Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(P&H) 1395

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SURESHWAR THAKUR, SUDEEPTI SHARMA, JJ.
Dharampal - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
CRA No. 752 of 2005, CRR No. 194 of 2006
Decided On : 27-08-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Kapil Aggarwal, Shruti Sharma
For the Respondents: Gautam Pathania, Pardeep Prakash Chahar

Convict's involvement was upheld despite witness inconsistencies; acquittal overruled due to insufficient evidence evaluation by the trial court.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 148, 302/149, 323/149, 506 - Conviction of accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC - Accused acquitted by trial court, appeal and revision against acquittal - Prosecutorial evidence from eye witnesses established involvement of accused, despite conflicting testimonies - Court upheld conviction and affirmed sentence of life imprisonment with fines imposed. (Paras 2-3, 39)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 428 - Detention period set off against sentence - Set off is permissible under law for time already served during trial. (Para 4)

Facts of the case:
The case involves an incident where a group of accused beat a victim, leading to his eventual death from his injuries. One accused was convicted, while others were acquitted by the trial court. The victim’s relatives appealed the acquittal. (Paras 5, 7)

Findings of Court:
The court dismissed the appeal of Dharampal and upheld the conviction, while allowing the revision petition of the victim’s father, quashing the acquittal of the other accused. (Paras 39)

Issues: The main issues were the validity of the convict's evidence and whether the acquittal of other accused was justified based on the testimonies presented. (Paras 14, 39)

Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that prior inconsistent statements of witnesses may not detract from their credibility if they initially provided reliable information. The acquittal was overturned due to inadequate appreciation of evidence by the trial court. (Paras 14, 24)

Result: Conviction upheld for Dharampal; acquittal of other accused quashed and they were held guilty. (Para 39)

JUDGMENT :

SURESHWAR THAKUR , J.

1. Since both the appeal (supra) as well as the criminal revision petition (supra) arise from a common verdict, made by the learned trial Judge concerned, hence both are amenable for a common verdict being made thereons.

2. Both the (supra) are directed against the impugned verdict, as made on 5.10.2005, upon Session Case bearing No. 04 of 1998/2005, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, wherethrough in respect of charges drawn against the accused qua offences punishable under Sections 148 , 302/149, 323/149 and under Section 506, thus the learned trial Judge concerned, proceeded to record a finding of conviction against accused- appellant Dharampal under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. However, accused Mahabir, Raj Kumar, Dayanand and Krishan Kumar were acquitted of the charges framed against them.

3. Moreover, through a separate sentencing order dated 8.10.2005, the learned trial Judge concerned, sentenced convict-appellant Dharampal to undergo imprisonment for life for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, besides also imposed upon the said convict- appellant sentence of fine, as comprised in a sum of Rs. 2,000/-, and, in default of payment of fine amount, he sentenced the said appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.

4. However, the period of detention undergone by the appellants- convicts, during the investigations, and, trial of the case, was, in terms of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C., rather ordered to be set off from the above imposed sentence(s) of imprisonment.

5. Accused-appellant Dharampal becomes aggrieved from the above drawn verdict of conviction, besides also, becomes aggrieved from the consequent thereto sentences of imprisonment, and, of fine as became imposed, upon him, by the learned convicting Court concerned, and, hence has chosen to institute thereagainst the instant criminal appeal.

6. Petitioner Chandgi Ram (father of the deceased) becomes aggrieved from the above drawn verdict of acquittal qua the accused- respondents, and, is led to institute thereagainst Criminal Revision Petition No. 194 of 2006.

Factual Background

7. The genesis of the prosecution case, becomes embodied in the appeal FIR, to which Ex. PF/1 is assigned. As per the prosecution case, on 14.3.1998 after receipt of information regarding the admission of injured Om Parkash son of Shiv Lal in General Hospital, Rewari, ASI Lal Singh accompanied by other police officials immediately rushed to the premises of GH, Rewari and after seeking opinion regarding fitness of the said injured from the doctor concerned, he recorded the statement of injured Om Parkash son of Shiv Lal, wehrein he alleged that on the fateful day i.e. 13.3.1998 at about 11.30/12.00 O' Clock, Mahabir son of Raghbir Singh under the influence of liquor, was calling bad names to Om Parkash son of Chandgi Ram in the public street and when said Om Parkash objected to it, Mahabir gave him beatings. In the meanwhile, Krishan and Raj Kumar sons of Raghbir Singh also reached there and thrashed said Om Parkash son of Chandgi Ram. To save him, complainant went to the spot and Mahabir, Krishan and Raj Kumar also started beating him. Mahabir brought a Lakri (wood) and hit him with the same on his left shoulder. Raj Kumar hit him with a stone of his back and Krishan hit him with a rod on his right leg. Thereafter, Dayanand son of Ram Sarup also arrived there and hit him with the stone on his head. The aforesaid persons namely Mahabir, Krishan, Raj Kumar and Dayanand caused injuries on the person of complainant as well as on the person of Om Parkash son of Chandgi Ram with Lakri and stones. The said occurrence was also witnessed by Bhim Singh and Sunder and they saved the injured from the clutches of the accused. Since the condition of Om Parkash son of Chandgi Ram deteriorated due to the injuries, therefore, firstly he was taken to Saxena Hospital, Rewari and from there he was referred t