Back
2007 Supreme(P&H) 243
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Mehtab S.Gill and Arvind Kumar JJ.
Ramesh Kumar And Anr.
Versus
State Of Haryana
Decided On : FEBRUARY 9, 2007
The promptness of the FIR and the credibility of witness testimonies are crucial in establishing guilt in criminal cases.
Headnote:
Murder - Criminal Law - Section 302 IPC, Section 34 IPC - The judgment discussed the application of Section 302 IPC and Section 34 IPC in the context of a murder case. The court analyzed the testimonies of witnesses, the promptness of the FIR, and the medical evidence to establish the guilt of the accused. The judgment highlighted the importance of prompt reporting of incidents and the value of witness testimonies in criminal cases.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were charged with the murder of Jawahar Lal. The prosecution presented evidence of the appellants intercepting Jawahar Lal and inflicting fatal injuries on him. The appellants denied the charges, claiming false implication.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellants guilty based on the testimonies of witnesses and medical evidence. The court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the promptness of the FIR and the value of witness testimonies.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of witness testimonies, the promptness of the FIR, and the interpretation of medical evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of prompt reporting of incidents and the value of witness testimonies in criminal cases. The court also highlighted that non-intervention of witnesses during an attack does not discredit their testimonies.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants' conviction was upheld.
Arvind Kumar, J.
1. The appellants Ramesh and Naresh alongwith another person namely Raju @ Rajkumar were charged for having committed the murder of one Jawahar Lal on 4.10.1995. The Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Soni-pat, who tried the case, vide the Judgment dated 5.4.1997 found the appellants Ramesh and Naresh guilty of the offence charged and accordingly vide order dated 7.4.1997 sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. Each of them were required to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default thereof further rigorous imprisonment for 2 years has been awarded. The learned trial court, however, acquitted the co-accused Raju @ Rajkumar for the charged offence, after extending benefit of doubt to him.
2. The present appellants Ramesh and Naresh, through the instant appeal, have laid challenge to the above-referred judgment and order of their conviction passed by the trial court.
3. The facts emerges out from the record, necessary for the disposal of the instant appeal, are that Gango Devi and Kanta Devi, the real sisters were married to Kanhiya and Jawahar Lal (since deceased) respectively. Due to strained relations, Kanhiya alongwith his son Ramesh (appellant No. 1) started residing separately from his wife Gango Devi at Village Basodi whereas Gango Devi and her two other sons including Raju (since acquitted by the trial court) started living at Sikka Colony, Sonepat where her sister Kanta Devi was residing with her family. Jawahar Lal, husband of Kanta, used to take care of Gango Devi and her sons, due to which, according to prosecution, Jawahar Lal earned displeasure of appellant Ramesh, elder son of Gango Devi, who was not happy with the visits of Jawahar Lal to his mother. Similarly, Ramesh was not liked by Jawahar Lal.
4. According to the prosecution, following this resentment, on 4.10.1995 at about 6.45 a.m. when Jawahar Lal was going towards Railway Station on a Scooter bearing Registration No.HR-10-9126, he was intercepted by appellants Naresh, Ramesh and his younger brother Raju. Naresh and Raju caught hold of Jawahar Lal whereas Ramesh inflicted blows on left side of chest and abdomen and on front side of forehead of Jawahar Lal with a knife and they all fled away from the spot with the scooter, which Jawahar Lal was driving. The occurrence was witnessed by Ashok Kumar (PW1), brother of Jawahar Lal and Chander Parkash (PW2), who were standing in the street. Both of them removed Jawahar Lal to General Hospital, Sonepat where Jawahar Lal was declared dead by the Doctor.
5. On the basis of statement (Ex.PA ) made by Ashok Kumar present case was registered. Necessary investigations were carried out by Ram Parkash A.S.I. (PW7). Autopsy on the dead body of Jawahar Lal was conducted by Dr. Arun Garg (PW.4). During the course of investigations, appellants Ramesh and Naresh were arrested. Scooter bearing No.HR-10-9126 and one knife recovered from its dickey were taken into police possession vide separate recovery memos (Ex.PB and EX.PC respectively). On completion of usual formalities of investigations, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed against the appellants Ramesh and Naresh only and Raju @ Rajkumar was shown in column No. 2 in the challan since he was found innocent in the investigations.
6. The Illaqa Magistrate committed the challan to the court of Sessions for trial of the appellants.
7. It is apposite to mention here that the trial court, being of the view that Raju @ Rajkumar was also instrumental in the murder of Jawahar Lal, of its own, summoned him to face trial alongwith other accused.
8. After procuring the presence of co-accused Raju @ Rajkumar, the trial court framed charges under Section 302 I.P.C. against accused Ramesh Kumar and under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. against the accused Naresh and Raju @ Raj Kumar.
9. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW.1 Ashok Kumar informant/author of the F.I.R., PW.2 Chander Parkash, an eye witness, PW.3 Const. Inder
