Ved Parkash
Vs. The State of Haryana [1996] INSC 986 (20 August 1996)
Mukherjee
M.K. (J) Mukherjee M.K. (J) Kurdukar S.P. (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCALE (6)78
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R
Gian Chand
(complainant) and the appellant accused were known to each other as they were
neighbors living in the same locality at Karnal. It is the case of Gian Chand
that fifteen days before the incident in question, the appellant/ accused had
come to his house and, when he was found drunk, he (the complainant) told him
not to visit his house under the influence of liquor. The appellant took it is
an insult.
It is
alleged by the prosecution that on 14th October, 1986, at about 4.00 p.m. the complainant was returning to his house after
attending his office duty. On the way just near his house, he stopped at a tea
shop & Udhey Bhan where some persons were standing. Piare Lal also joined
him. When they were going to their house, they came near the crossing (chowk)
known as 'Lal Quan'. At that place, four persons, namely, Ram Lal, Anant Ram
and two others were playing cards. They stopped they and were watching the
game, Ved Parkash (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') came there and
questioned the complainant as to why he had insulted him the other day when he
had come to his house. It is then alleged by the prosecution that the accused
immediately took out a revolver from his pant pocket and fired at Gian Chand
and the bullet hit his left toe. The bullet then hit against a hard substance,
rebounded and hit Gian Chand on his right leg calf. The persons who were
present there tried to apprehend the accused but he fled away. The injured was
then taken tn the hospital by Jai Devi (PW 5) where he was examine by Dr. V.K.Agarwal
(PW 3) who noticed two injuries on the complainant. Doctor sent a ruqqa (Ex.PD)
to the police post attached to the General Hospital.
On
receipt of this ruqqa, ASI Ajit Singh (PW 6) who was then incharge of this
police post came to the hospital. ASI Ajit Singh ( PW 6) then met the doctor
who told him that the injured is in a fit condition to make a statement. ASI Ajit
Singh then recorded the statement of Gian Chand (Ex.PA) and forwarded it to the
police station, City Karnal, for recording formal FIR. It was so recorded by ST
Kartar Singh being Ex. PA/1. SI Kartar Singh (PW 9) then went to the hospital
and took over the investigation. The investigation. officer carried out part of
the investigation. On the next day i.e. 15th October, 1986 he went to the house
of the accused. Accused was not found in his house; however, his brother Jai Parkash
produced the accused at about 1.30 p.m.
During
interrogation, accused made a statement under section 29 of the Evidence Act
which led to the recovery of revolver. Seizure panchnama was accordingly made
and the revolver with five cartridges and his licence were taken charge of.
After completing the investigation, the accused was put up for trial for the
offences punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and under
Section 6 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985
read with Section 27 of the Arms Act.
2. The
appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried. In his statement recorded
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he asserted that he is
innocent and had committed no offence. The appellant has examined Anant Ram as
his witness (DW 1).
3. The
prosecution in support of its case examined Gian Chand-the complainant (PW 1)
and other formal witnesses. It may be stated that one Piare Lal was the eye
witness and was accordingly shown in the list of prosecution witnesses, but he
was not examined during trial.
4. The
learned Trial Judge on appreciation of ocular evidence and other materials on
record vide his judgment and order dated 12th August, 1987 found the accused guilty of an offence
punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. He also convicted him
under Section 6 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act,
1985 read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. On the first count, the learned
Trial Judge sentenced the accused tn suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year
and pay a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo
further rigorous imprisonment for three months. On the second count, the
learned Trial Judge sentenced the accused to matter rigorous imprisonment for
three months. It is this order of conviction and sentence which is the subject
matter of challenge in this appeal.
5. We
heard learned counsel for the parties and were taken through the evidence on
record. Mr. K.K.Mohan, learned counsel appearing in support of this appeal
urged that the evidence of Gian Chand( PW 1)-the complainant be not accepted in
the absence of corroboration from other independent witness. He urged that
although according to the prosecution, several persons had witnessed the
alleged incident and although Piare Lal was cited as a witness yet none was
examined. There is a serious lacuna in the prosecution case and, therefore, it
is a fit case where an adverse inference be drawn against the prosecution. He
also urged that it was because of enmity between the complainant and the accused,
the former had tried to implicate the latter on false accusation. It was then
urged that the revolver which was alleged to have been recovered at his
instance was not having the mechanism of ejecting the used cartridge
automatically and on fire an empty cartridge was required to be manually
ejected. It was not the case of Gian Chand-the complainant that the accused
manually ejected the empty cartridge from the revolver at the place of occurrence
yet the investigating officer claimed to have seized the said cartridge therefrom.
This indicates that the prosecution had planted dn empty cartridge at the scene
of occurrence to rope in the accused. Counsel, therefore, urged that the
prosecution had lodged a false case against the accused and therefore the
accused be acquitted. We are however nut impressed by this argument. Gian Chand
who sustained the bullet injury to his left toe was more concerned tn look
after it. Moreover, many persons had gathered around him. The accused appeared
to have swiftly ejected the empty from his revolver which was not noticed by Gian
Chand. At the most, this might be an honest omission which would not discredit
his evidence.
6. Mr.
Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the impugned
judgment.
7. We
have carefully gone through the evidence of Gian Chand (PW 1) and in our
opinion it can be safely accepted without any corroboration. Gian Chand (PW 1)
was an injured person who had sustained the bullet injuries to his left toe and
calf. He was immediately taken to the Govt. Hospital and was examined by Dr. V.K.Agarwal
(PW3) who noted the following injuries:-
1.
There was circular lacerated wound 0.8 x 0.8 on the right shin, slightly on the
medial aspect 17 cms. above the medial malleclus.
Bleeding
was present. Margins of the wound were blackened. X ray was advised.
2.
Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm on the front side of left big toe beneath the
nail. The skin was blackened. Bleeding was present. X- ray of the part was
advised.
8.
From the above evidence, it is thus clear that Gian Chand (PW 1) had sustained
the aforesaid injuries. He asserted that the accused had fired at him through
his revolver which caused two injuries. Although he was cross- examined at
great length but defence had filed to bring on record any material to discard
his testimony. The report of the ballastic expert which was placed on record
also indicated that the empty cartridge could be fired from the revolver in
question and not from any other weapon. The report of the Assistant Director (Ballastics),
in our opinion clearly supports the evidence of Gian Chand (PW 1).
It may
also be stated that the evidence as regards the discovery statement of the
accused under Section 27 of the evidence Act and recovery of revolver in
question persuant thereto is an important circumstance and pointer to the guilt
of the accused.
9.
After going through the entire evidence on record, we are satisfied that the
Trial Court had committed no error in convicting the accused under Section 324
of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 6 of the Terrorist and
Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 read with Section 27 of the Arms
Act.
10.
Mr. K.K.Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that the
appellant at the time of incident was 28 years old and was having a shop at Karnal.
He was granted bail by this Court on 10th September, 1987 and since then he is on bail. More
than nine years have passed and there is no adverse report against him as
regards the misuse of the bail facility. Accused is now well settled and he be
not sent to jail again. It is found from the record that the accused has not
been in jail for three months even. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case
where any reduction in the sentence is called for.
11. In
the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. The appellants accused)
to surrender to his bailbond forthwith to serve out the remainder of his
sentence.
Back
Pages: 1 2