Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 328
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rajiv Sharma and Harinder Singh Sidhu, JJ.
Jagmander & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
CRA-D-843-DB-2008, CRA-D-932-DB-2008 and CRA-D-29-DB-2009
Decided On : 06-03-2020
M.P.S. Mann, Ranvir S. Chauhan and Anurag Jain, Advocates, for the Appellant; Shubhra Singh, Addl. A.G, for the Respondent
The judgment emphasizes the principle that the prosecution must prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting the importance of admissible evidence, absence of contradictions, and establishment of a complete chain of events.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Murder - Section 302, Section 201, Section 120-B - The judgment discusses the prosecution's failure to prove the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, contradictions in witness statements, inadmissibility of disclosure statements made before the police officer in custody, and lack of motive and evidence. The court ultimately acquitted the appellants of the charges.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the appellants, along with co-accused Ramphal, were charged with and tried for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 120-B IPC. The case revolved around the murder of Ramesh and the subsequent events leading to the identification of the deceased and the filing of the FIR.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, citing inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, contradictions in witness statements, inadmissibility of disclosure statements made before the police officer in custody, lack of motive and evidence.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence to prove the charges against the appellants, including the delay in lodging the FIR, contradictions in witness statements, admissibility of disclosure statements, and the presence of motive and evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, contradictions in witness statements, inadmissibility of disclosure statements made before the police officer in custody, lack of motive and evidence, and the failure to establish the chain of events beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellants of the charges framed against them, setting aside the judgment and order rendered by the lower court.
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Sharma, J. - Since common questions of law and facts are involved in the aforesaid appeals, therefore, these are taken up together and being disposed of by a common judgment.
2. These appeals have been instituted against the judgment dated 18.08.2008 and order dated 25.08.2008 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, in Sessions case no. 66 of 2005 whereby the appellants along with co-accused Ramphal were charged with and tried for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and Section 120-B IPC. The appellants along with co-accused Ramphal were convicted and sentenced as under:-
| 1. | Under Section 302/34 IPC | Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 3000/- to each convicts and in default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo R.I. for four months. |
| 2. | Under Section 201/34 IPC | Imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 2000/- to each convicts and in default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo R.I. for three months. |
| 3. | Under Section 120-B IPC | Imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 1000/- to each convicts and in default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo R.I. for 45 days. |
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Co-accused Ramphal had filed appeal (CRA-D-37-DB-2009). He died during the pendency of the appeal. Appeal qua him stood abated vide order dated 13.11.2013.
3. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that on 27.06.2005 at about 8.50 AM on receipt of a memo from Station Master Railway Station Hisar to the effect that a dead body of an unknown person was lying on the track of railway line in between Railway Station Dhansu and Raipur, SI/SHO Avtar Krishan, P.S. G.R.P. Hisar along with other police officials, reached the spot. FSL team and dog squad were summoned. The spot was inspected by the FSL team. SI took into possession three-four samples of blood stained pieces of stones and grease stains present on the dead body and clothes. He tried to get the dead body identified but in vain. Inquest proceedings were completed. The dead body was sent to General Hospital, Hisar, for post-mortem examination on 28.06.2005. However, the dead body was referred to PGIMS, Rohtak. On that day, when the dead body was lying in the mortuary of General Hospital, Hisar, Kamal and Wazir identified the dead body to be of Ramesh son of Ram Kumar. On 01.07.2005 Wazir son of Ami Chand reached Police Station GRP Hisar. He submitted an application. He stated that he is Chamar by caste. About six months prior to the occurrence, one Mukesh alias Lila son of Jatlal sustained injury. He died in a quarrel between their community and Dhanak community. Raghbir, Mohan, Balwant and Banarsi were facing trial in that murder case. Since then, members of Dhanak community had grudge against their community. On 26.06.2005 at noon, Manohar alias Boby son of Nabhu Ram under the influence of liquor was telling Dablu son of Nanu Ram that they could not do anything despite the fact that their girl had been kidnapped and a boy had been murdered. At that time, the complainant was standing in the street where Rajesh was present at his shop. Ramesh was also present at the shop of Rajesh. Thereafter, on 28.06.2005 Rajesh son of Dalipa Dhanak told Suresh Khati that Ramesh alias Kanu was lying dead on the railway track and their family had no knowledge about this. Suresh Khati narrated this fact to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant and his family members went to the Civil Hospital, Hisar. The dead body was brought to the house on 29.06.2005. The family was under shock. An FIR was registered on 01.07.2005. Investigation was completed. Challan was presented after completing all the codal formalities.
4. Prosecution examined a number of witnesses. The statement of appellant
