Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009 Supreme(SC) 21

2009(1) Supreme 400
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Lokeshwar Singh Panta and B. Sudershan Reddy, JJ.
Rajender Singh & Anr. — Appellants
versus
State of Haryana — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1662-1663 of 2005
Decided on : 09-01-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant :Garima Prashad, Ms. Suchita Sharma, Sandeep Chaturvedi, Devesh Kr. Tripathi and Amit Pawan, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Rajeev Gaur ‘Naseem’ and T.V. George, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
It is well settled that if the witness is related to the deceased, his evidence has to be accepted if found to be reliable and believable because he would inter alia be interested in ensuring that real culprits are punished.

Headnote:Indian Penal code, 1860 – Sections 302/342 r/w 34 – Prosecution of accused persons seven in number for wrongfully confining deceased in their house and causing his death by making him lie down on floor and inserting a “Danda” in his anus – Trial court on appraisal of entire evidence on record, convicted A1, A2, A3, A4, A5 and A7 while acquitting A6 of said offences – Appeals thereagainst – High Court affirmed conviction of A1, A2, A3 and A4 while acquitting A5 and A7 – Appeals – No particular reason to why the two eyewitnesses Pw1 and Pw11 would falsely depose against appellants – Difficult to believe that relatives of deceased would spare his real assailants and falsely involve other persons responsible for committing the offence –If the witness is related to deceased, his evidence has to be accepted if found to be reliable and believable because he would inter alia be interested in ensuring that real culprits are punished – Trial Court and High Court rightly held that there was a motive for accused to commit murder of deceased – Nothing tangible could be extracted from evidence of eyewitnesses to create any shadow of doubt that they were not truthful witnesses – Pws 1 and 11 gave reliable and consistent version of crime which inspired confidence – No infirmity or perversity found in findings recorded by Courts below to warrant interference – Appeals dismissed. (Paras 21, 23 to 26)
        AIR 1977 SC 673 – distinguished.
       Facts of the case:
        1. Accused persons seven in number were prosecuted herein in the instant case for wrongfully confining deceased and causing his death by making him lie down on floor and inserting a “Danda” in his anus. Trial Court while convicting A1 to A5 and A7 acquitting A6. High Court on appeal while confirming conviction of A1 to A4, acquitted A5 and A7.
        2. Present appeals have been filed against said order of High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
        Held that there was no particular reason as to why two eyewitnesses Pw1 and Pw11 would falsely depose against appellants. It was difficult to believe that relatives of deceased would spare the real assailants and falsely involve other persons responsible for committing the offence. Nothing tangible could be extracted from evidence of eyewitnesses to create any shadow of doubt that they were not truthful witnesses. Apart from that, trial Court and High Court rightly held that there was a motive for accused to commit murder of deceased. No infirmity or perversity was found in findings recorded by Court below to warrant interference.
       Result : Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. —

1. Seven accused, namely, Suraj Bhan (A-1), Balraj (A-2), Ram Niwas (A-3), Rajender Singh (A-4), Dharambir (A-5), Sube Singh (A-6) and Sajjan Singh (A-7) were tried by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, in Sessions Case No. 119 of 2002 for committing the murder of Dinesh aged about 20 years.

2. By judgment and order dated 06.02.2003, the Learned Trial Judge convicted (A-1), (A-2), (A-3), (A-4), (A-5) and (A-7) under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 342 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and sentenced each to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and under Section 342/34 IPC, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. All the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently. Out of fine if realized, 90 per cent thereof was ordered to be paid to the legal representatives of the deceased Dinesh. The Learned Trial Judge acquitted (A-6).

3. The accused filed three sets of appeals before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. (A-1), (A-4) and (A-5) filed Criminal Appeal No. 194-DB of 2003 whereas Criminal Appeal No. 207-DB of 2003 was filed by (A-2) and Criminal Appeal No. 224-DB of 2003 was filed by (A-3) and (A-7). The High Court by a common judgment and order dated August 16, 2005 modified the judgment of the Trial Court. It upheld the conviction and sentence of (A-1), (A-2), (A-3) and (A-4). It, however, acquitted (A-5) and (A-7).

4. (A-1), (A-2), (A-3) and (A-4) have now approached this Court in these appeals. These appeals were heard together and shall stand disposed of by this common judgment.

5. The incident leading to the prosecution of the appellants occurred on 29.05.2002. Dinesh, son of Dharambir (PW-1) complainant, had gone to Delhi for ascertaining the date of his interview for recruitment to the Police Force of Delhi Government, but till late night he did not return to his village Sundana, Tehsil Kalanaur, District Rohtak. On the following day, i.e. 30.05.2002, at about 4.00 a.m. Randhir Singh (PW-10) elder brother of PW-11 told PW-1 that Dinesh was wrongfully confined in the house of appellant-Suraj Bhan (A-1). It was Jagbir (PW-9), a jeep driver, who disclosed this fact to PW-10. On coming to know the fact of confinement of his son by A-1, PW-1 alongwith his father Sube Singh (PW-11) and uncle Raghbir Singh rushed to the house of A-1, where they found the outer door of the house bolted from inside. They all heard the shrieks of Dinesh “maar diya, maar diya”. Thereupon, they peeped through the window and saw that all the appellants including A-6 (since acquitted) had made Dinesh to lie down on the floor of the room, his hands and legs were tied with a rope. In the electric bulb light and within their sight, A-1 inserted a “danda” (wooden stick) in the anus of Dinesh, who cried loudly in pain. On seeing the occurrence, PW-1, PW-11 and Raghbir Singh raised an alarm and forcibly broke open the door of the room. On seeing them, the appellants fled away and took “danda” and piece of rope with them. They attended Dinesh, but he succumbed to his injuries at the spot.

6. Motive behind the alleged occurrence was that about a year prior to the incident in question, i.e. 28.04.2001, A-1 got a case registered against Dinesh under Section 376 IPC for committing sexual intercourse with his daughter. In the said case, Dinesh was acquitted by the trial court on 18.03.2002.

7. PW-1 requested his father Sube Singh (PW-11) and uncle Raghbir Singh to safe guard the dead body of Dinesh at the place of occurrence and himself rushed to the Police Station for lodging a report. On the way, Om Parkash, ASI (PW-14) met PW-1 at the curve of Beri Road, where, he made

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009 Supreme(SC) 21

2009(1) Supreme 400SUPREME COURT OF INDIALokeshwar Singh Panta and B. Sudershan Reddy, JJ.Rajender Singh & Anr. — AppellantsversusState of Haryana — RespondentCriminal Appeal No. 1662-1663 of 2005Decided on : 09-01-2009

IMPORTANT POINTIt is well settled that if the witness is related to the deceased, his evidence has to be accepted if found to be reliable and believable because he would inter alia be interested in ensuring that real culprits are punished.

Cases Referred (1)

2009(1) Supreme 400
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Lokeshwar Singh Panta and B. Sudershan Reddy, JJ.
Rajender Singh & Anr. — Appellants
versus
State of Haryana — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1662-1663 of 2005
Decided on : 09-01-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
It is well settled that if the witness is related to the deceased, his evidence has to be accepted if found to be reliable and believable because he would inter alia be interested in ensuring that real culprits are punished.