Ranjeet vs State of Haryana

Mahavir Singh Chauhan, J.—Having been convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and fine under Sections 148, 302, 302, and 323 read with Section 149, and Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (''IPC'', for short) by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Faridabad (''trial Court'', for short), vide judgment of conviction dated 27.04.2002/order of sentence dated 29.04.2002 passed in Sessions Case No. 21 of 2001/99, the convicts have brought this appeal to seek, upsetting of the aforesaid judgment/order and their acquittal.

Prosecution story, put in brief, is that Amar Singh, the deceased, was in possession of panchayat land measuring 1 acre and appellant-Ranjeet Singh wanted to enter forcible possession thereof. Civil litigation was going on in this respect. On 17.09.1999, all the appellants descended on the scene, appellant-Danna was armed with a Kulhari (axe) and others were carrying lathies/dandas. They entered house of the deceased. Ranjeet, Rattan Singh, Karnail Singh, Gurdass and Kashmir Singh abused the deceased and inflicted lathi/danda blows on his right hand, right foot, head, back and arms while appellant-Danna administered Kulhari blow on right leg of the deceased. Rattan Singh asked others that the deceased be picked up and taken to, and confined in, Ranjeet''s house. Thereupon all the accused dragged the deceased towards Ranjeet''s house. Complainant-Kaushalya Devi, who was present by the side of the deceased, raised an alarm. Swarno Bai, who was also present there, witnessed the entire occurrence and intervened to save the deceased from the assailants . Ranjeet inflicted a lathi blow to her also. Both PWs Kaushalya Devi and Swarno Bai raised an alarm whereupon Ranjeet made the deceased to board the tractor belonging to Gurdass and took him to village Tigaon. Kaushalya Devi followed them; made the deceased to board down from the tractor and took him to village Kurali in a three-wheeler. He breathed his last there. Doctor who attended on the deceased, wrote ruqa Exhibit PG/2 concerning arrival of the deceased in the hospital and Exhibit PG/1 with regard to his death. On receipt of the ruqa, ASI Dharampal reached the hospital; met complainant-Kaushalya Devi there and recorded her statement Exhibit PA. Based on the statement Exhibit PA, formal First Information Report (''FIR'' for short) was recorded. Spot of occurrence was inspected, inquest proceedings were carried out and on completion of investigation the appellants were challaned. Learned trial Court, on hearing the prosecutor and the defence and appraisal of the record of the case, found a prima facie case triable under Sections 148, 452, 323, 302, IPC, and charged the appellants accordingly. The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

Prosecution examined ten witnesses including two eyewitnesses namely, Kaushalya Devi (PW1), Swarno Bai (PW2), Dr. Sudhir Khurana (PW4), Dr. Kamal Satyarthi (PW7) and Investigating Officer SI Dharam Pal (PW8).

On close of case of the prosecution, learned trial Court examined, the appellants so as to afford them an opportunity to explain the inculpating circumstances brought on record by the prosecution, as required by Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (''Cr.P.C'' for short). Appellants denied all these circumstances as false and incorrect and reiterated plea of their innocence. Appellant-Gurdass also added that when he was coming from Faridabad to his village on a tractor deceased boarded his tractor from village Jasana and when the tractor reached near village Kabulpur, he tried to board down from the running tractor-trolly and fell down in the process and received injuries. Khazan Singh and Sardar Singh who were also travelling on the aforesaid tractor witnessed the occurrence and after the occurrence he took the deceased to Primary Health Centre, Kurali and informed members of family of the deceased.

Appellants also examined two witnesses in their defence namely Khazan Singh (DW1) and Sardar Singh (DW2).

On hearing prosecutor and the defence and on appraisal of the evidence available on record, learned trial Court concluded that the prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and, accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellants as hereinbefore stated.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment and order primarily on the ground that the prosecution has not been able to establish motive attributable to the appellants in so far as no investigation has been done to find out what was the land in dispute, who was in possession and who wanted to take possession thereof; it has come in the evidence of Dr. Kamal Satyarthi (PW7) that possibility of injuries found on the person of PW2 Swarno Bai having been caused by friendly hand cannot be ruled out. This opinion coupled with the fact that all the injuries on her person are simple in nature and delay in her medical examination has remained unexplained, leads to the conclusion that this witness has been later on introduced to bring support for the shaky evidence of PW1 Kaushalya Devi and as such no reliance can be placed on her evidence; in the statement Exhibit PA no specific role has been attributed to either of the appellants and it is quite improbable and unbelievable that the deceased after having been attacked by these persons armed with lathies, dandas and kulhari would receive only three injuries. This circumstance, in fact, gives credence to the story put up by the defence that the deceased fell down when he tried to board down from the running tractor-trolly and received injuries in the process; and it has not been explained who brought the deceased to the hospital. Failure of the prosecution to prove who brought the deceased to the hospital also supports plea of the defence that he was taken to the hospital by appellant-Gurdass and record of the hospital has been withheld only to help the prosecution.

On the contrary, on behalf of the respondent-State it has been argued that in the evidence of PW1-Kaushalya Devi and PW2-Swarno Bai occurrence has been proved beyond any manner of doubt and both these witnesses have passed the acid test of cross-examination successfully. Besides, evidence of these witnesses has been supported by medical evidence and as such the contention that no specific role has been attributed to the appellants is of no consequence. According to the learned State counsel, it has come in the evidence of PW1-Kaushalya Devi that she took the deceased to the hospital and motive behind the occurrence has also been proved by this witness to be a piece of land belonging to the village panchayat, which was in possession of the deceased, and the appellants were out to enter possession thereof by force.

Nothing more has been urged on either side.

In the first instance, it may be appropriate to find out if death of the deceased was homicidal.

Though, it is not disputed by the defence that the deceased died otherwise than in ordinary course of nature, yet it may be appropriate to point out that PW4 Dr. Sudhir Khurana, who conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased, has stated that on the person of the deceased there were three injuries, one on the right leg, second on the back of the chest in the lumber region, upper part of buttocks , both thighs, both legs and elbows and third on the face and forehead. It has also been stated by him that both the bones of the right leg and left zygomatic bones were found fractured. On dissection of the chest, he found 8th, 9th and 10th ribs on the left side and 6th, 7th and 8th ribs on the right side to be fractured. According to him cause of death was shock and hemorrhage caused by the injuries to the vital organs. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and probable duration of time lapsed between the injuries and death could be within few minutes to few hours and between death and post-mortem less than 24 hours. The defence, while cross-examining PW4 Dr. Sudhir Khurana, did not question the correctness of his statement regarding injuries found on the person of the deceased and these injuries being cause of death of the deceased. The only cross-examination to which this witness was subjected to, on behalf of the defence, is with regard to possibility of the injuries having been received by fall from moving tractor and getting entangled and being dragged thereby, to which the witness replied saying possibility cannot be ruled out. However, no benefit can be allowed to the appellants of this because the witness only has referred to a possibility which cannot be read to rule out the possibility of the injuries having been caused in the manner suggested by the prosecution.

PW-7 Dr. Kamal Satyarthi, has proved medico legal report regarding injuries on the person of injured PW-2 Swarno Bai. According to him, on her person one abrasion on the back of the middle of left fore-arm, diffused swelling on the left side of the forehead and a pink contusion on the thumb side of the middle of right fore-arm were found. It has also been stated by him that this witness was brought to the hospital with the history of injuries having suffered by her while trying to rescue her father-in-law from the murderers. Another revelation made by this witness is that clothes of injured PW-2 Swarno Bai had stains of blood and mud. Presence of stains of blood and mud on the clothes of PW-2 Swarno Bai lends credence to the prosecution case that she intervened when the deceased was being dragged and in the process injuries were also inflicted on her person. As regards the occurrence, PW-1 Kaushalya Devi, author of the FIR has given a picturesque description of the occurrence besides proving her statement Exhibit PA on the basis of which FIR was recorded. Whatever is stated by her finds corroborated from the evidence of PW-2 Swarno Bai. It may be added here that PW-2 Swarno Bai is an injured witness. As held in Mano Dutt and Another Vs. State of U.P., evidence of an injured witness has an inbuilt guarantee of his/her presence on the spot at the time of the occurrence and evidence of such a witness deserves more weightage as compared to other witnesses. Even otherwise, as hereinbefore stated, this witness not only has passed the litmus test of cross examination successfully except for a few negligible variations and improvements here and there but her statement also tallies with the deposition of PW1 Kaushalya Devi, almost verbatim.

The contention that injuries on the person of PW2-Swarno Bai being simple in nature and she having been medically examined late renders her presence on the spot of occurrence doubtful, in our view is wholly misplaced. From the evidence available on record, we find that when the occurrence took place, besides the deceased, an old man of about 70 years, only the two ladies namely; PW1 Kaushlya Devi and PW2 Swarno Bai, were present in the house. After deceased was made to ride the tractor by the assailants, PW1-Kaushalya Devi, chased the culprits, rescued the deceased from them and took him to the hospital while PW2-Swarno Bai chose to stay back at home. It has come in the deposition of PW-2 Swarno Bai that police came to her house at about 8.00 P.M. and took her to the hospital. According to Dr. Kamal Satyarthi PW-7, he medico legally examined her at about 9:45 PM. In view of the above, no benefit can be given to the defence of delay in medical examination of this witness more so because in view of the illiteracy of the two PWs namely; Kaushalya Devi and Swarno Bai, they could not expected to comply with procedural formalities with promptness. They certainly deserve some benefit for being unaware of technicalities of law and complex ways of this World owing to their illiteracy.

The contention that prosecution has failed to prove who brought the deceased to the hospital is found to factually incorrect because PW1 Kaushalya Devi has stated in so many words that she rescued the deceased from the assailants and took him to the hospital on a three wheeler. Defence has chosen not to cross-examine her on this aspect of her deposition and that being so going by the well settled principle of law, the defence is deemed to have accepted as correct aforesaid statement of the witness, namely PW1 Kaushalya Devi.

As regards motive behind the occurrence it needs to be stated that, statement of PW-1 Kaushalya Devi Exhibit PA has been proved by her and she has not been cross-examined with regard to the contents thereof. She has also not been confronted with a suggestion that the story set up by her in her aforesaid statement was incorrect. In the statement Exhibit PA, it has been very specifically stated that the deceased was in possession of the land measuring one acre belonging to the village Panchayat and appellants-Ranjeet etc. wanted to take possession thereof by force. This assertion has been reiterated by Kaushalya Devi while appearing as PW1. Defence though has confronted her with a suggestion that dispute regarding the aforesaid land was between the deceased and village Panchayat, but has thought it unnecessary and wasteful to cross examine her with regard to her statement that appellant Ranjeet etc. wanted to enter possession of the aforesaid land by force. She has also not been confronted with a suggestion that this appellant and his companions never tried to take forcible possession of the land in possession of the deceased or that the deceased was not in possession thereof.

At this stage, it, however, needs to be pointed out that the motive with regard to the possession of afore-stated land was available only to Ranjeet, his wife Danna and brother-in-law Gurdass. Gurdass also used his tractor in the occurrence. No such motive can be stated to be available to appellants-Karnail Singh, Rattan Singh and Kashmir Singh, who are not shown related to or connected with the appellants Ranjeet Singh, Gurdass and Danna in any manner. Therefore, participation of these appellants in the occurrence is highly doubtful.

In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the injuries on the person of the deceased were caused only by Ranjeet Singh, Gurdass and Danna and prosecution has falsely named the appellants namely, Karnail Singh, Rattan Singh and Kashmir Singh in view of the practice prevalent in the country to name every possible person in the occurrence.

At this stage, it is sought to be suggested on behalf of the assailants that the circumstances appearing on record do not suggest that intention of the assailants cannot be said to be to kill the deceased. However, we are unable to subscribe to this view because it has come in the evidence of PW1 Kaushalya Devi that the occurrence was planned before hand and the assailants descended on the scene armed with lathis, dandas and kulhari and six ribs and two bones of right leg of the deceased were fractured on account of the injuries received by him. Extensive damage to the bones is indicative of the force applied by the assailants to cause injuries which, according to medical opinion, have proved fatal. In such a situation, the defence cannot be heard to say that the assailants did not have intention to cause death of the deceased.

In view of the above what has been stated and discussed above, we accept the appeal partly and acquit appellants, Karnail Singh, Rattan Singh and Kashmir Singh, and set aside their conviction and order of sentence; direct to refund the amount of fine to them, if already deposited. However, the appeal as regards other appellants, namely, Ranjeet, Gurdass and Danna fails and is dismissed. Bail bonds of the appellants are discharged. Appellants Ranjeet, Gurdass and Danna shall surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad, forthwith. Failing which, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall cause their arrest and commit them to custody so as to serve the unexpired portion of sentence awarded to them by the learned trial Court and affirmed by this Court.