IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
RAJIV SHARMA, KULDIP SINGH, JJ.
RAKESH KUMAR - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA - Respondent
CRA-D No. 610-DB of 2017 (O&M)
Decided On : 25-03-2019
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.157--Investigation--Mention of Caste--During the course of investigation, the police has used the caste of the accused/witnesses as well as of the victim--This is not permissible--Mentioning of caste/status separately in the criminal proceedings is a colonial legacy and requires to be stopped forthwith--Right to dignity is a fundamental right and a basic human right--Human dignity is one of the basic features of the Constitution--The Constitution of India also guarantees a casteless and classless society--Segmentation of the society into groups cannot be determined by birth--All are born equal--Constitution of India, 1950, Art.21 (Para 34)
(C) Constitution of India, 1950, Art.21--Right to Life--Human Rights--The expression, "right to life`, includes right to live with human dignity-- It is the bounden duty of the State not only to protect the human dignity but to facilitate it by taking positive steps in that direction--In the German Constitution, human dignity under Article 1 is `inviolable`--Human dignity is the foundation of constitutional rights/ values. (Para 35)
(D) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302--Murder--Acquittal--Burden of Proof--Case of prosecution is that father of deceased had hatched conspiracy along with accused to kill her, but no challan was put up against him--The theory of conspiracy has also not been proved against the accused at all--There is no corroborative material produced on record by the prosecution, except the disclosure statements made by the accused, which do not inspire confidence the prosecution has failed to proved the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt-- The appeal is allowed--Appellants are acquitted. (Paras 32, 33)
The case of the prosecution precisely is that secret information was received that Pooja daughter of Jagdish had been killed by her family members in collusion with each other as she had lived out of home with one boy resident of village Kalanaur for 7/8 days about 3/4 months ago. Dead body of Naresh son of Bhana Ram was also found in the agricultural fields. Her dead-body was burnt in the same funeral pyre along with Naresh. On 30.6.2016, PW5 Satbir Singh produced accused Mahender before the police along with written complaint, Ex.PW5/A. He made disclosure statement, Ex.PW5/B, regarding his and other co-accused`s involvement in the commission of crime. (Para 17)
Rajiv Sharma, J.
The present appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 19.5.2017 and order dated 22.5.2017, rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Exclusive Court), Bhiwani, in Sessions Case No. 81 of 2016 (RBT), by appellants Rakesh Kumar, Anil Kumar, Mahender, Kamal Singh and Shamsher Singh. They were charged with and tried for the offence punishable under Sections 201, 302, 297, 328, 120-B IPC. They were convicted and sentenced as under:-
Under Section
Sentence imposed
302 IPC
To undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo the imprisonment for a period of one year.
120-B IPC
To undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo the imprisonment for a period of three months.
201 IPC
To undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
297 IPC
To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one week.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that on 29.6.2016, SA Rajiv 400 BWN (Security Agent) was present in village Jamalpur, in connection with some secret investigation. He was informed by the secret informer that Pooja daughter of Jagdish had been killed by administering some poisonous substance by her family members in collusion with each other as she had lived out of home with one boy resident of village Kalanaur for 7/8 days about 3/4 months ago. Her family members had brought her home in the village and since then she was not allowed to go outside the house. She was kept under strict supervision and on that day i.e. 29.6.2016, she was, however, murdered. In the night of 27.6.2016, dead-body of Naresh son of Bhana Ram was also found in the agricultural field, who related to the family of deceased Pooja. There was a rumor in the village that Naresh might also have been killed by them because on that day i.e. 29.6.2016 at about 10.00 A.M., his dead-body was cremated without any medical examination or information to the police, while dead-body of Pooja was taken by her family in Maruti vehicle to the cremation ground. Her dead-body was burnt in the same funeral pyre along with Naresh by pouring kerosene so as to conceal the factum of death of Pooja from the society. On the basis of secret information vide application, Ex.PW8/A of Secret Agent Rajiv, formal FIR, Ex.PW15/A, was registered under Section 302/201 IPC by Inspector Ramesh Kumar. On the same day, he accompanied by HC Anil Kumar and Constable Parveen visited Cremation Ground of village Jamalpur and inspected the scene of crime. FSL team was summoned. FSL team visited the spot. Ash and bones of dead-body of Pooja were taken by Dr. Ravinder Pal, Incharge, Scene of Crime Team, SP Office, Bhiwani. Ash and bones were converted into five sealed parcels. Inspector Ramesh Kumar along with other associates also visited the house of Jagdish, father of deceased Pooja, from where Dr. Ravinder Pal collected vomit smeared cotton, two chunnis (yellow colour and indigo/blue colour) and broken pieces of red colour glass bangles from underneath the bed (diwan). All the materials were converted into separate sealed parcels. On 30.6.2016, accused Mahender was produced by Satbir Singh, husband of Sarpanch of village Jamalpur, along with written complaint, Ex.PW5/A. He made disclosure statement, Ex.PW5/B, regarding his involvement in the commission of crime. In pursuance to his disclosure state
Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, etc. v. Prakash Jadav, etc.
Vikramjit Singh alias Vicky v. State of Punjab
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra
Prithipal Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another
State of W. B. v. Mir Mohammad Omar etc. etc.
Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab
Sahadevan @ Sagadevan v. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Chennai
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.