Back
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. Patnaik and Swatanter Kumar, JJ.
Jitender Kumar
Vs.
State of Haryana
Crl. A. No. 1763 of 2008 and Crl. A. No. 1092 of 2009
Decided On : 08.05.2012
(2010) 12 SCC 324; (2011) 4 SCC 336 – Relied upon
(b) Criminal Trial – Though not named in FIR, witnesses attributing specific role the accused – Motor cycle recovered based on his disclosure statement – His involvement established by eye witnesses and expert evidence – No infirmity in conviction. (Para 12 to 14)
(2007) 15 SCC 760 – Relied upon
(c) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Disclosure statement of accused – Not a confession – Part of it leading to recovery of motor cycle admissible in evidence. (Para 21)
(2004) 10 SCC 657 – Relied upon
(2007) 12 SCC 230 – Referred
(d) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 120B and 302 – Accused found guilty of conspiracy to kill the deceased – All accused conspiring to commit an offence and the offence is committed – All shall be liable for conviction for the offence individually – Instantly, appellant not charged u/s 302 – Found guilty under section 120B for conspiring to kill the deceased – Deceased killed – No infirmity in conviction of appellant u/s 20B r/w 302. (Para 25)
Criminal Appeal No. 1092
(e) Criminal Trial – FIR – Delay in lodging of – Delay not inordinate – Prosecution able to prove its case – Evidence of witnesses truthful – Prosecution case cannot fail on account of some delay in lodging FIR alone. (Para 29, 30)
(2004) 12 SCC 229; (2000) 5 SCC 30 – Relied upon
(f) Criminal Trial – Time of murder – Medical jurisprudence – Doctor stating time of death as 1.00 to 1.30 am – Also finding undigested food in stomach – Opinion that digested or undigested food leaves stomach in 3-4 hours – Deceased went to sleep after taking dinner – No mention of time of dinner – No rule of universal application that stomach becomes empty in 3-4 hours – Determination of the time of death solely with reference to the stomach contents is not a very certain and determinative factor. (Para 38, 47)
(1995) 2 SCC 76; (1994) SCC (Cr.) 1745 – Relied upon
(1990) 4 SCC 17 – Referred
(g) Criminal Trial – Conviction – Challenged doubting presence of accused at place of occurrence being persons from distant village – Distance of residence of accused persons held inconsequential. (Para 48)
(2009) 17 SCC 37 – Distinguished
(h) Criminal Trial – Evidence of co-accused recorded u/s 313 CrPC – Cannot be used against other co-accused – However the maker of the statement u/s 313 being dead, part of the statement corroborated by other evidence can be relied upon by prosecution. (Para 52, 53)
(1979) 1 SCC 535 – Relied upon
(2010) 8 SCC 430 – Referred
(i) Criminal Trial – Dismissal of SLP of co-accused at admission stage – On ground of delay as well as merits – However summary dismissal of SLP does not mean affirmation of impugned order – Not to affect appellants’ case. (Para 55)
JT 2011 8 SC 55 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
Five accused were tried for offences under section 302 r/w 34, 120B, 323 r/w 34, and 342 r/w 34 IPC. All accused were convicted u/s 120B; four of them were convicted u/s 302 r/w 34 bur were acquitted of charges u/s 323 r/w 34, and 342 r/w 34 IPC.
High Court upheld the judgment of the Trial Court in its entirety.
Finding of the Court:
Prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. The Trial Court, vide its judgment of conviction dated 5th November, 2003 and order of sentence dated 10th November, 2003, held all the five accused, namely, Sunil Kumar, Satish, Pawan Kumar, Jitender Kumar and Ratti Ram guilty of the offence under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Indian Penal Code). The Trial Court further held that except Jitender, remaining four accused were also guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court acquitted all the four accused for the offence under Section 323 read with Sections 34 and 342 Indian Penal Code and convicted them as follows:
Taking into consideration all the aspects of the case, I take a lenient view and sentence Sunil, Satish, Pawan and Ratti Ram accused to imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and Section 120B Indian Penal Code. Each of the accused is sentenced to a fine of Rs. 1000/- under the said sections. In default of payment of fine, the defaulting accused shall suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months.
Jitender accused has been found guilty under Section 120B Indian Penal Code for conspiracy of murder with the other four-five persons and when we read the provisions of Section 120B and 109 Indian Penal Code, Jitender is also punishable for the offence of murder as the act of murder has been committed in consequence of the conspiracy. I, therefore, sentence Jitender accused to imprisonment for life under Section 120B Indian Penal Code. He is also sentenced to a fine of Rs. 1000/- under the said section. In default of payment of fine Jitender accused shall suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months.
As regards, the role of Surender @ Sunder son of Ratti Ram, the husband of Indra deceased, a copy of this judgment be sent to the Superintendent of Police, Hisar for taking appropriate action against him in view of the observations made by me in this judgment."
2. This judgment of the Trial Court was challenged by the accused persons in appeal before the High Court being Criminal Appeal No. 930-DB of 2003. Surender @ Sunder, husband of the deceased, had also filed a criminal miscellaneous petition being Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3337-M of 2004 against the judgment of the Trial Court wherein it had directed action to be taken against him by the Superintendent of Police in view of the observations made by the Trial Court therein. Both the criminal appeal as well as the criminal miscellaneous petition were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment of the High Court dated 30th May, 2008 wherein the High Court upheld the judgment of the Trial Court in its entirety and dismissed the criminal appeal and the criminal miscellaneous petition.
3. Against this judgment of the High Court, two separate appeals have been filed before this Court, one by Jitender Kumar being Criminal Appeal No. 1763 of 2008 and the other by Sunil Kumar and Satish Kumar being Criminal Appeal No. 1092 of 2009. Surender has not challenged the judgment of the High Court.
4. At this stage itself, we may notice that accused Pawan Kumar had also filed a special leave petition against the judgment of the High Court being SLP(Crl.) No. 7881 of 2011 which came to be dismissed by a Bench of this Court on 14th October, 2011 on the ground of delay as well as on merit. Ratti Ram died during the pendency of the proceedings. Thus, by this common judgment, we would dispose of both these criminal appeals preferred by the three accused persons.
5. The First Information Report (FIR) pertaining to the case in hand was registered by ASI Hans Raj of Police Station Narnaund on 10th February, 1999 on the statement of Ishwar Singh (PW11), brother of the deceased. Chadan Singh, resident of Bhartana had eight children, two sons and six daughters. The youngest of the daughters was Indra who was married to Surender @ Sunder, son of Ratti Ram of village Narnaund. Indra, the deceased, was hav
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
