Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2011 Supreme(P&H) 802

2011(2) RCR(Cri) 453
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL AND M. JEYAPAUL, JJ.
Sudo Mandal @ Diwarak Mandal s/o Mohinder Mandal r/o Gobindpur Mohanpur, P.S. Pir Patti, District Bhogalpur (Bihar) -Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab -Respondent
Crl. Appeal No.D-638-DB of 2007
Decided on: 17.03.2011
Dharminder Mandal s/o Mohinder Mandal r/o Gobindpur Mohanpur, P.S. Pir Patti, District Bhogalpur (Bihar) -Appellant Versus
State of Punjab -Respondent
Crl. Appeal No.D-9-DB of 2010
Decided on: 17.03.2011

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Present:Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the appellant in Crl. A. No.D-638-DB of 2007.
Mr. Dhirinder Chopra, Advocate for the appellant in Crl. A. No.D-9-DB of 2010.
Mrs. Manjari Nehru Kaul, Addl. A.G.,Punjab, for the respondent-State in both the appeals.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the importance of reliable evidence and the lack of forensic evidence.

Headnote:
MURDER - Criminal Procedure - Section 173, Indian Penal Code - Summary: The court discussed the failure of the prosecution to establish the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting discrepancies in the eyewitness testimonies, unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report, and lack of forensic evidence. The judgment set aside the convictions of the accused and directed their release. The pending proceedings against the absconding accused were quashed.
Fact of the Case:

The case involved the murder of Mohd. Haleem, with five accused involved in the incident. The prosecution's case was based on eyewitness testimonies and medical evidence.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, citing discrepancies in the eyewitness testimonies, unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report, and lack of forensic evidence.
Issues: The key issues included the reliability of eyewitness testimonies, the delay in lodging the First Information Report, and the lack of forensic evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of establishing the case beyond reasonable doubt and highlighted the discrepancies in the evidence presented by the prosecution.
Final Decision: The judgment set aside the convictions of the accused and directed their release. The pending proceedings against the absconding accused were quashed.

JUDGMENT

M.Jeyapaul, J.

Introduction:

1. There are totally five accused namely Sudo Mandal, Radha Mandal, Dharminder Mandal, Rajiya Mandal and Sambodh Mandal in this case. Though final report was laid as against all the aforesaid accused under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused Sudo Mandal alone was apprehended first in point of time. He stood trial for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was convicted thereunder and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-and in default to undergo a further period of six months rigorous imprisonment. After the aforesaid accused was convicted by the trial Court, accused Dharminder Mandal, who was declared as proclaimed offender, was apprehended. He faced trial for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and was convicted thereunder and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo a further period of two years. The other three accused namely Radha Mandal, Rajiya Mandal and Sambodh Mandal could not be prosecuted as they have absconded and were already declared as proclaimed offenders.

2. Accused Sudo Mandal, who was convicted first in point of time for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, has preferred Criminal Appeal No.D-638-DB of 2007 and accused Dharminder Mandal, who was convicted later under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, has preferred Criminal Appeal No.D-9-DB of 2010.

3. Six witnesses were examined in Sessions Case No. 21 of 28.04.2006 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Bathinda, which culminated in Criminal Appeal No.D-638-DB of 2007. Except PW-1 Dr. Jaspreet Singh, Ex.EMO and PW-5 Dr. Rahul Bansal, in that case, the other witnesses were examined in Sessions Case No.52 of 01.10.2008 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Bathinda, which culminated in Criminal Appeal No. D-9-DB of 2010. As both the appeals have originated from the very same occurrence and separate trial was conducted with the very same set of witnesses except two witnesses, we find that common judgment would serve the purpose and meet the ends of justice.

Case in brief of the Prosecution:

4. The case of the prosecution as unfolded by the witnesses examined on its side reads as follows:-

(a) PW-3 Abdul Kalam in Sessions Case No.21 of 28.04.2006 who was examined as PW-2 in Sessions Case No. 52 of 01.10.2008 was the brother of the deceased Mohd. Haleem alias Mohd. Haleef, who was working as labourer at Adesh Institute of Medical Science, Bathinda under PW-4 Mohd. Istakh in Sessions Case No.21 of 28.04.2006 who was examined as PW-3 in Sessions Case No. 52 of 01.10.2008. Both were living in separate huts in Adesh Institute of Medical Sciences meant for labourers.

(b) On 05.10.2005 at about 1.30 PM Abdul Kalam, Mohd. Istakh and Mohd. Haleem were chatting near the hut of Mohd. Haleem. Thereafter Mohd. Haleem proceeded to a tap located near by to fetch water. Accused Dharminder Mandal was washing his clothes at the tap. Mohd. Haleem asked accused Dharminder Mandal to oblige him to take water from the tap. But accused Dharminder Mandal refused to oblige him. Accused Sudo Mandal delivered a blow on the head of Mohd. Haleem with a silver scale. Accused Radha Mandal having emerged from the back side delivered a blow on the head of Mohd. Haleem with wooden log. Accused Sambodh Mandal delivered a blow on Mohd. Haleem with iron bar and accused Rajiya Mandal gave brick bat blow on Mohd. Haleem. Mohd. Haleem fell down to the ground. All the accused ran away with the weapons used by them to attack Mohd. Haleem. He was taken to Adesh Hospital. But Mohd. Istakh and Abdul Kalam went away to arrange for money and returned only on 09.10.2005. They came to know that Mohd. Haleem had expired.

(c) PW-1 Dr. Jaspreet Singh, Ex. EMO in Sessions Case No.21 of 28.04.2006 admitted Mohd. Haleem with head injury for treatment in Adesh Institute and Medical

Click Here to Read the rest of this document