Rajesh @ Raja And Others vs State Of Haryana

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(P&H) 1996

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Ajay Tewari, Alka Sarin, JJ.
Rajesh @ Raja And Others - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (D) No. 285 of 2015
Decided On : 29-11-2019

Advocates Appeared:
Navkiran Singh, Advocate, K.D.S. Hooda, Advocate, Raj Kapoor Malik, Advocate, K.S. Khehar, Advocate, Palika Monga, Advocate

Headnote:
Conviction - Indian Penal Code - Section 148, 302, 307, 120-B, 25 of Arms Act, 1959 - The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.01.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, was challenged by the seven accused-appellants. The appellants were convicted and sentenced under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and Arms Act, 1959. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Fact of the Case:

The prosecution's case was that on 17.10.2011, the complainant and two others witnessed a group of 6-7 boys firing at the deceased and two others with weapons like pistols at Kurukshetra University. The deceased succumbed to his injuries during treatment. The appellants were set to face trial under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and Arms Act, 1959.
Finding of the Court:

The Court found the delay in lodging the FIR not fatal to the prosecution case, as the incident occurred in a crowded public place. The testimonies of the eye-witnesses and other witnesses, along with medical evidence and FSL report, were found to be credible and reliable. The Court rejected the arguments raised by the appellants regarding delay in lodging the FIR, non-reliance on CCTV footage, non-examination of independent witnesses, and the complainant's version being hearsay. The Court also found the minor contradictions in the testimony of the complainant not sufficient to reject the otherwise trustworthy and credible testimony.
Issues: Delay in lodging the FIR, non-reliance on CCTV footage, non-examination of independent witnesses, and minor contradictions in the testimony of the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: The delay in lodging the FIR, non-reliance on CCTV footage, non-examination of independent witnesses, and minor contradictions in the testimony of the complainant were not considered fatal to the prosecution case. The testimonies of the eye-witnesses and other witnesses, along with medical evidence and FSL report, were found to be credible and reliable.
Final Decision: The present appeal was dismissed, and the bail bonds of the appellant(s) were cancelled. All the appellants were directed to be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining period of their respective sentences.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The court held that delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal to the prosecution if not attributable to concoction or tampering, considering the incident occurred in a crowded area and within a chaotic environment (!) (!) (!) . - The eyewitness testimonies (PW2 and PW3) along with medical evidence and FSL report were found credible and reliable; non-examination of independent witnesses and non-reliance on CCTV footage were not fatal to the prosecution (!) (!) (!) . - The appellants’ convictions and sentences were upheld; the appeal was dismissed, and remaining sentences to be served concurrently/as directed by the trial court (!) (!)

What is the standard applied to delay in lodging the FIR and its impact on the prosecution case?

What is the court's stance on the reliability of eyewitness testimony and non-examination of independent witnesses in a public-place incident?

What are the appellate court's conclusions regarding the admissibility and weight of CCTV footage and other documentary evidence in convicting the appellants?

JUDGMENT

Alka Sarin, J. - The present appeal has been filed by seven accused-appellants challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.01.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, vide which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:-

"1. Rajesh alias Raja
Under Section 148 of Indian Penal Code, 1860	To undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand). In default of payment of find, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days
Under Section 302 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.	To undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 40,000/- (forty thousand). In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
Under Section 307 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.	To undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand). In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
Under Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860.	To undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand). In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
2. Vijay Kumar

Under Section 148 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.	To undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand). In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days.
Under Section 302 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.	To undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 40,000/- (forty thousand). In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
Under Section 307 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.	To undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand). In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
Under Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860.	To undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand). In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
3. Naresh Kumar
Under Section 148 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.	To undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand). In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days.
Under Section 302 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.	To undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 40,000/- (forty thousand). In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
Under Section 307 read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.	To undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand). In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
Under Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860.	To undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand). In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
Under Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959.	To undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- (three th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis