Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rajiv Sharma, Harinder Singh Sidhu, JJ.
Jagbir Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (D) No. 574 of 2011, Criminal Appeal (S) No. 2871 of 2011
Decided On : 17-07-2019
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. CRA-D-574-DB-2011 - [SUBJECT] - SECTIONS 302, 201, 328/34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC) - [SUMMARY] - The appellant was convicted and sentenced for the murder of Tej Pal. The prosecution's case was that the appellant had called the deceased to his house on the pretext of arranging money for a loan. The deceased went to the appellant's house with his son, who was left behind at the appellant's house. The appellant and the deceased left in the deceased's car. The deceased's wife and father called him several times, but his phones were switched off. The appellant returned alone at about 9.00 PM. When the deceased's wife, father, and another person came to the appellant's house at around 11.30 PM, the appellant was not there. He came about one hour later after scaling the wall. The appellant informed the deceased's father that the deceased had left him at Dosarka and gone to Ambala. The next day, the deceased's body was found in the boot of his car in a canal. The appellant was arrested and he made a disclosure statement in which he admitted to killing the deceased. The trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The appellant appealed the conviction and sentence. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the deceased's widow against the acquittal of the co-accused, holding that the prosecution had not led any cogent evidence to connect the co-accused with the commission of the crime.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted and sentenced for the murder of Tej Pal. The prosecution's case was that the appellant had called the deceased to his house on the pretext of arranging money for a loan. The deceased went to the appellant's house with his son, who was left behind at the appellant's house. The appellant and the deceased left in the deceased's car. The deceased's wife and father called him several times, but his phones were switched off. The appellant returned alone at about 9.00 PM. When the deceased's wife, father, and another person came to the appellant's house at around 11.30 PM, the appellant was not there. He came about one hour later after scaling the wall. The appellant informed the deceased's father that the deceased had left him at Dosarka and gone to Ambala. The next day, the deceased's body was found in the boot of his car in a canal. The appellant was arrested and he made a disclosure statement in which he admitted to killing the deceased.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the deceased's widow against the acquittal of the co-accused, holding that the prosecution had not led any cogent evidence to connect the co-accused with the commission of the crime.
Issues: None
Ratio Decidendi: None
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Harinder Singh Sidhu, J.
1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in the aforesaid appeals these are taken up together and disposed off by a common judgment.
2. Criminal Appeal No. CRA-D-574-DB-2011 has been filed by the appellant against his conviction and sentence vide judgment and order dated 11/13.05.2011 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala in Sessions Case No. 9 of 2008 whereby he was charged with and tried for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 328/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) along with Karambir. For the offence under Section 302 IPC the appellant has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for three months. For offence under Section 201 IPC he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for one month. Under Section 25 of the Arms Act he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for one month. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Karambir was acquitted.
3. Criminal Appeal No. CRA-S-2871-SB-2011 has been filed by Pushpa Rani widow of Tej Pal for enhancement of sentence of the convict Jagbir as also challenging the acquittal of Karambir.
4. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that on 17.12.2017 complainant Dharam Raj (PW-7) moved written complaint Ex.PE to Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, Saharanpur (U.P.) wherein, he alleged that he was working in Haryana Police and was posted in the office of Superintendent of Police, Yamuna Nagar. His brother Tej Pal (deceased) son of Nar Singh resident of Barara was Commando in Haryana Commando Police (Naval) Karnal as M.H.C. After taking casual leave for three days i.e. from 15.12.2007 to 18.12.2007 he had come to village Barara. On 16.12.2007 Tej Pal took his son Bharat Chauhan to the house of his Bahnoi (sister's hushand) Jagbir Singh at village Dosarka, District Ambala at about 3.30 PM where he stayed for 5-10 minutes and then left his son there. He told Jagbir that he was proceeding to Ambala and would take Bharat on his return. Tej Pal did not return till 10.00 PM whereupon his father Captain Nar Singh Chauhan enquired from Jagbir who told that Tej Pal had left saying that he was proceeding to Ambala and had not returned and that Bharat Chauhan was with them. Efforts were made to contact Tej Pal on his mobile phone but his phones were found switched off. They searched for Tej Pal and then made report in P.S. Barara. Around 11.00 AM a telephone call was received from SHO Saharanpur that a white colour Ford Fiesta car bearing No. HR-01-U-2123 was standing without its driver at the bank of a canal at Saharanpur. After about 15-20 minutes another call was received that a dead body was lying in the Dikki of the said car. His father sent him for the identification of dead body to Saharanpur. He identified the dead body as that of Tej Pal his brother. He also mentioned that Tej Pal was managing Angel Public School, Barara in the name of his wife. A loan amount of Rs.24 lacs was due against said School, recoverable by Punjab National Bank and deceased was busy in arranging money to deposit instalment of the loan amount as told to him by his brother-in-law Jagbir. He also alleged that as per his knowledge, Tej Pal had no enmity with any particular person. Regarding his creditors and debtors enquiry could be made from the Managing Committee of the School. He sought legal action.
5. His statement Ex.PE was recorded by the police at Dehat Kotwali, Saharanpur. On the basis thereof formal FIR No. 442/965 dated 17.12.2007 Ex.PE/1 was registered at Saharanpur. The postmortem was conducted the same evening. Inquest proceedings Ex.PG were conducted.
6. The prosecution examined number of witnesses in its support. The statement
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
