Dalbir Singh vs The State of Haryana

H.S. Bhalla, J.—In a free country like India right to own property is a fundamental right given by the Constitution of India and every citizen, as per his desire, can possess moveable and immovable property, but at the same time, law does not permit inheritance of property by committing a crime. It is sad to note that accused Dalbir Singh, who is the grand son of the complainant, wanted to take share of the land by committing the murder of his uncle Ram Partap. He was tried with others, but except for him, all other accused were acquitted of the charges framed against them.

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.10.1997 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, whereby he convicted the appellant u/s 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life u/s 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Further he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year u/s 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

A synoptical resume of the prosecution case is as under:

On 17.5.1995 on receipt of a ruqa from the doctor, CHC Rania, regarding admission of injured Ram Partap (since deceased), Sub Inspector Amar Singh along with other police officials reached CHC Rania, where doctor produced before him a ruqa regarding death of Ram Partap. Surja Ram, complainant, father of the deceased, was found present there near the dead body. He suffered a statement to the effect that he had two sons,namely, Banwari and Ram Partap. Banwari had two sons, namely, Dalbir accused and Om Parkash. Banwari had already died two years ago. Ram Partap used to reside with him and they also owned landed property in village Mameran, where family of Ram Partap used to reside and cultivate the land. His deceased son Ram Partap had come to him three-four days before thrashing the wheat and when they were thrashing the wheat, at about 9.30 P.M. after stopping the operation of thrasher, Ram Partap went to nearby canal for taking a bath. After some time, a jeep came and stopped near the bank of canal at a distance of about two acres towards village and in the meanwhile, five-six persons came down from the jeep and reached near Ram Partap. Dalbir Singh accused raised a lalkara to Ram Partap deceased that he should be taught a lesson for cultivating the land of his grand father. Complainant recognized the voice of Dalbir and rushed towards them and saw that Dalbir had a tangli in his hands, whereas other persons were armed with lathi, jailis and gandasis and were causing injuries on his son Ram Partap. He raised an alarm as to why they were beating Ram Partap and on seeing him, all the assailants ran away with their respective weapons in the said jeep and he did not know the names of the remaining persons. He has further disclosed that the relationship between them and Dalbir were strained from earlier, who wanted to take share of his land. His son became unconscious due to the injuries suffered by him. He went to village for making arrangement of a jeep leaving his siries near Ram Partap at the spot and after arranging jeep of one Sukh Ram at about 12.00 during night he shifted Ram Partap to CHC Rania for medical treatment, where doctor treated Ram Partap and during treatment he succumbed to his injuries. Dalbir along with his companions caused injuries to his son without any right. On the basis of this statement, Ex. PD/1 and an endorsement made by Sub Inspector Amar Singh thereon, a case was registered against the accused. The Investigating Officer started the investigation, recorded statements of the witnesses and thereafter sent the dead body for autopsy.

Dr. Dharambir Singh conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Ram Partap deceased and found ten injuries on his person. He disclosed the cause of death due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries to vital organs, which were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

Sub Inspector Amar Singh went to the place of occurrence and lifted blood stained earth from there and sealed the same in a parcel and took it into possession after preparing recovery memo of the same. He also recorded the statements of Kamla, widow and Durga, daughter of Ram Partap deceased on the same day. From their statements, it was revealed that in the evening on the previous day at about 7.00 P.M., they were going to the fields to serve meals to Ram Partap, Surja and their siries, who were thrashing the wheat in the fields. When they passed near the house of Dalbir, accused, they saw a jeep bearing No. HR-44A 0856 standing in his courtyard and there Pala Jani, Sube Singh, Krishan, Kuldeep and Parkash, all accused, were talking to each other. They were known to these witnesses. Two persons were sitting in the jeep and when these witnesses were returning from their fields towards home and reached near the culvert of canal Dhottar, the same jeep came near them and stopped. From the side of the jeep, Dalbir asked about the whereabouts of Ram Partap, who told him that he was in the fields. Then Dalbir asked Madan to take the vehicle ahead. Dalbir Singh was talking with Kamla. In the meantime, one person got down the jeep for urinating and when the jeep started Sube Singh called him by the name of Devi Lal to come immediately and then all of them occupied their seats in the jeep and went. They had seen all the persons in the house of Dalbir in the evening and these witnesses came to know that during night hours Dalbir and others had caused injuries to Ram Partap, who died later on. After completion of necessary formalities, accused were sent up for trial.

Accused were charge sheeted under Sections 302 and 148 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses, namely, Dr. B.L.Gupta, SMO (PW-1), Kul Bhushan, Head Constable (PW-2), Kamla (PW-3), Baljit Singh (PW-4), Subhash Chander Constable (PW-5), Durga Devi (PW-6), Dr. Dharmender Singh, Medical Officer (PW-7), Surja (PW-8) and Amar Singh, Sub Inspector (PW-9) and closed its evidence.

In their statements recorded u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied all the prosecution allegations levelled against them. Accused Dalbir stated that he was not present at the spot when the occurrence took place. He had inherited land from his maternal side. His grand father Surja Ram wanted the land, which was inherited by him from his maternal side to be joint with his land for giving share to him from total holdings to which he did not agree and on that account, he was falsely implicated in this case by his grand father Surja. Accused, when called upon to enter defence, examined 15 witnesses, namely, Bhagwan Dass (DW1), Om Parkash (DW-2), Jeet Ram (DW-3), Guddi Devi (DW-4), Rajinder Parshad Constable (DW-5), Sharmila (DW-6), Jagga Ram (DW-7), Smt. Lichhman Devi (DW-8), Suresh Kumar (DW-9), Smt. Bimla (DW-10), Kaushalya (DW-11), Om Parkash (DW-12), Ram Niwas, Jail Warden (DW-13), Smt. Harbans Kaur, Sarpanch of Mamera (DW14) and Roop Ram (DW-15) and closed his defence evidence.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case.

In order to arrive at a right conclusion, it is necessary to refer to the pedigreetable showing the relationship between the parties, which runs as under:

Surja Ram | ______________________________ | | Ram Partap Banwari (Deceased) | _________________________ | | Dalbir Om Parkash (accused) (died two years ago)

It is crystal clear that the present case has been registered at the instance of the grand father of the accused and present accused is the nephew of the deceased and crime took place on account of property in the hands of the grand father, father of the deceased uncle, of the accused. It is crystal clear from the record that the occurrence in this case took place on 16.5.1995 at 9.30 P.M. near the field of Surja Ram, who is the grand father of the accused. Surja Ram (PW-8) heard exhortation of his grand son Dalbir Singh and he found that the accused inflicted injuries on the person of Ram Partap deceased, who was paternal uncle of the accused and son of Surja Ram. He succumbed to his injuries in the Community Health Centre, Rania on 17.5.1995 at 4.00 A.M. FIR was recorded on the same day at about 5.15 A.M. at the instance of Surja Ram, who has provided the ocular version. All this clearly spells out that the case was registered at the instance of the complainant through FIR, Ex. PD and the complainant had given the details about the occurrence and also mentioned about the persons, who committed the crime. All the facts and circumstances, which were within the knowledge of the complainant, were disclosed by him and as per his statement, he had mentioned that five-six persons, who came in the jeep through the bank of the canal, reached near Ram Partap deceased, Dalbir Singh exhorted that Ram Partap be taught a lesson for cultivating the land of his grand father. He further disclosed that he identified Dalbir Singh by his voice and rushed to the spot and saw accused Dalbir Singh holding a tangli in his hand, while the other persons were holding lathi, jaili and gandasi and all of them started inflicting injuries on Ram Partap, while his son Ram Partap was screaming "Mar Diya Mar Diya" and when he raised a lalkara as to why they were killing Ram Partap, all the assailants ran away in the jeep with their respective weapons. It is true that complainant Surja Ram did not mention about the identity or description of the other assailants and the only person named by him was his grand son accused Dalbir. The inquest proceedings were conducted in the presence of Surja Ram and Bhanwra (Pws) on 17.5.1995 and at that time, he had mentioned about the presence of five-six persons and had mentioned only one assailant by name and that was Dalbir and the identity of all other assailants could not be ascertained. Kamla, wife of the deceased, and Durga, daughter of the deceased, who were examined PW-3 and PW-6 in the Court, were not present at the spot and they were not the eye witnesses to the occurrence. They have only disclosed with regard to presence of jeep, which was used by the accused persons to commit the crime and they do not state about their presence at the spot, therefore, it was rightly observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that their testimony cannot establish the guilt against the remaining accused. Moreover, no motive has been attributed to all the other accused except for accused Dalbir Singh. Surja Ram (PW-8) disclosed before the Court when he stepped into the witness box that Ram Partap deceased went for taking bath in the canal and after 10-15 minutes, a jeep came to the bank of the canal. He did not see the occupants of the jeep, nor could he identify them at that time. Dalbir accused is the son of Banwari and is his grand son. Dalbir accused raised a lalkara to Ram Partap deceased that he be taught a lesson for cultivating the land of his grand father. Thereafter, all the occupants of the jeep came down with their respective weapons and started inflicting injuries on the person of Ram Partap. He rushed towards the spot after raising the alarm and by the time he reached the spot, all the assailants had already inflicted him injuries. Ram Partap was lying unconscious and on seeing him, the assailants occupied the jeep. When he raised a lalkara, the assailants sped away in the jeep with their respective weapons. He has categorically deposed that he did not recognise the other assailants except Dalbir and further disclosed that he can now identify the remaining assailants present in the Court and can say with certainty that they were those assailants who had inflicted injuries on the person of his son Ram Partap, but he could not disclose their names and in such like circumstances, in the absence of test identification parade, the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly observed that it will be wholly unsafe to rely on his bare testimony regarding the identification of an accused for the first time in the Court and it was found that there is absolutely no reliable evidence against the other accused to establish their identity or participation in the commission of the crime. In such like circumstances, the recoveries from the other accused have no relevance when involvement of the other accused in the commission of the crime is not established beyond shadow of doubt and the suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of truth. The identity of accused Dalbir Singh stands established by the prosecution.

Surja Ram (PW-8), who is the grand father of Dalbir, can certainly identify accused Dalbir Singh even by his voice and this witness has categorically deposed that Dalbir accused raised a lalkara to Ram Partap deceased and when he rushed towards the spot, he raised an alarm and he recognised accused Dalbir Singh. He was cross-examined at length by the learned defence counsel, particularly in respect of identification of accused Dalbir Singh, but nothing of importance could be elicited in favour of the defence and he stuck to his statement put forward by him in the First Information Report and as well as when he stepped into the witness box. Rather, he has clarified that he did not undergo an eye operation two years ago and he had never any problem with his vision or eye sight. Moreover, no grand father would falsely implicate his grand son and there is nothing on the file to spell out that Dalbir Singh has been falsely implicated. He was also cross-examined personally by accused Dalbir Singh after seeking permission from the Court and during the course of cross-examination Surja (PW-8) further clarified that he owned 18 Killas of land at Mamera and 4-1/2 acres of land at village Dhottar. The maternal grand father of accused Dalbir mortgaged 12 killas of land which he got redeemed after paying the mortgage amount. He has also disclosed that he gave 40 tolas of gold to the mother of accused Dalbir at the time of her marriage with Banwari brother of Ram Partap accused and all the gold is with her. He has also clarified that accused had gone with his mother to village Madho Singhana and started living there, while Banwari continued living at Dhottar. He has also disclosed that Banwari fell ill and he was brought to Janta Hospital Sirsa and he was kept there for 20 days for medical treatment, where he expired and the accused came after three days of the death of his father and all the expenses were borne by him. At the cost of repetition, we would also like to observe that there is no reason for this witness to depose against his own grand son and to falsely implicate him for the murder of his own paternal uncle. Surja had recognised Dalbir Singh at the spot and even if, he identified accused Dalbir only on the basis of his voice when he exhorted, the identity of the accused is fully proved. Grand father can easily identify his grand son even by way of his voice. Moreover, Surja Ram (PW-8) is an eye witness to the occurrence, who saw Dalbir Singh exhorting the other accused and actually causing injuries to the deceased and being parental grand father, he always recognises the voice of his grand son, who is familiar with each other''s voice. Moreover, corroborative evidence is also available on the record in establishing the identity of the accused Dalbir Singh. Kamla, (PW-3) and Durga (PW-6), wife and daughter of deceased Ram Partap, have categorically deposed that on the date of occurrence, i.e., on 16.5.1995 at 7.00 P.M. when they were passing in front of the house of Dalbir accused, they saw a jeep in the court yard of accused Dalbir. Later on at about 9.00 P.M. when they were returning from fields after giving meals near the culvert the above jeep came from the side of village Dhottar. The jeep halted near them. Dalbir accused asked Kamla (PW-3) addressing her as Kaki (aunt) about the whereabouts of his Kaka (uncle), i.e., her husband Ram Partap. She replied that he was thrashing wheat in the field. Dalbir accused then addressed co-occupants to the fields. One of the occupants of the jeep had, in the mean time, alighted and had gone for urinating about ten paces away, but he was asked to come immediately. All of them then left in the jeep. Surja Ram (PW-8) has stated that accused arrived at the spot and started inflicting injuries on Ram Partap deceased at 9.30 P.M. The fact that accused Dalbir was seen in his house at 7.00 P.M. with the jeep and other persons and at about 9.00 P.M. whereabouts of deceased Ram Partap from his wife were inquired into, then going to the spot and inflicting injuries on the deceased are the circumstances which further strengthen the case of the prosecution in establishing the identity of accused Dalbir. Some discrepancies have been pointed out by the learned defence counsel, but they were rightly ignored by the Additional Sessions Judge since they do not go to the root of the prosecution case.

The question of any deliberations and consultations before recording the statement of Surja Ram on the basis of which FIR was registered does not arise. Deceased expired at 4.00 A.M. and statement of Surja Ram was recorded at 5.10 A.M. on the same day i.e., after one hour. The evidence of Dr. B.L.Gupta (PW-1) and Surja Ram (PW-8) leaves no manner of doubt that Surja Ram had no time or opportunity to go for deliberations to other persons or to cook up a story against accused Dalbir, who was his own grand son. The possibility of false implication of the accused is ruled out in the instant case. The son of Surja Ram (PW-8) was in a precarious condition and he remained unconscious till the time of his death and the first priority of the complainant was to take him to the Civil Hospital by arranging a vehicle and not to rush to the Police Station. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, there is no delay in lodging the First Information Report and if there is any slight delay, that is properly explained by the ocular account given by Surja Ram (PW-8).

After having gone through the defence evidence led by the accused, it is ipso facto clear that it does not cause any dent in the prosecution version and also do not prove the innocence of the accused in any manner and since the entire defence evidence have been discussed in the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the same is not required to be discussed herein again in order to avoid any repetition.

The contention of the learned defence counsel that motive is missing in the instant case is again liable to be noticed only for the sake of rejection. We would also like to observe that motive is state of mind of the culprit and this element exclusively remains hidden in it and specially when it sprouts for the commission of offence that cannot be judged precisely. It is neither obligatory nor incumbent on the part of the prosecution to prove motive but if it can provide to the court for appreciating the evidence, this would be additional circumstance to prove the chain of the version. Most heinous offences are committed for petty matters and some time for no motive but the Court cannot sit idle and shift its responsibility to arrive at a particular conclusion as to who is responsible for the commission of the offence. In order to conclude with regard to the motive in this case, we would finally like to observe that motive is not deciding factor in a criminal case and absence of motive does not speak of the innocence of the accused, where direct evidence against the accused is overwhelming. But the instant case, as discussed above, is based upon the direct evidence from none other than grand father (Surja Ram PW-8) of accused Dalbir and wife and daughter of deceased Ram Partap, who was uncle of accused Dalbir. However, it is crystal clear that a strong motive has been provided by the prosecution and it is proved on record that the crime has been committed in the instant case on account of immovable property.

Seen from every angle, the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Appeal filed by the appellant fails and is dismissed. Conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, is affirmed.