Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.
Rohtas & Anr. – Appellants
Vs.
The State of Haryana – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 764 of 2009
Decided on : 05-11-2019
(a) Constitution of India - Article 136 - Supreme Court will not reappreciate evidence unless impugned judgment is perverse. (Para 12)
(b) Criminal trial - Acquittal of co-accused giving benefit of doubt - Cannot be basis for acquitting other accused - A wrong relief given to co-accused cannot be given to otjer accused against whom clinching evidence is on record. (Para 16)
(c) Criminal trial - Appreciation of evidence - Evidence of witnesses cannot be discarded merely because they are related, if it is otherwise natural and truthful. (Para 20)
(d) Criminal trial - Appreciation of evidence - Minor discrepancies in the statement of witnesses of trivial nature - Cannot be a ground to reject evidence as a whole. (Para 21)
(e) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 154 - FIR - Delay in lodging - Deceased first taken to hospital - Declared dead - FIR lodged within 1 ½ hours of being declared dead - No delay. (Para 25)
Facts of the case:
The Trial Court convicted the four accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.30,000/- each to the widow of deceased Mohar Pal, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years.
The High Court affirmed the finding of guilt against the appellants Rohtas (Accused No. 1) and Surender Singh (Accused No. 2) but acquitted other two accused by giving them benefit of doubt.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment does not warrant inyerference.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 13th March, 2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 241-DB of 1999, whereby the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants Rohtas (Accused No. 1) and Surender Singh (Accused No. 2) for offences punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) by the Trial Court came to be confirmed.
2. Initially, six accused were tried for the offence registered as FIR No. 298 on 26th April, 1998 at Police Station, City Palwal. Bishan Singh (PW-1) reported the matter to the police station whose statement came to be recorded on 25th April, 1998 at about 11.30 p.m., alleging that at about 6.30 p.m. a quarrel had taken place between two groups. He was member of one of the groups whereas Roop Chand (Accused No. 4) was member of another group that had assaulted his brother Ved Prakash and nephew Anil Kumar. They had sustained injuries and were taken to Government Hospital, Palwal by Bishan Singh (PW-1), Rati Chand (father of Anil Kumar) and Baljit Singh (PW-2) for treatment. At about 8.30 p.m., when they were standing at the gate of Government Hospital Palwal, his brother Mohar Pal arrived there on a motorcycle. He was told to bring money from a commission agent at Anaj Mandi, Palwal. When Mohar Pal was leaving towards Anaj Mandi, at a distance of about ten paces from the gate of the hospital, all the six accused persons came from the front side and stopped his motorcycle. Soon thereafter, appellants Rohtas (Accused No. 1) and Surender Singh (Accused No. 2) both inflicted knife blows one after the other in the stomach of Mohar Pal. Immediately thereafter, Mohar Pal attempted to run away by raising alarm "mar diya, mar diya". Billu (Accused No. 5) and Rajender (Accused No. 3) caught hold of Mohar Pal and Dev Kumar (Accused No. 6) gave one knife blow in the abdomen of Mohar Pal. Similarly, Roop Chand (Accused No. 4) gave knife blow in the abdomen of Mohar Pal. He also gave a knife blow on the waist of Mohar Pal as a result of which Mohar Pal fell down. It is stated that Bishan Singh, Ravi, Ved Prakash, Anil and Baljit Singh (PW-2), who were present at the scene, ran towards the spot and on seeing them, the accused persons ran away. Thereafter, Mohar Pal was immediately removed to the hospital in injured condition where he succumbed to the injuries and was declared dead. On the basis of this FIR, the investigation was taken over by ASI Gian Singh (PW-6).
3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against six accused persons for offence punishable under Sections 148, 302 and 149 IPC. The trial commenced before the Additional Sessions Judge (I), Faridabad being Sessions Case No. 40 of 1998. Both sides produced witnesses. According to the accused persons, they were falsely implicated. Further, it is their stand that Mohar Pal was injured in the previous incident which had taken place at 6.30 p.m. on the same evening. He was member of the aggressor party. During the fight which took place, he must have sustained injuries at the hands of opposite party. It was also the case of the accused that Mohar Pal had suffered injuries at some other place near Anaj Mandi and he was brought to the hospital in a three-wheeler. In other words, the incident did not happen near the hospital.
4. On the basis of such alternative plea, the accused persons denied their involvement in the commission of the offence. After completion of the trial and recording of statements of the concerned accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Trial Court finally convicted Rohtas (Accused No. 1), Surender Singh (Accused No. 2), Roop Chand (Accused No. 4) and Dev Kumar (Accused No. 6) but acquitted Rajender (Accused No. 3) and Billu (Accused No. 5) by giving them benefit of doubt. The Trial Court accordingly convicted the four accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sente
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
