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

2019 Supreme(P&H) 422

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
RAJIV SHARMA, HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, JJ.
DIMPI ALIAS RIMPI ALIAS GURPREET - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 817, 828, 898 of 2012
Decided on : 14-01-2019

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Anmol Rattan Singh Sidhu, Adv., Sanish Girdhar, Adv., Tushar Gera, Adv., N.S. Shekhawat, Adv., Sahil Gupta, Adv., Vishal Garg, Adv.

Murder-False Implications-Acquittal-Due to previous enmity and simmering feelings, complainant may falsely implicate the entire family although one or only few members of that family is involved in crime

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302-Murder-False Implications-Acquittal-Due to previous enmity and simmering feelings, complainant may falsely implicate the entire family although one or only few members of that family is involved in crime. (Para 20)

       (B) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302-Murder-Recovery of Weapon-Disclosure Statement-Gunshot Injury-Acquittal-Prosecution story that all the 6 accused persons fired gunshots on the deceased-No weapons were recovered from two accused-Weapons recovered from other two accused were not used in commission of offence-Main accused had handed over gun to 5th accused who had also fired alongwith main accused-Such four accused acquitted-Evidence Act, 1872, S.27.

       

JUDGMENT :

Rajiv Sharma, J.

Since common questions of law and facts are involved in the aforesaid appeals, therefore these are taken up together and disposed of by a common judgment.

2. These appeals have been instituted against the judgment and order dated 31.08.2012 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehabad (Haryana), in Sessions Case No.RBT 2 of 2008/2010 whereby the appellants were charged with and tried for offences punishable under Sections 302, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959. They were convicted and sentenced as per the operative portion of the judgment and order dated 31.08.2012.

3. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that Malti Devi PW1 had two sons. Raj Kumar was the eldest. The name of younger son is Gajraj. She along with PW-2 Anita and Raj Kumar on 01.12.2007 had boarded the vehicle Bolero bearing No.HR-24J-8611. They were going to their fields at about 11.30 A.M. When they reached opposite Punia Tent House Ding Mandi, her son Raj Kumar stopped the vehicle by the side of road. He went to that place for some work. In the meantime two vehicles reached on the spot. One of them was white in colour. It stopped opposite the Punia Tent House. Ram Kumar son of Nathu Ram, Sunil Kumar son of Ram Kumar, Bhanwar Lal son of Om Parkash, Sandeep Kumar son of Ram Kumar, Om Paraksh son of Nathu Ram and Dimpi son of Harbhajan Singh got down from the vehicles. Om Parkash was carrying a double barrel gun. Others were armed with pistols. Ram Kumar gave a lalkara that the enemy has come and he should not be spared. All the persons started firing indiscriminately at Raj Kumar. Raj Kumar collapsed at the spot. The assailants along with their weapons ran away from the spot. The injured was taken to the hospital. He was declared brought dead. The motive of the crime was that in the month of March, 2004 Kuldeep son of Om Parkash, a nephew of Ram Kumar was murdered. Raj Kumar and Gajraj were the accused. They were facing trial and were enlarged on bail. Thus in order to take revenge, the appellants had murdered Raj Kumar. The statement is Ex.P1. Thereafter formal FIR Ex.P29 was registered. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. The post-mortem was conducted by Dr.Pawan Kumar PW-12 on the basis of application Ex.P74 moved by the police. Photographs of the spot were also taken. The appellants were arrested. Recoveries were effected. The investigation was completed and the challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities.

4. Prosecution examined a number of witnesses. The statements of appellants were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They have denied the case of the prosecution. The appellants were convicted and sentenced as noticed hereinabove. Hence, CRA-D-817-DB-2012 has been preferred by Dimpi @ Rimpi @ Gurpreet, CRA-D-828-DB-2012 preferred by Ram Kumar and others and CRA-D-898-DB-2012 preferred by Bhanwar Lal and another.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants have vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellants.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has supported the judgment and order dated 31.08.2012.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgment and record very carefully.

8. PW-1 Malti Devi testified that she had two sons namely Raj Kumar and Gajraj. She along with her son Raj Kumar and his wife Anita were going to fields in Bolero on 01.12.2007. When they reached in front of Punia Tent House, Raj Kumar stopped the vehicle. He went towards Punia Tent House. Two white cars came at the spot. Ram Kumar son of Nathu Ram, Bhanwar Lal son of Om Parkash and Dimpi son of Bhajan Lal alighted from first car. Om Parkash son of Nathu Ram, Sandeep Kumar son of Ram Kumar and name of sixth accused she did not remember, also got down from the second car. However later on she deposed that the name of sixth accused was Sunil Kumar son of Ram Kumar. Ram Kumar e




















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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top