bachao' and 'Mar Dia - Mar Dia'. He rushed to the spot. Accused Rati Bhan was pressing the neck of Mewa Singh. Accused Sumit was giving kick blows on his chest and abdomen. Another person was also present there. The accused fled from the spot. Blood was oozing out of the mouth and nose of his brother. His brother was unconscious. He rushed to the spot. Accused Rati Bhan was pressing the neck of Mewa Singh. Accused Sumit was giving kick blows on his chest and abdomen. Another person was also present there. The accused fled from the spot. Blood was oozing out of the mouth and nose of his brother. His brother was unconscious. He informed Amarjeet, brother-in-law of Mewa Singh, who was present in their village on the day of occurrence. Amarjeet reached the spot. Mewa Singh was removed to General Hospital, Bhiwani. He was declared brought dead. Police came in the hospital on the next morning at about 9.00/9.30 AM. He lodged complaint Ex.PE. He further deposed that about 10-15 days prior to the occurrence, the accused had also given beatings to Mewa Singh on an altercation between them. The police inspected the spot. In his cross-examination, he deposed that his brother was irrigating their fields. It was not dark at that time. He was going on foot. He heard the noise at a distance of 4-5 acres from the fields of Rati Bhan. He also admitted that there was house of Fakir Chand son of Deep Chand by the side of passage. He made telephone call to Amarjeet at about 8.15 PM. He had taken his brother in his lap. His clothes got smeared with blood. He had not shown his clothes smeared with blood to the police. 11. Pw.8 Amarjeet deposed that Mewa Singh (since deceased) was his brother-in-law. On 03.02.2016, he had gone to the house of his sister in village Dhani Dariyapur. At about 8.00 PM, he received a telephone call from Ramesh, elder brother of his brother-in-law. Ramesh disclosed that accused Rati Bhan, his son Sumit and one more person caused murder of Mewa Singh by inflicting injuries, and he should bring a vehicle. He reached the spot. His brother-in-law Mewa Singh was in unconscious condition. Blood was oozing out of his nose and mouth. They took Mewa Singh to CHC Miran, but the same was closed. They took him to General Hospital, Bhiwani. The doctor declared him dead. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he reached the fields within 10-15 minutes. He did not know the owner of the vehicle. There were residential houses in the fields by the side of passage. 12. Pw.13 Desh Raj deposed that he was posted as SHO Police Station Siwani on 04.02.2016. He reached the spot. The doctor declared him dead. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he reached the fields within 10-15 minutes. He did not know the owner of the vehicle. There were residential houses in the fields by the side of passage. 12. Pw.13 Desh Raj deposed that he was posted as SHO Police Station Siwani on 04.02.2016. He reached the spot. He obtained the case file. He inspected the place of occurrence. He lifted blood stained earth and one broken number plate of motor cycle from the place of occurrence. He took photographs Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. He also prepared rough site plan Ex.PQ. The accused were interrogated by him in the presence of EHC Surender Kumar and Constable Anoop. They made disclosure statements Ex.PG and Ex.PH. He prepared demarcation memos Ex.PJ and Ex.PK. Accused Sumit got recovered one motor cycle. He took photograph of the motor cycle. He also recorded statements of the witnesses. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the accused were interrogated at the spot. No witness arrived at the place where they were interrogated. Their house was about 10-12 acres from the place where they were interrogated. The accused were taken out from the lock up on 10.02.2016 at about 8.00 AM. 13. Pw.15 ASI Rajbir Singh testified that he along with other police officials reached Police Post General Hospital, Bhiwani. He obtained ruqa Ex.PQ/1. He went to the dead house. He moved application Ex.PT for conducting the post mortem examination. He took photographs of the deceased with the help of his mobile. The dead body was taken and postmortem examination was conducted on 05.02.2016. In his cross-examination, he deposed that there were five or six persons, when the complainant lodged the report vide complaint Ex.PE. He prepared inquest report of the dead body. There was no external mark of injury on the body, except chest. Ramesh complainant was present at the time, when the inquest proceedings were conducted. He admitted that he did not mention the name of Ramesh and his presence in the inquest report Ex.PS. 14. Pw.11 Dr. Kunal Khanna led his evidence by filing affidavit Ex.PN. He along with Dr. Vineent Merry and Dr. Dinesh Chhillar conducted post mortem examination on the body of Mewa Singh on 05.02.2016 at about 10.15 AM. He admitted that he did not mention the name of Ramesh and his presence in the inquest report Ex.PS. 14. Pw.11 Dr. Kunal Khanna led his evidence by filing affidavit Ex.PN. He along with Dr. Vineent Merry and Dr. Dinesh Chhillar conducted post mortem examination on the body of Mewa Singh on 05.02.2016 at about 10.15 AM. They noticed following injuries on the body of the deceased :- (1) On dissection of the posterior chest wall, a reddish contusion of size 11 x 6 cm was present over the left side situated 12 cm below the left acromion and 9 cm away from the midline. On further dissection, underlying tissues and muscles were ecchymosed and 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th ribs were found to be fractured along the mid scapular line with blood infiltration at bony trabeculae of fractured ends. Multiple lacerations were present over the posterior aspect of upper lobe of the left lung. The left side of thoracic cavity contained 0.5 to 1 litres of liquid blood along with clotted blood. (2) A reddish abrasion of size 2 x 0.5 cm was present obliquely over the right side of neck situated 6 cm away from midline and 3 cm below the right angle of mandible. (3) A reddish abrasion of size 1 x 0.5 cm was present over the front of neck in the midline situated 7 cm below the chin. (4) On dissection of the anterior chest wall, a reddish contusion of size 8 x 5 cm was present over the right side situated 9 cm away from the midline and 3 cm below the right clavicle. On further dissection, underlying tissues and muscles were ecchymosed and 3rd and 4th ribs were found to be fractured along the anterior axillary line with blood infiltration of bony trabeculae of fractured ends. (5) On dissection of the posterior chest wall, a diffuse reddish contusion of size 24 x 11 cm was present over the right side situated 14 cm below the external occipital protuberance and 29 cm above the natal cleft. On further dissection, underlying tissues and muscles were ecchymosed and 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th ribs were found to be fractured along the mid scapular line with blood infiltration at bony trabeculae of fractured ends. On further dissection, underlying tissues and muscles were ecchymosed and 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th ribs were found to be fractured along the mid scapular line with blood infiltration at bony trabeculae of fractured ends. Multiple lacerations were present over the posterior aspect of upper and lower lobes and lateral aspect of upper lobe of right lung. The right side of thoracic cavity contained 1.5 to 2 litres of liquid blood. The cause of death, in their opinion, was the above injuries and their complications. These type of injuries could be caused by blunt force/surface impact. The probable time between death and post mortem was between 24 to 48 hours. In his cross-examination, he deposed that there was no external mark of injury on chest. He proved post mortem report Ex.PN/1. 15. As per the Forensic Science Laboratory report Ex.PC, no common poison could be detected in exhibit 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d and 1e. 16. Dw.2 Fakir Chand testified that he knew Mewa Singh son of Sher Singh. He was their neighbour in the fields also. He saw Mewa Singh on 04.02.2016 at about 7.30 PM. He was lying on the passage. After hearing the noise of Mewa Singh, he went to the spot. He was at a distance of 2 acres from his residence. Rati Bhan also reached there. Rati Bhan made a telephone call to Ramesh. Thereafter, Ramesh and his mother and other persons reached the spot. Mewa Singh was removed to the hospital. 17. According to PW.7 Ramesh, brother of deceased Mewa Singh, he was going to his fields on 03.02.2016 at about 7.30 PM. Mewa Singh was irrigating the fields. When he reached near the fields of accused Rati Bhan at about 7.45 PM, he heard ruckus from the passage side. He reached the spot. He noticed appellant Rati Bhan strangulating his brother Mewa Singh. Sumit was giving kick blows on abdomen of Mewa Singh. He informed Amarjeet. Amarjeet reached the spot. Mewa Singh was removed to hospital. The motive attributed to the appellants is that an altercation had taken place between appellant Rati Bhan and Mewa Singh about 10-15 days before the occurrence. However, the details thereof have not been given. No FIR of the alleged altercation was registered. PW.7 Ramesh was not present at the time of the altercation. The occurrence had taken place at 7.45 PM. It was 03.02.2016. However, the details thereof have not been given. No FIR of the alleged altercation was registered. PW.7 Ramesh was not present at the time of the altercation. The occurrence had taken place at 7.45 PM. It was 03.02.2016. The court can take judicial notice of the fact that it was dark at that time. PW.7 Ramesh, in his cross-examination, admitted that there was house of Fakir Chand by the side of passage. The tubewell of Jaiparkash was also near the spot. Surender was also in the close vicinity. PW.7 Ramesh had not sought help of the neighbours to rescue his brother Mewa Singh. According to him, his clothes were smeared with blood. He had not produced the same before the police. The cause of death, as per the opinion of PW.11 Dr. Kunal Khanna and Dr. Vineent Merry and Dr. Dinesh Chhillar, who conducted post mortem examination, was injuries described in the post mortem report Ex.PN/1 and their complications. The injuries could be caused by blunt force/surface impact. In his cross-examination, he deposed that there was no external mark of injury on the chest. He could not tell the probable time between injuries and death. 18. The motive attributed to the appellants is that they had given beatings to Mewa Singh about 10-15 days prior to the occurrence. PW.7 Ramesh was not present at that time. He was living separately from his brother Mewa Singh, as per his cross-examination. It is not a pre-meditated act. The appellants were not armed with any weapon. Though according to PW.7 Ramesh, he had seen appellant Rati Bhan strangulating Mewa Singh, but Mewa Singh had died due to injuries received by him. However, the fact of the matter is that PW.7 Ramesh had seen his brother Mewa Singh being beaten up by one of the appellants, namely Sumit. The appellants may not have the intention to kill Mewa Singh but they had the knowledge that in case, a person is given kick blows on abdomen, it may cause his death. According to PW.11 Dr. Kunal Khanna, the injuries could be caused by blunt force/surface impact. As per the post mortem report Ex.PN/1, as many as five injuries were noticed on the body of the deceased. 19. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. According to PW.11 Dr. Kunal Khanna, the injuries could be caused by blunt force/surface impact. As per the post mortem report Ex.PN/1, as many as five injuries were noticed on the body of the deceased. 19. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of appellants Rati Bhan and Sumit, recorded by the trial court under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is converted to Section 304 Part-II read with Section 34 IPC. Both the appellants are on bail. The State is directed to produce them before this Court on July 19, 2019, to be heard on quantum of sentence under Section 304 Part-II read with Section 34 IPC.