Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 56
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rajiv Sharma and Harinder Singh Sidhu, JJ.
Irshad - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (D) No. 997 of 2017, 1043 of 2017, 1063 of 2017, 1096 of 2017, 1161 of 2017, 12 of 2018
Decided On : 09-01-2020
Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate, J.S. Hooda, Advocate, Deepender Singh, Advocate, S.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate, G.S. Wasu, Advocate
Headnote:
CRIMINAL - MURDER - CONVICTION - APPEAL - EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - SECTION 65-B - ADMISSIBILITY OF CD - DELAY IN LODGING FIR - EXPLANATION - COMMON OBJECT - IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED - SECTION 148, 302, 149 IPC - SECTION 25 ARMS ACT - HELD, CD WAS ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE - DELAY IN LODGING FIR WAS EXPLAINED - COMMON OBJECT WAS PROVED - IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED WAS CORRECT - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE UPHELD.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was shot dead by the appellants and others. The appellants were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. They appealed against the conviction and sentence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the CD containing the footage of the incident 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, 1872, as no objection to its admissibility had been taken at the time of exhibiting the CD. The court also found that the delay in lodging the FIR was explained by the fact that the complainant was a young boy who was perplexed and nervous after witnessing the incident. The court further found that the common object of the appellants and others was to kill the deceased, as evidenced by the fact that they chased him on motorcycles and one of them fired a shot at him which hit him on the head. The court also found that the identification of the appellants by the complainant was correct, as he knew them previously and was able to identify them in the CD footage.
Issues: 1. Whether the CD containing the footage of the incident was admissible in evidence? 2. Whether the delay in lodging the FIR was explained? 3. Whether the common object of the appellants and others was to kill the deceased? 4. Whether the identification of the appellants by the complainant was correct?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the CD 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, 1872, as no objection to its admissibility had been taken at the time of exhibiting the CD. 2. The court held that the delay in lodging the FIR was explained by the fact that the complainant was a young boy who was perplexed and nervous after witnessing the incident. 3. The court held that the common object of the appellants and others was to kill the deceased, as evidenced by the fact that they chased him on motorcycles and one of them fired a shot at him which hit him on the head. 4. The court held that the identification of the appellants by the complainant was correct, as he knew them previously and was able to identify them in the CD footage.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals and upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellants.
JUDGMENT
Harinder Singh Sidhu, J. - This judgment dispose of the aforesaid six appeals.
2. These appeals have been instituted against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 06/10.10.2017 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rewari in Sessions Case No.21 of 2016, wherein, the appellants were charged with and tried for offences under Sections 148, 302 read with Section 149 IPC. They have been convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo RI for a period of ten months. Besides, appellant-Pawan has also been convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
3. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that on 22.04.2016 when ASI Ramkishan and EHC Om Parkash were present for patrolling duty at 75 feet road then 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 were 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 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 completion of the investigation challan was filed against Pawan Kumar, Dharmender, Naresh @ Nehru and Narender @ Nabbu, Irshad and Sonu. Shoaib being Juvenile was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board. Ravi was tried by the Children's Court under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
5. The prosecution examined a number of witnesses in support of its case. All the accused in their statements separately recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C pleaded innocence and stated that they had been falsely implicated. Accused Dharmendar denied that he had given any disclosure statement to the police at any point of time. He stated that the police had obtained his signatures on blank papers. All the allegations levelled against him were false and fabr
