Back
2007 Supreme(P&H) 310
2007(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) (DB) 2526
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Jusitce Adarsh Kumar Goel
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.S. Bhalla
Criminal Appeal No. 42-DB of 1998
Baljit
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 23-02-2007}
For the Appellants :Mr. Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. J.S. Toor, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
IMPORTANT POINT
Relation witness—In fact their feelings would be strongest against the real culprit. As such their evidence cannot be discarded on the ground of their relation with the deceased.
Motive—It is neither obligatory nor incumbent on the part of the prosecution to prove motive—It can provide an additional circumstance to prove the chain of version.
Headnote:(A) Evidence Act, 1872, Section 3—Relation witness—Evidence of brother of deceased cannot be discarded on that ground alone—It should be received with great care, caution and after due scrutiny.
(B) Evidence Act, 1872, Section 3—Relation witness—Appreciation of evidence—Murder Trial—Held; they could not be expected to adopt a course by which some innocent persons would be substituted for the person really guilty of the murder. In fact their feelings would be strongest against the real culprit. As such their evidence cannot be discarded on the ground of their relation with the deceased. (Para 18)
(C) Penal Code, 1860, Section 34 and 302—Common Intention—Murder Trial—Three accused armed with deadly weapons came together at the scene of occurrence—Accused inflicted injuries instantaneously—Deceased died on account of the injuries suffered at the hands of these accused—Held; All accused had common intention to kill deceased.
(Para 19)
(D) Evidence Act, 1872, Section 3—Motive—It is neither obligatory nor incumbent on the part of the prosecution to prove motive—It can provide an additional circumstance to prove the chain of version—Inter alia—Held;
(i) Motive is state of mind of the culprit and this element exclusively remains hidden in it and specially when it sprouts for the commission of offence that cannot be judged precisely.
(ii) Most heinous offences are committed for petty matters and some time for no motive,
(iii) The Court cannot sit idle and shift its responsibility to arrive at a particular conclusion as to who is responsible for the commission of the offence.
(iv) Motive is not deciding factor in a criminal case and absence of motive does not speak of the innocence of the accused, where direct evidence against the accused is overwhelming.
(v) When the ocular account is available the motive loses its importance.
(vi) The absence of motive is not fatal to the prosecution case.
(Para 11)
(E) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 156 and 154—Investigation—Delay in starting the proceedings—Murder case—Any lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer cannot be fatal to the entire case of prosecution. (Para 12)
(F) Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 and 34—Murder—Common Intention—Imprisonment for life—Appeal against conviction—Motive proved—Conviction upheld on the following grounds—
(i) There is no delay in lodging the FIR.
(ii) The police machinery was set into motion at the earliest.
(iii) There is nothing to suggest that the case was registered with due deliberations and consultations when ruqa had been sent promptly by the Medical Officer to the police
(iv) Ocular versions of PWs 9 and PW10 are corroborated by medical evidence.
(v) Minor variation is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.
(vi) There is no absolute rule that the evidence of relative of partisan witness should not be believed at all. (Para 12 and 17)
H.S. Bhalla, J.- This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.12.1997 22.12.1997 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar vide which he convicted Baljit Singh and Suresh under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/ each and in default thereof; they shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each. However, accused Om Parkash had died during the pendency of the trial, whereas accused Chandi Ram, Sanjay and Rajinder have been acquitted of the charges framed against them.
2. A synoptical resume of the prosecution case is as under: Balwant Singh (deceased) used to sell liquor in his village Kanwari and Om Parkash accused was his regular customer. Om Parkash, in order to purchase liquor, went to the house of Om Parkash at 8/9 P.M. During that time, Balwant Singh was present in his house. Om Parkash asked the wife of Balwant Singh to give him a bottle of liquor. Meanwhile, Balwant Singh reached there. He showed his dissatisfaction on account of demanding liquor from his wife in his absence. Hot words were exchanged between them. However, Om Parkash went to his house, but on the next day, Om Parkash again picked up a quarrel with Balwant Singh for having objected to purchase liquor from Balwant Singh’s wife, which led to an altercation between the two. However, Dariya Singh intervened and resultantly, at that time, both of them went to their respective houses. Subsequently Balwant Singh left the village and started residing at village Singhwa for the time being.
3. It has been alleged that about three months prior to the present occurrence, Balwant Singh came back to his village Kanwari. On 5.7.1995 at about 6.00 A.M. Balwant Singh was going to answer the call of nature. He was being followed by Dariya Singh, Om Parkash and Miss Mukesh (daughter of Om Parkash). When Balwant Singh reached in front of the house of Nawab Ali, accused Om Parkash armed with a ballam, Baljit armed with a Kulhari and Suresh armed with a Pharsa, came out of the house owned by the Panchayat. Om Parkash inflicted a ballam blow, which hit fore-head of Balwant Singh, whereas Baljit and Suresh gave kulhari and pharsa blows respectively on the head of Balwant Singh. On account of injuries sustained by him, Balwant Singh fell down on the ground. Om Parkash accused again gave a ballam blow on the back side of the head of Balwant Singh. Baljit Singh twisted the left hand of Balwant Singh. Then Dariya Singh and others raised an alarm. On hearing the alarm, all the accused sped away with their respective weapons and thereafter, Dariya Singh and others arranged for a vehicle and removed the injured to the Civil Hospital, Hansi, where he was declared dead.
4. On receipt of a ruqa, Ex. PN/3, sent by the doctor attending on the injured, ASI, Ami Lal, visited the hospital and recorded the statement, Ex. PJ, of Dariya Singh. He made his endorsement, Ex. PJ/2 thereon and sent the same to the Police Station, on the basis of which, a formal FIR, Ex. PJ/1, was recorded. Thereafter, ASI, Ami Lal, prepared the inquest report and sent the dead body for post mortem examination. After completing necessary formalities, accused were challaned and sent up for trial.
5. Accused were charge-sheeted under Section 302 read with Sections 148/149 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed a trial.
6. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined Amrik Singh (PW-1), Jai Parkash (PW-2), Attar Singh, Head Constable (PW-3), Shamsher Singh, Draftsman (PW-4), Sadhu Ram, ASI (PW 5), Mange Ram, Constable (PW-6), Rameshwar Dass (PW-7), Dr. Urmil Dhattarwal (PW-8), Dariya Singh (PW-9), Om Parkash (PW-10) and Ami Lal, ASI, (PW-11), the Investigating Officer of this case.
7. In their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they denied the prosecution allegations. They pleaded that they w
