Back
2008 Supreme(P&H) 52
2008(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) (DB) 335
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel
The Hon’ble Mr Justice S. D. Anand
Criminal Appeal No. 250-DB of 1998
Rambir
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 11/01/2008}
For the Appellants:Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. S.S. Pattar, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
IMPORTANT POINTS
Minor discrepancies—Appreciation of evidence--Such discrepancies may take place on account of error of observation, error of memory, shock and horror at the time of occurrence—Cannot be given any significance.
Headnote:Direct evidence—Direct version of eyewitnesses, if otherwise truthful, cannot be rejected on the ground of their having not followed a set pattern.
Murder of witnesses--Murder case--It is not necessary to multiply the witnesses—Witnesses necessary to unfold the prosecution version were to be examined.
(A) Evidence Act, 1872--Relation witnesses—Witnesses have given cogent and convincing account of the occurrence—Evidence of the witnesses is to be seen as a whole on the test of broad probabilities—Being close relatives of the deceased does not in any manner discredit the version of the witnesses. (Para 6)
(B) Evidence Act, 1872--Minor discrepancies—Appreciation of evidence--Such discrepancies may take place on account of error of observation, error of memory, shock and horror at the time of occurrence—Cannot be given any significance. (Para 6)
(C) Evidence Act, 1872--Maxim--Uno in Falsus Falsus in omnibus—Principle not applicable—If a doubtful or untrue version can be clearly separated from reliable and truthful version, there is no reason to reject the version which is clearly reliable. (Para 9)
(D) Evidence Act, 1872--Direct evidence—Direct version of eyewitnesses, if otherwise truthful, cannot be rejected on the ground of their having not followed a set pattern. (Para 9)
(E) Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 34—Murder—Life imprisonment—Appeal against conviction—Conviction affirmed—No unexplained delay in recording the FIR—The weapons of offence were duly recovered from the accused—Eye witnesses corroborating the version of occurrence—The place of occurrence has been duly established—PW8 and PW9 brought the injured to the hospital—PW 8 and PW9 had gone to the village after being told by the doctor that victim was dead—Direct version of eye witnesses—There is nothing unnatural in the conduct of PW8 and PW9—It is not always necessary that a person attending the victim, must go to the police station first—The version given by PW8 and PW9 cannot be held to be untruthful—Conviction affirmed—Appeal dismissed.
(E) Evidence Act, 1872—Murder of witnesses--Murder case--It is not necessary to multiply the witnesses—Witnesses necessary to unfold the prosecution version were to be examined. (Para 9)
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against their conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC, for which, they stand sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. 75% of the amount has been directed to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased, Jai Bhagwan, as compensation.
2. Case of the prosecution is that buffalo of Mange Ram was stolen by Jaibir son of Ram Kumar and Ajeet (acquitted co-accused) 4-5 days prior to the occurrence. They were arrested, but granted bail. Jaipal (PW-8) brother of deceased Jai Bhagwan was the neighbour of Ajeet.
3. On 28.9.1995, Bijender @ Ballu (acquitted co-accused) came to the house of the deceased, Jai Bhagwan to smoke Huka, but the deceased told him that since Ballu was involved in illegal activities, he should not come to his house. Bijender felt offended and threatened Jai Bhagwan with dire consequences. On 29.9.1995 at 6.30 A.M., Jai Bhagwan, deceased, and his wife Munni Devi (PW-9) were going towards their Gher to look after their cattle. At Chowk Shamlat, near the house of Hazari, Satte accused (appellant No.2), Rambir (appellant No.1), Bijender @ Ballu (acquitted co-accused) and Jagdish (acquitted co-accused) met him. Jagdish caught hold of Jai Bhagwan and exhorted that he be taught a lesson for calling them bad elements. Other accused attacked Jai Bhagwan with their respective weapons – kulhari (axe), pharsa, and jelly. Jai Bhagwan and Munni Devi raised alarm, on which, Jaipal and Rajinder reached the spot. Satte gave a k ulhari blow on the head of Jai Bhagwan. Bijender gave a pharsa blow on the left side of the head of Jai Bhagwan. Jai Bhagwan fell down. Ajeet inflicted injuries with a jelly. Rambir inflicted pharsa blow on the right ear of Jai Bhagwan. Bijender gave pharsa blow on the head of Jai Bhagwan. Jaipal, Rajinder and Munni Devi rescued Jai Bhagwan. Many people gathered there. The accused fled away. Jaipal, Munni Devi and Ram Bhagat brought the injured to the hospital, where he was declared dead. Jaipal went to the village to inform the family members. ASI Raj Kumar received intimation from hospital at 8.30 A.M. He went to the hospital where two three persons of the village met him and told him that Jaipal had gone to the village to inform about the death. Statement of Jaipal, Ex.PK, was recorded by ASI Raj Kumar (PW-12) at 11.30 A.M. Formal FIR was registered at 12.30 P.M. and a copy of special report was received by the Magistrate at 3 P.M. After investigation, he challaned all the five accused.
4. The prosecution examined MHC Dharam Pal as PW-1, Azad Singh, Ahlmad as PW-2, Constable Surjeet Kumar as PW-3, Head Constable Krishan Kumar as PW-4, Dr. Ram Kumar, Medical Officer as PW-5. Dr. Kumud Sharma as PW-6, Constable Chander Bhan as PW-7, complainant Jaipal as PW-8, Munni Devi eyewitness as PW-9, ASI Sunehra Singh as PW-10, Sub Inspector Daya Ram as PW-11, ASI Raj Kumar as PW-12 and MHC Ajeet Singh as PW-13 and also tendered in evidence the report of Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.PU and Ex.PU/1, besides other documents.
5. The accused denied prosecution allegations and stated that they had a plot. In its adjoining passage, Jaipal tried to carry his tractor after damaging edges of the plot. On objection being raised, he used filthy language and he was nursing a grudge against the accused. He had earlier committed murder of one Umed Singh and he also had a quarrel with one Sukhbir. His family had also occupied house of Gaddi of Dev Dass and he had several enemies. This was a blind murder. Ram Bhagat found the injured and took him to the hospital in an attempt to save his life, but the doctor declared him dead. Not knowing the real culprits, the complainant in connivance with the police concocted a false motive and a false version to take revenge from the accused.
6. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court acquitted
