Ram Niwas
Vs. State of Haryana [2010] INSC 561 (28 July 2010)
Judgment
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 115
OF 2007 Ram Niwas .....Appellant Versus State of Haryana .....Respondent
HARJIT
SINGH BEDI,J.
1.
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court dated 18th January 2006 whereby the appellant's appeal has
been dismissed.
2.
As per the prosecution story Chanda PW.6 was working as a
Chowkidar in the Nuna Girls High School, which was being run under the aegis of
the Panchayat of the village. He had three brothers, namely, Subhash, Tej Ram
and Sher Singh. Raj Singh, the father of the three brothers, had been convicted
and sentenced for the murder of one Prem, uncle of Ram Niwas and Pawan Kumar
accused and the brother of Jog Raj, Raj Singh and Beg Raj accused. On 16th
January 1991 at about 8.00 a.m., Chanda left for the school leaving Sher Singh
Crl. Appeal No.115 of 2007 2 asleep in the house. While on the way, Chanda observed
Pawan Kumar and Ram Niwas armed with Pharsas coming towards him. Chanda ran
into the school but was followed by Pawan Kumar and Ram Niwas who caused an
injury each to him. Chanda raised a roula which attracted Kanwal Singh and Tara
and in their presence the two caused more injuries to Chanda and then ran away
from the spot. A short while thereafter Tej Raj PW-8, Chanda's brother and
their mother Brahmi PW7 reached the school premises and told him that Pawan
Kumar, Ram Niwas, Jog Raj and Raj Singh had murdered Sher Singh while he was in
the house. Brahmi and Tej Raj thereafter removed Chanda to the hospital where
his statement Ex.PF was recorded by Sub-Inspector Som Dutt PW10 and on its
basis the formal FIR was registered in Police Station Sadar, Bahadurgarh at
1.30 p.m. the same day. The Sub- Inspector then proceeded to the village and
found Sher Singh lying dead on the charpai. He made the necessary
investigations on the spot and also dispatched the dead body for the
post-mortem examination to the Civil Hospital, Bahadurgarh. He also searched
for the accused and arrested all of them on 19th January 1991 and pursuant to
disclosure statements made by Pawan Kumar and Ram Niwas to Inspector Ashok
Kumar PW9, Crl. Appeal No.115 of 2007 3 two Pharsas were duly recovered. On the
completion of the investigation, the accused were charge-sheeted for offences
punishable under Sections 148 and 452, and under Sections 302 and 307 against
Pawan Kumar and Ram Niwas and under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149
of the Indian Penal Code against Jog Raj, Beg Raj and Raj Singh.
3.
To support its case, the prosecution examined, inter- alia, Dr.
N.K. Mudra PW3, Dr. M.K. Bishnoi PW5, Chanda PW6, Brahmi PW7,Tej Ram PW8,
Inspector Ashok Kumar PW9 and Inspector Som Dutt PW10 respectively. The
prosecution case then put to the accused and they denied the allegations
levelled against them and some of them pleaded alibis. They also examined
certain witness in defence. Pawan Kumar and Beg Raj died during the trial. The
learned Additional Sessions Judge on a careful consideration of the evidence
acquitted Raj Singh and Jog Raj but convicted Ram Niwas under Section 302 and
307 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and
to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- on two counts and in default thereof to undergo
further imprisonment for three years on each count. Crl. Appeal No.115 of 2007
4
4.
The matter was thereafter taken in appeal by the solitary
appellant, Ram Niwas. The High Court on a consideration of the arguments
observed that merely because the statement of Brahmi PW7 with regard to the
participation of Raj Singh and Jog Raj had not been believed, could not mean
that the case against the appellant was not made in the light of the fact that
it was the case of the prosecution that only Ram Niwas and Pawan Kumar (since
deceased) had been wielding Pharsas, that had been used on Sher Singh and
Chanda.
It was
further stated that Chanda PW6 was an injured witness and had lodged the FIR of
the murder on information received from Brahmi and that the ocular evidence was
fully corroborated by the medical evidence as the deceased had six incised
injuries on his person.
5.
Mr. Sarvesh Bisari, the learned counsel for the appellant has
argued that having disbelieved the prosecution story as given by PW7 Brahmi
with respect to the involvement of Yog Raj and Raj Singh, there was no
justification whatsoever in relying on her evidence with respect to the murder
of Sher Singh by the appellant. It has also been submitted that the appellant
and his brother had been roped in on account of the admitted animosity between
the parties inasmuch that Chanda's and Sher Singh's father had been convicted
for the murder of Prem, the Crl. Appeal No.115 of 2007 5 uncle of Ram Niwas and
Pawan Kumar and brother of Jog Raj, Raj Singh and Beg Raj and in this view of
the matter, the statement of the two witnesses Brahmi and Chanda was to be
looked at with suspicion.
6.
The State counsel has, however, supported the judgment of the
trial court and the High Court.
7.
We have gone through the judgment of the trial court with respect
to the acquittal of Raj Singh and Yog Raj.
We
reproduce herein below the portions thereof:
"However,
as far as the other three accused, namely Yog Raj, Raj Singh and Beg Raj (who
died during the pendency of trial) are concerned, they are alleged having been
seen present with lathis at the house of PW7 Brahmi Devi and they, as PW7
deposed, had even run after her and her son Tej Ram.
However,
neither their presence is marked nor any role is associated to them for second
part of the happening at the school compound where Chanda Singh received
injuries. As such, the five accused get grouped as Ram Niwas and Pawan (who
died during trial), as first group and the remaining three accused, namely, Jog
Raj, Raj Singh and Beg Raj ( who died during the trial) as the second group.
Though
charge against the accused is that all of them having common object for the
present crime, but for the deposition of PW6 and PW7 Brahmi Devi that she had
seen all the five accused together in her Crl. Appeal No.115 of 2007 6 house,
the prosecution has failed to lead any other evidence of prior meeting of minds
or other circumstances from which it may be inferred that at any occasion,
prior to the happening, they had even physically met and agreed over any such
object."
8.
The trial court further observed that no positive act towards the
murder had been attributed to these accused for the injury to Chanda or the
murder of Sher Singh and there was no evidence whatsoever of a prior meeting of
minds between all the accused so as to show their common object or common
intention. On the contrary, the trial court observed, that the evidence of
Chanda and Brahmi with respect to the involvement of Ram Niwas and Pawan Kumar
(who died during trial) was categorical that it was these two, who had
committed the murder of Sher Singh, and caused injuries to Chanda. It is in
this situation that the trial court drew a distinction between the two sets of
accused. We find from the judgment of the High Court that this aspect has been
carefully examined and the findings have been affirmed.
9.
It is true, as contended, that the relations between the two
parties were extremely strained on account of the murder of Prem. While this
fact could, undoubtedly, be a reason for false implication of the accused, but
on the contrary, it could also be a motive for the commission of Crl. Appeal
No.115 of 2007 7 the crime. However, in the light of the fact that the FIR had
been recorded within a reasonable time of the incident and the medical evidence
fully supports the ocular version, and additionally, the trial court has given
the benefit of doubt to some of the accused, as they had no active role to
play, the possibility of false implication has also been examined and dealt
with. The courts below have, in our opinion, rightly assessed the evidence and
being cognizant of the strained relations between the parties and the
possibility of false implication, have accordingly given the benefit of doubt
to two of the accused. No interference is thus called for by us in this appeal.
It is accordingly dismissed.
...................................J. (Harjit Singh Bedi)
.................................J.
Back
