IMPORTANT POINTS
1. It is well settled that conviction can be based on the evidence of a sole eye witness if his evidence inspires confidence.
2. Court must not get influenced by the remissness or inefficiency of the Investigating Agency and acquit the accused if the core of the prosecution case is undented and established.
3. The Juvenile Act is intended to protect the juvenile from the rigours of a trial by a criminal court. It prohibits sentencing of a juvenile and committing him to prison.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code,1860-Section 302 read with Section 34 -Prosecution of accused persons for causing death of deceased by assaulting him with deadly weapons-Conviction by Trial Court-Appeals thereagainst-Dismissed by High Court-Appeals- It is true that the accused managed to win over complainant PW-4, but the evidence of PW-5 bears out the prosecution case - PW-5 meticulously narrated the incident and supported prosecution case- PW-5 was a student and wanted to get his certificates attested and, had gone to Ahir College, where the incident took place -Nothing unusual or surprising about his visit to said College- Hence held wrong to describe him as a chance witness- Assuming PW-5 was a friend of deceased, his testimony could not be discarded on that ground, particularly when his evidence appeared to be natural and credible- He was unlikely to implicate innocent persons in the murder of his friend- Because his name is not found in the DDR or in the hospital record and he was not a witness to the inquest proceedings, it could not be concluded that he was not there at the place of incident or he did not take the deceased to the hospital- Finding of name of PW-5 in the FIR was of great significance- Trial court and High Court rightly observed that conduct of the accused completely exposed them- Involvement of the accused in the offence of murder was rightly held to be proved-Conviction of A1 and A2 held liable to be sustained-However since A3 was a juvenile at the time of incident and plea of juvenility was not raised, order of the High Court to the extent it sentenced A3 to suffer life imprisonment was quashed (Paras 9 to 13, 18, 19)
        Defective Investigation-The court must not get influenced by the remissness or inefficiency of the Investigating Agency and acquit the accused if the core of the prosecution case is undented and established- That will be putting a premium on inefficiency at the cost of cause of justice- Instantly the core of the prosecution case or the substratum of the prosecution case had remained intact (Para 10)
       Facts of the Case :
        Accused persons were prosecuted herein in the instant case for causing death of deceased by assaulting him with deadly weapons. Trial Court convicted accused persons.Appeals thereagainst were Dismissed by High Court.
        B. Present appeals have been preferred against said order of High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
        Trial court and High Court rightly observed that conduct of the accused completely exposed them. Involvement of the accused in the offence of murder was rightly held to be proved. Conviction of A1 and A2 was held liable to be sustained. However since A3 was a juvenile at the time of incident and plea of juvenility was not raised, order of the High Court to the extent it sentenced A3 to suffer life imprisonment was quashed.
       Result : Ordered Accordingly

JUDGMENT

(Smt.) Ranjana Prakash Desai, J.

These two appeals, by special leave, can be disposed of by a common judgment as they challenge the judgment and order dated 11/7/2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana whereby the High Court dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the appellant - Kalu @ Amit (original accused 3) and the criminal appeal filed by appellants Joginder and Varun Kumar (original accused 1 and 2 respectively) challenging judgment and order dated 7/9/2000 delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari convicting them for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’) and sentencing them to life imprisonment. We shall refer to the accused wherever necessary by their names, for the sake of convenience.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 7/4/1999 PW-5 Ram Chander Yadav had gone to Ahir College, Rewari for attestation of his certificates. He met PW-4 Karambir Yadav there. At about 8.30 a.m., he went to Geography Department of the college. Pushpinder (the deceased) was standing there. The deceased asked PW-5 Ram Chander Yadav as to how he was there. PW-5 Ram Chander Yadav informed him that he was there as he had to get copies of his certificates attested. By that time, suddenly, the accused equipped with deadly weapons came running towards the deceased, who was standing in the company of PW-5 Ram Chander Yadav and PW-4 Karambir Yadav. Kalu @ Amit dealt a sword blow on the ‘takna’ (ankle) of the deceased. The deceased ran towards the office of the Principal to save his life. PW-5 Ram Chander Yadav ran behind him. Varun Kumar, who was also chasing the deceased, dealt a blow with a sword on the leg of the deceased. The deceased ran ahead. PW-5 Ram Chander Yadav caught hold of Joginder and Varun Kumar. Kalu @ Amit showed him the sword. PW-5 Ram Chander Yadav then set Joginder and Varun Kumar free. The deceased fell on the ground in front of the office of the Principal. Joginder dealt a sword blow on his forehead. Thereafter, all the accused ran away from the place of occurrence by jumping over the boundary wall of the college. PW-5 Ram Chander Yadav lifted the deceased and placed him at some distance. PW-4 Karambir Yadav helped him in doing so. By that time college boys gathered there. They arranged for a car by which PW-4 Karambir Yadav and PW-5 Ram Chander Yadav took the deceased in injured condition to the Civil Hospital, Rewari, where he was declared dead.

3. PW-1 Dr. Sunita Garg, who was at the relevant time posted as Medical Officer at the Civil Hospital, Rewari, sent ‘ruqa’ to the Station House Officer (SHO), Police Station, Rewari informing him that Pushpinder was brought dead to the hospital. On receipt of ‘ruqa’ PW-8 Raja Ram, SHO along with other police personnel rushed to the Civil Hospital, Rewari where he met PW-4 Karambir Yadav. PW-8 Raja Ram recorded PW-4 Karambir Yadav’s statement which was treated as FIR (PD/2). On the basis of the said FIR, investigation was set into motion.

4. PW-1 Dr. Sunita Garg conducted the post mortem on the deceased and opined that death was due to hemorrhage and shock, as a result of head injury and injury to femoral vessels.

5. Pursuant to the statements made by the accused on 16/4/1999, PW-10 Inspector Mahabir Singh recovered ‘khukhri’ from the upper shelf of the bed room of the house of Joginder in Village Budhpur, ‘sword’ from the turi room of Kalu @ Amit’s house in Village Budhpur and ‘knife’ from the turi room of Varun Kumar’s house in Village Budhpur.

6. On completion of investigation, the accused were charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined as many as 10 witnesses. The accused denied the prosecution case and claimed to be tried.

7. Upon perusal of the evidence, the Sessions Court convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. As stated above, the criminal appeals filed by the accused were dismissed by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2012 Supreme(SC) 539

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AFTAB ALAM & RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.KALU @ AMIT - Appellant VERSUS STATE OF HARAYNA - Respondent JOGINDER & ANR. - Appellants VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA - Respondent Criminal Appeal No. 1467 of 2007 with Criminal Appeal No. 868 of 2008Decided on : 17-08-2012.

Cases Referred (1)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AFTAB ALAM & RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.
KALU @ AMIT - Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF HARAYNA - Respondent
JOGINDER & ANR. - Appellants
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1467 of 2007 with Criminal Appeal No. 868 of 2008
Decided on : 17-08-2012.