IMPORTANT POINT
When the evidence of eye witness is reliable and corroborated by medical evidence and the delay in lodging FIR is explained it does not matter if the witness is related.

ORDER :

The appeals have been preferred by the accused appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 6.8.2009 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh thereby affirming the conviction recorded by the trial court as against the appellants under section 302 read with section 149 sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000 each; in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months and under section 148 read with section 302 to undergo RI for one year.

2. In the incident dated 4.7.2003 Partap son of Anand Singh PW5 died. Anand Singh lodged the First Information Report at 4.30 a.m. on 5.7.2003. The incident took place at about 8.30 p.m. It was mentioned in the FIR that Partap had gone to Akhara of the village. As he did not come back, he along with two others Lakhmi Chand and Ramesh went towards Akhara in search of Partap. When they reached near veterinary hospital, they saw Ran Singh and Pinda were quarrelling with Partap. Ran Singh was armed with a Lathi and Pinda with a sword, Roop Chand with a Lathi, Sushil with sword and Anil alias Bawa also armed with a Lathi joined them. They shouted that Partap be taught a lesson for having an evil eye on the lady members of the family of the accused. Sushil and Pinda inflicted injuries on the hands, stomach, waist and chest of Partap. Sushil gave blows of sword to Partap on the head, right hand and on the left of the face of the deceased. Roop Chand and Anil alias Bawa inflicted Lathi blows on the person of Partap. After beating Partap accused fled away. Partap succumbed to his injuries at the place of incident itself.

3. The prosecution examined in all 11 witnesses. Anand Singh PW5 is the complainant. The accused abjured their guilt and contended that as Partap had tried to outrage the modesty of Monika, villagers assembled and gave a beating to Partap due to which he died. The accused were not present at the place of occurrence. They have been falsely implicated in the case. Defence also examined 8 witnesses. The trial court convicted all the 6 accused persons. However, the High Court has acquitted Sandeep as his name was not mentioned in the FIR. He has been given the benefit of doubt. Relying upon the ocular evidence furnished by Anand Singh-PW5, and the medical evidence of Dr. Naresh Dahiya-PW7, and other witnesses related to the investigation it has convicted the remaining 5 accused persons. Three of them are before us in the appeals.

4. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that accused-appellants have been falsely implicated in the case. Deceased Partap had tried to outrage the modesty of Monika due to which he was beaten by the villagers. The FIR is belated. The house of the accused was set on fire on the same day. Savitri, wife of accused Roop Chand has filed a complaint under sections 323, 325, 436, 427, 307, 148, 149 and 452 of IPC against family members of deceased Partap. The witnesses Lakhmi Chand and Ramesh have not been examined whereas they were named in the first information report as such adverse inference deserves to be drawn against the prosecution. The guilt has not been established beyond periphery of doubt by the prosecution.

5. It was contended by learned counsel appearing for the State of Haryana that both the courts have appreciated the evidence and concurred with the finding that the deceased Partap was mercilessly beaten and murdered by the accused appellants. Considering the number of injuries which were sustained by deceased Partap and the ocular version is supported by the medical evidence. Conviction has been rightly recorded. Other two witnesses were not examined as they were won over by the accused. The statement of the complainant Anand Singh PW5 who was an eye witness to the incident has been found to be worthy of reliance. Defence evidence has also been taken into consideration. The conviction and sentence is absolutely proper and does not call for inter