Back
2000 Supreme(SC) 1043
2000(5) Supreme 1
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab & Haryana High Court)
G.B. Pattanaik, Doraiswamy Raju & S.N. Variava, JJ.
Paramjit etc. -Appellants
versus
State of Haryana -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 882 of 1999
With
Criminal Appeal No. 883 of 1999
Decided on 11-5-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Ms. Neeru Vaid, Advocate (A.C.), Mohit Mathur, S. Prasad, Ms. A. Tyagi, Mrs. Poonam Prasad, Jasbir Malik, M.S. Dahiya, Pragyan Pradip Sharma, Mahabir Singh, Prem Malhotra, Advocates.
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302/304-Murder-Conviction for-Appeal against-Altercations on earlier days between accused persons and complainant s family-Accused appellants going with guns to deceased person s house and firing at deceased-Evidence of eye-witness proving that appellants fired at deceased-Prosecution proved all necessary facts-Defence version of self defence disproved-Non-examination of independent witnesses not fatal-Prosecution only needs to lead evidence sufficiently to prove its case-Conviction upheld.
Held : Both the Courts below are right in holding that, on the earlier days, there had been altercations between Subhash and Raj Pal and between their family members. In our view both the Courts below have correctly concluded that the chain of events were proved. In our view it is also proved that on the morning of 21st August, 1993, the Appellants, along with all the other named persons, had gone outside the house of Ram Maher where Raj Pal and the deceased Ram Chander was sitting on a cot. In our view the venue of the incident is proved. In our view it is proved that both Paramjit and Mahinder were armed with double barrel guns. This shows that these persons were the aggressors. The evidence of a number of witnesses shows that these two persons had fired their double barrel guns and that the pellets from both these guns had hit Ram Chander. The evidence proves that Ram Chander had died as a result of these gun shot wounds In case of a double barrel gun, it is impossible to make out which pellet has been fired from which gun. The evidence of the ballistic expert showed that the injury suffered by Ram Chander and the pellets removed from his body could have been fired from these double barrel guns. Coupled with this is the fact that there has been recovery of the guns as per the disclosure statement made by Paramjit and Mahinder. Also it is not even the case of the Appellants that, apart from them, any other person/persons had guns. As the group of the Appellants were the aggressors, both the Courts below have correctly held that the injuries received by some of the Accused were by reason of the other group acting in self defence. We also find that the presence of Mahinder during the incident is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Also there is no substance in the submission that independent witnesses were not examined. The prosecution only needs to lead evidence sufficient to prove its case. In this case the prosecution has led trustworthy evidence of eye witnesses. Both the courts below have accepted the evidence of these witnesses and we see no reason to take a different view. The prosecution has thus proved all necessary facts. In view of these facts having been proved beyond a reasonable doubt we find no infirmity in the reasoning of the High Court in the impugned Judgment. (Para 17)
JUDGMENT
S.N. Variava, J.-These two Criminal Appeals can be disposed of by this common Judgment. Both the Appeals are filed against a Judgment dated 11th September, 1997 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The High Court has convicted both the Appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The High Court has enhanced the fine from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 2,000/- each and in default of payment thereof the Appellants are to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 6 months.
2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows :
The case of the prosecution is that on the evening of 18th August, 1993, one Subhash and one Raj Pal, both residents of village Babail had a quarrel. On 19th August, 1993, as the said Subhash was returning from the fields, carrying a bundle of jowar, Raj Pal with two other persons intercepted him and gave him a beating. Subhash then complained to Ex-Sarpanch of the village, who in-turn complained to the father of the Raj Pal, one Bhalle Ram that his son should not behave in this manner. On 20th August, 1993 there was again a heated exchange between members of the family of these two persons and there was threat, by one Arjun Singh (from the group of the Appellants) that they would come with lathis. On 21st of August, 1993, there was again an exchange of word between family members of Raj Pal and the son of one of the accused by name Mahiya. During this exchange the family members of Raj Pal taunted the said Mahiya that they only give empty threats and did not carry them out.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that thereafter at 7 a.m. on 21st of August, 1993 while Raj Pal along with Fateh Singh, Ram Mehar and Ram Chander was sitting on a cot, spread outside the house of Ram Mehar, Paramjit (the Appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 882/99) armed with a double barrel gun (belonging to his father), persons by names Nafe Singh, Molar, Randhir, Ram Singh (son of one Jailu), Arjun Singh, Rajinder and one Raj Kumar armed with lathis, Lachhman Singh, Bhalle Ram, Ram Singh (son of one Harbans) armed with jailies, Jaswant Singh armed with a gandasi and Mahinder Singh (the Appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 883/99) armed with a double barrel gun came there. Mahinder fired from his .12 bore double barrel gun and the shot hit Ram Chander. On hearing the shot certain other people came out from the house. At that time Paramjit fired two shots from his gun. Thereafter Mahinder Singh fired another shot from his gun. The shots hit one Balkar, Om Pati and Ram Chander on various parts of their bodies. It is the case of the prosecution that Jaswant Singh then gave a gandasi blow on the left arm of Raj Pal, and Molar gave a lathi blow on head, left arm and nose of Raj Pal. It is the case of the prosecution that several other injuries were caused to the other members of the complainant party. In the fight which took place Raj Pal and Ram Mehar caught hold of the gun of the Appellant herein and broke it into pieces. Some injuries were also caused to some of the accused. The accused then ran away from the scene carrying their weapons.
4. It is the case of the prosecution that Ram Chander was removed to the General Hospital at Panipat but he was declared dead on arrival.
The FIR in this respect was registered at 10.55 a.m. on the same day. Initially PW18, Sub Inspector Bhagat Singh recorded a report in the daily diary register and recorded the statement of PW10 i.e. Ram Mehar. Thereafter PW 16 i.e. Sub Inspector Badan Singh, who was the SHO of Police Station Sadar Panipat, took up the investigation from ASI Bhagat Singh. He then made his way to village Babail and examined the place of the occurrence and lifted blood stained earth from two places and an empty shell of a .12 bore cartridge from the place of occurrence. He recorded the statements of various witnesses and then arrested Ram Singh (son of Jailu), Jaswant Singh, Randhir, Rajinder and Sanjay. On 30th August, 1993, Mahinder (Appellant in Crl. A
