Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 105
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Rajiv Sharma, Harinder Singh Sidhu, JJ.
Anil Kumar and Another – Appellants
Vs.
State of Haryana – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 297, 379, 500 and 561 of 2010
Decided On : 01-02-2019
Vinod Ghai, Adv., Amit Singh Kang, Adv., Rajinder Mathur, Adv., S.S. Mor, Adv., Shubhra Singh, Adv., Sudhir Kashyap, Adv., Gaurav Mohunta, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the use of circumstantial evidence and necessary implication to prove criminal conspiracy, as well as the admissibility of evidence in conspiracy prosecutions.
Headnote:
Criminal Conspiracy - Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 120-B, 506, 25 (1B) (a) of the Arms Act - 302, 120-B, 506, 25 (1B) (a)
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction of the appellants for offences under Sections 302, 120-B, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 25 (1B) (a) of the Arms Act. The prosecution's case was based on the murder of a doctor in a hospital, and the subsequent investigation and examination of witnesses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted the evidence of witnesses, recovery of the weapon of offence, and the voluntary disclosure statements made by the accused. The court also addressed the arguments raised by the appellants, including the delay in lodging the FIR and the absence of blackening or tattooing.
Issues: The issues involved the sufficiency of evidence, the credibility of witnesses, the recovery of the weapon of offence, and the voluntary nature of the disclosure statements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principles of criminal conspiracy, the admissibility of evidence, and the use of circumstantial evidence to establish conspiracy. The court emphasized that a conspiracy is generally hatched in secrecy, making direct evidence difficult to obtain, and that the offence can be proved by circumstantial evidence or necessary implication.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the court upheld the conviction of the appellants.
Rajiv Sharma, J.
Since common questions of law and facts are involved in four appeals, CRA-D-297-DB of 2010, CRA-D-379-DB of 2010, CRA-D-500- DB of 2010 and CRA-D-561-DB of 2010, therefore, these are taken up together and being disposed of by a common judgment.
2. These appeals are instituted against judgment dated 06.03.2010 and order dated 09.03.2010, rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, in Sessions Trial No. 19 dated 04.02.2009, whereby the appellants who were charged with and tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120-B and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "the IPC" for brevity sake) and appellant Sandeep alias Patliya was additionally charged with and tried for the offence punishable under and Section 25 (1B) (a) of the Arms Act as well, were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- each under Section 302 IPC, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. They were also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- each under Section 120-B IPC, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Appellant Sandeep alias Patliya was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 506 IPC, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Appellant Sandeep alias Patliya was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 25 (1B) (a) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
3. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that PW.1 Jasbir Singh lodged the report Ex.P1 on 22.09.2008 to the effect that he was running chemist shop under the name and style of Health Pharma Medicos in Chaudhary Nursing Home of his brother-in-law Dr. Dharampal Singh Dhaka. At about 06.45 PM, he came out of medical shop and went to urinate in the toilet of Nursing Home. When he came back in lobby, a gun shot was heard from the room of the doctor. Thereafter, a young boy aged about 20 years, 6 feet tall, whitish colour, wearing red T-shirt, black lower and slippers came out of room of doctor. He was carrying pistol in his hand. Doctor also came out of room with a hand on his chest and was crying for help. He fell in the lobby. Blood was oozing out of his chest. He started looking after doctor. He asked Pritam, an employee at the hospital, to apprehend that boy. Pritam grappled that boy on the road. However, the boy pointed pistol towards Pritam. Pritam was asked to leave, otherwise he would be killed. Thereafter, that boy ran away. They arranged vehicle and took the doctor to Government hospital. He succumbed to the injuries. Subsequently, statement of Jasbir Singh, Ex.D1, was recorded, wherein he stated the manner in which the earlier incident had taken place on 08.04.2007. Accused Anil, Rakesh, Ajit and Naresh were named. The postmortem examination was conducted.
The cause of death was opined to be haemorrhagic shock due to injury to vital organs as heart and stomach, which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Investigation was carried out and challan was put up after completion of all the codal formalities.
4. The prosecution has examined a number of witnesses. Accused were also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the case of the prosecution. It is in these circumstances, the appellants were convicted and sentenced, as noticed above. Hence, these appeals.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellants. Learned counsel appearing for the State as well as learned co
