SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(P&H) 3217

2006 (4) LAW HERALD 3166 (P&H) (DB)
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
MEHTAB S. GILL, BALDEV SINGH, JJ.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 42 - DB OF 2005
09.08.2006
Shyam Sunder
Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana
Respondent

Advocates:
For the appellants in Cr.A. 42-DB of 1995 :Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vinod Ghai, Advocate.
For the appellant in Cr.A. 42-DB of 2005 and in Cr.A. 95- DBA of 2006 : Mr. Kulvir Narwal, A.A.G. Haryana
For the petitioner in Cr. Revision 578 of 2005:Mr. Bhupinder Singh Bairagi, Advocate.
For the respondents in Cr. Revision 578 of 2005:Mr. Vinod Ghai, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINTS
i) Report of Expert - Document submitted by F.S.L. is admissible in evidence per-se.
ii) First Information Report - When FIR was prompt, giving names of the accused, weapon of offence, injuries inflicted and details of witnesses, that fact goes a long way in proving the case of prosecution.
iii) Criminal Trial - Delay in sending the articles of offence to the laboratories - Creates a doubt about the connection of articles with the crime.



Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 293 - Report of Government scientific experts - Document submitted by F.S.L. is admissible in evidence per - se - If the defence did not have any objection at the stage, when the document was put on record then that objection cannot be taken up in appeal. (Para 24)

       Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Criminal Trial - Murder delay in sending the articles of offence to the laboratories - It creates a doubt about the connection of articles with the crime. (Para 29)

       Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 154 - First Information Report - Prompt lodging of - When FIR was prompt, giving name of the accused, weapon of offence, injuries inflicted and details of witnesses; that fact goes a long way in proving the case of prosecution. (Para 33)

       Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Triple Murder - Acquittal set aside - Dispute regarding Truck Unions - Fire - arm injuries - Trial Court convicted appellant ‘S’ and acquitted his co - accused - Appeal against conviction - State also preferring appeal against acquittal of co - accused - Deceased and PW 4 received fire - arm injuries from the very same fire arms which appellant ‘S’ along with his co - accused were carrying - Report of F.S.L. was proved - FIR promptly lodged giving name of the accused, detail of witnesses, weapon of offence and the injury inflicted - Medical evidence corroborated by the ocular account - Testimonies of PW 1 and PW 4 found to be cogent convincing and truthful - Recovery of weapon of offence was effected on the disclosure statement - All the accused are liable to be convicted under section 302 read with section 149 I.P.C. for committing culpable homicide amounting to murder - Sentence of appellant confirmed - Acquittal of co - accused set aside and sentenced to life imprisonment for committing the murder - Sentence of fine also imposed - State appeal accepted. (Paras 33, 34, 38, 20 and 24)

       

JUDGMENT

MEHTAB S. GILL, J.

1. We will be deciding Criminal Appeal No. 42-DB of 2005, Criminal Appeal No. 95-DBA of 2006 and Criminal Revision No. 578 of 2005 by a common order as they arise out of the same judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind. Appeal by Shyam Sunder, appeal by the State against the acquittal of the remaining accused and Revision by the complainant have been filed against the judgment order dated 20.11.2004/22.11.2004 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind whereby he convicted Shyam Sunder son of Jalpat Mahajan and acquitted Jalpat Rai son of Rameshwar Dass Mahajan Satish Kumar son of Jalpat Mahajan, Purshottam son of Jalpat Mahajan, Harinder alias Kala son of Joginder Saini and Pawan son of Suraj Bhan. Shyam Sunder was convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. . and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fire of Rs.25000/-, under Section 27 of the Arms Act he was sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine or a part thereof, appellant Shyam Sunder was ordered to further undergo RI for six months.

2. The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement of Sewa Singh EX.PA made to SI Hari Charan of P.S. City, Jind on 3.10.2002 at 12.30 a.m. Sewa Singh stated that he is a resident of Jind and is in the business of transport. On 3.10.2002 at about 10 p.m., he along with Sultan Gaba son of Tulsi Dass were sitting in their office in Nav Bharat Transport Company situated near Phuara Chowk, Jind. Shyam Sunder, Purshottam, Satish sons of Jalpat Rai passed in front of their office. There was a dispute between them going on regarding the luck Union. On becoming suspicious, Sewa Singh came out of his office and saw that Shyam Sunder, Purshottam, Satish, Manager of Chamber Dharamshala and his younger brother Vijay Dalal resident of Jind along two other boys whose names he did not remember, were standing in front of the gate of Chamber Dharamshala. Shyam Sunder was talking on his mobile with someone. After about 10/15 minutes, Jalpat along with another boy came on a scooter and stopped near Shyam Sunder in front of the Chamber Dharamshala. On seeing all these persons together, Sewa Singh rang up his brother Rohtash that Shyam Sunder etc. were standing in front of the gate of Chamber Dharamshala and were armed with weapons. They can attack him any time. After 10/15 minutes, Sewa Singh’s brother Rohtash and his nephews Chand and Sunil sons of Daya Nand, Pawan son of Ishwar Singh and Arun son of Rajbir came to his office. Rohtash asked him as to what the matter was, whereupon he told him that all the above mentioned persons have gathered together and they could attack him. In the meantime, the Munshi of Tata Union came in a Tata Sumo and asked him as to why they were standing, Sewa Singh told him that they were standing to go to their houses. On this he went away. Sewa Singh after closing his office- along with his brother Rohtash and nephews Subhash, Chand and Sunil started for their houses. Shyam Sunder on seeing the complainant party, fired from his revolver. Sewa Singh along with the other tried to catch hold of Shyam Sunder, but he fired another shot from his revolver which hit on the left flank of Chand. Purshottam fired from his revolver which hit the left side of his chest. Thereafter Satish and Jalpat fired shots from their respective guns. Shyam Sunder and Purshottam fired many shots from their respective revolvers which hit Sewa Singh’s brother Rohtash and his nephew Pawan. On receiving injuries, all of them fell down. Sewa Singh tried to catch hold of Jalpat, but he ran away from the spot. The assailants then ran away taking their respective weapons with them. During the fight, Harinder alias Kala who was armed with a sword, also ran away from the spot leaving his sword behind a nephews of Sewa Singh succumbed to their fire arm injuries at the hospital. Rohtash and Pawan were referred to P.G.I., Rohtak. On th



























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top