Rajinder & Ors Vs. State of
Haryana & Anr [2004] Insc 487 (25 August 2004)
B.N. Agrawal & H.K. Sema
B.N.Agrawal,J.
The appellants along with accused Laxman Singh were tried and by judgment
rendered by the trial court accused Laxman Singh, though acquitted of the
charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act, was convicted under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "I.P.C.") whereas four
appellants were convicted under Sections 302/149 I.P.C. and all sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default,
rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. Accused Laxman Singh was
further convicted under Section 307 I.P.C. and the appellants under Sections
307/149 I.P.C. and each one of them sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default,
rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. They were also convicted under
Sections 148 and 323/149 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a period of one year and three months respectively. All the sentences,
however, were ordered to run concurrently. On appeal being preferred, the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana confirmed the convictions whereupon two special
leave petitions were filed before this Court, one by accused Laxman Singh
whereas the other by the appellants. The special leave petition of accused
Laxman Singh has been dismissed but leave to appeal was granted in the case of
appellants giving rise to the present appeal.
The prosecution case in short was that on 10.4.1999 at about 4.30. P.M.,
when Lakhan Lal, the complainant, and his father Shiv Charan were at their
shop, the appellants and accused Laxman Singh armed with lathies and gun
respectively came there in a jeep bearing Registration No. HR 26 J-0051 and
started abusing the complainant and his father whereupon the complainant and
his father came out of their shop and asked the reason for abusing them. At
this, the appellants threw stones and sticks on them and in order to save
themselves, the complainant and his father ran towards their house and when
they were on raised platform of the house, accused Laxman Singh, who had a
double barrel gun, fired shot from the same. One shot hit Shiv Charan in his
head while the other right calf region as a result of which Shiv Charan fell
down. When the complainant tried to take care of his father, gun was fired at
him too and stones pelted. While he escaped unhurt from the gun shots as they
were off target, he received injuries by pelting of stones on his left palm and
right calf. Finding that his father had already died, the complainant, out of
fear, entered his house and closed the door from within.
Thereafter, the accused persons stoned the women of the house who were on the
roof and they were also fired at. The ladies came down out of fear and
thereafter the accused fled away. Besides the complainant, his brother Johri
Mal had also seen the occurrence. In the meantime, Meenu, wife of the
complainant, left for the Police Station, arrived there at about 6.45 P.M. and reported the incident of physical violence. On her information, entry was
made in the Daily Diary and Shakuntala, S.H.O., Police Station, Bilaspur and
Vinod Kumar, Inspector, left for the place of occurrence with her where
fardbayan of Lakhan Lal was recorded stating the aforesaid facts, on the basis
of which First Information Report was drawn up. The police after registering
the case took up investigation and on completion thereof submitted chargesheet,
on receipt whereof the learned Magistrate took cognizance and committed all the
aforesaid accused persons, including the appellants, to the Court of Session to
face trial.
The defence of accused persons was that they were innocent, no occurrence,
much less the one alleged, had taken place, the deceased might have received
injuries at some other place of occurrence in some other manner and the accused
were falsely implicated by members of the prosecution party to feed fat the old
grudge.
During trial, the prosecution examined sixteen witnesses in all, out of whom
PW1 was Dr. Sanjay Narula, who conducted the post-mortem examination on dead
body of the deceased and PW2, Lakhan Lal, the informant, and his brother Johri
Mal, PW3, who claimed to be eyewitnesses to the alleged occurrence. PWs 4, 5
and 8 to 15 were formal witnesses and PW6, Dr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, examined
the injuries of PW2 whereas PW7 and PW16 were the two Investigating Officers in
the case. The defence had not examined any witness in the case on hand. Upon
the conclusion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted all
the accused persons, as stated above, and their convictions having been
confirmed by the High Court, the present appeal by special leave by the
appellants; conviction of accused Laxman Singh having been confirmed by this
Court by dismissal of his special leave petition.
Mr. U.R. Lalit, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the appeal,
submitted that though the occurrence has taken place in the broad day-light,
the prosecution failed to examine a single independent witness but has examined
PWs 2 and 3 who are nobody else than sons of the deceased. These witnesses
consistently supported the prosecution case, disclosed in the First Information
Report, in all material particulars, in their statements made before the Police
as well as substantive evidence in Court. The trial court as well as the High
Court has placed reliance upon their evidence and were of the view that merely
because they were related to the deceased, the same ipso facto could not have
been the ground to discard their evidence. In our view, the trial court as well
as the High Court was quite justified in placing reliance upon their evidence
as they were natural witnesses and consistently supported the prosecution case.
That apart, their evidence has been accepted by this Court by upholding
conviction of accused Laxman Singh and there is no reason to discard their
evidence even in relation to the appellants.
The learned Senior Counsel next submitted that the prosecution case and
evidence of firing by accused Laxman Singh were highly doubtful and evidence of
PWs 2 and 3 on this count could not have been relied upon. In our view,
submission has been made only to be rejected. So far as Laxman Singh is concerned,
his conviction having been upheld by this Court by dismissal of his special
leave petition, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is not
possible for this Court to go into the correctness or otherwise of conviction
of the said accused. The learned counsel then submitted that though according
to prosecution case, the appellants were armed with sticks and used the same
during the course of occurrence, no stick was recovered. It is true that sticks
were not recovered from any place, much less possession of any of the
appellants, but that cannot be a ground to throw out the prosecution case when
the same has been otherwise found to be truthful by credible evidence. The
learned counsel also submitted that PWs 2 and 3 stated in court that the appellants
exhorted for killing the deceased, though no such case was disclosed either in
the First Information Report or in the statement of these witnesses before the
police. Even if the prosecution failed to prove case of exhortation by the
appellants by credible evidence, the same cannot affect the prosecution case in
relation to the appellants.
Learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution case of pelting
stones on the deceased as well as on PW2 and assaulting them by lathies is not
supported by the medical evidence as the doctor found injuries by fire arm. The
doctor - PW1, who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the
deceased, found as many as eight injuries on his person and in his opinion,
injury nos. 1 and 2 alone could have been caused by fire arm and not the other
six injuries which does not eliminate the fact of causing injuries by lathies
and stone pelting by the appellants. So far as the evidence of doctor - PW6,
who examined the injuries of PW2, is concerned, he specifically stated that
injuries found on him could be caused by blunt weapon, as such the injuries
could have been caused by lathies and pelting of stones by the appellants.
Thus, we have no difficulty in holding that the prosecution case of causing
injuries by lathies and pelting of stones is corroborated by medical evidence.
The learned counsel lastly submitted that the common object of the unlawful
assembly, of which the appellants were members, could not have been to cause
death of the deceased but the same could have been, at the highest, to cause
simple hurt. In our view, the submission has been made only to be rejected as
the definite prosecution case as well as the evidence is that the five accused
persons, including the four appellants, came together in a jeep, one of whom
was armed with gun and others with lathies, after arriving at the place of
occurrence, they abused members of prosecution party and on protest being made
by them, accused Laxman Singh fired at the deceased, who succumbed to the injuries,
whereas the appellants pelted stones upon the deceased and PW2 and threw
lathies upon them, as a result of which they received several other injuries
apart from the two injuries by fire arm inflicted by accused Laxman Singh upon
the deceased, and thereupon, they fled away together from the place of
occurrence.
On these facts, we have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the
common object of the unlawful assembly, of which the appellants were members,
was to cause death of the deceased and pursuant to that common object, one of
the members of the unlawful assembly, namely, accused Laxman Singh inflicted
two fatal injuries upon the deceased by fire arm whereas the appellants
inflicted six other injuries on him. Thus, we do not find any substance in this
submission as well. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view
that prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and
the High Court has not committed any error in upholding convictions of the
appellants, as such no interference is called for by this Court.
Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
Back