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

2020 Supreme(P&H) 54

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rajiv Sharma and Harinder Singh Sidhu, JJ.
Ravi - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (S) No. 3989 of 2017
Decided On : 09-01-2020

Advocates Appeared:
A.P.S. Deol, Advocate, Vishal Lamba, Advocate, G.S. Wasu, Advocate

Headnote:

CRIMINAL - EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - SECTION 65-B - ADMISSIBILITY OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE - CERTIFICATE - DELAY IN LODGING FIR - EXPLANATION - COMMON OBJECT - SECTION 148, 302 READ WITH SECTION 149 IPC - MURDER - CONVICTION - APPEAL DISMISSED.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a juvenile in conflict with law, was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ten months for offences under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149 IPC.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the delay in lodging the FIR was adequately explained and the presence of PW5 at the spot was not doubtful. The court also held that the CD Ex.P-1 was admissible in evidence even though it was not accompanied by a certificate as per the provisions of Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act, as no objection was taken at the time of marking the document as exhibit. The court further held that the discrepancies between the initial statement Ex.PK and the deposition of PW5 were not such as to cast a doubt on his testimony. The court also held that the prosecution had fully established the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Issues: 1. Whether the delay in lodging the FIR rendered the version of the prosecution doubtful? 2. Whether the CD Ex.P-1 was admissible in evidence as it was not accompanied by a certificate as per the provisions of Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act? 3. Whether the statement of PW5 could be relied on? 4. Whether the fired cartridge case and the deformed fired bullet recovered from the body of the deceased matched with the country made pistol recovered? 5. Whether the common object was proved?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The delay in lodging the FIR was adequately explained and the presence of PW5 at the spot was not doubtful. 2. The CD Ex.P-1 was admissible in evidence even though it was not accompanied by a certificate as per the provisions of Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act, as no objection was taken at the time of marking the document as exhibit. 3. The discrepancies between the initial statement Ex.PK and the deposition of PW5 were not such as to cast a doubt on his testimony. 4. The fired cartridge case and the deformed fired bullet recovered from the body of the deceased did not match with the country made pistol recovered. 5. The common object was proved.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Harinder Singh Sidhu, J. - The present appeal has been instituted against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 06/10.10.2017 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Children's Court, Rewari in Sessions Case No.24 of 2016, wherein, the appellant, a juvenile in conflict with law was charged with and tried for offences under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149 IPC. He has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ten months.

2. It was directed that the District Child Protection Unit or the Probation Officer shall ensure that the child in conflict with law is rehabilitated suitably; is provided reformative services including educational services, skill development, alternative therapy such as counselling, behaviour modification therapy and psychiatric support during his stay in place of safety. The Probation Officer or the District Child Protection Unit shall also ensure that there is a periodic follow up report every year, to evaluate the progress of the child in place of safety and to ensure that there is no ill-treatment to the child in any form. On attaining age of twenty one years by the child in conflict with law, Probation Officer shall evaluate if such child has undergone reformative changes and whether the child can be contributing member of the society. The child shall be sent to a place of safety till he attains the age of twenty one years and thereafter transferred to Jail.

3. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that on 22.04.2016 when ASI Ramkishan and EHC Om Parkash were present for patrolling duty at 75 meter road they received a telephonic information regarding murder of a boy by few persons in village Maheshwari. On receiving this information ASI Ramkishan alongwith other police officials reached village Maheshwari where Mohit @ Kala got recorded his statement wherein he stated that on 22.04.2016 at about 6.40 p.m his cousins Ajay and Suraj were talking in front of the house of Ex-Sarpanch Karan Singh on 45 metre road. He was standing at some distance from them near the house of Dharmender. He saw Ajay and Suraj running towards Dharmender's house. Three boys were following them on a Bullet motorcycle. The Bullet motorcycle was being driven by Ravi. Sohaib Khan was sitting behind Ravi and one more person was sitting behind them whose name he did not know. Two motorcycles having two riders each having batons in their hands were behind them. All the three motorcycle riders were chasing Ajay and Suraj. The third boy sitting on the Bullet motorcycle came down and fired at Ajay with country made revolver which hit Ajay on his head. Ajay fell down in front of the house of Dharmender. Suraj hid himself in Dharmendar's house. He (Mohit) raised alarm whereupon all the assailants sped away on their motorcycles towards Bhiwadi. His father Hansraj and other villagers reached the spot and rushed Ajay to Apex Hospital for treatment. He stated that Ravi used to study in his school and was one class junior to him. Ravi was a bully and used to threaten all. He had a fight with Ajay and Suraj on day of Dulhandi and had threatened to kill them. Ravi along with his companions had fired at Ajay with intention to kill him.

4. On the basis of this statement FIR under sections 148, 149, 307 of IPC and section 25 of Arms Act was registered. Ajay died on 23.04.2016 at Medanta Hospital, Gurgaon where after Section 302 IPC was substituted in place of Section 307 IPC. Accused Ravi, Dharmender, Pawan, Naresh @ Nehru, Narender @ Nabbu, Irshad and Sonu were arrested. As per the disclosure statement of accused Pawan, a country made pistol was recovered. As per disclosure statement of accused Dharmender wooden rod was recovered. Four motorcycles were also recovered. On compl

                            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