Satar Singh vs State of Haryana

S.S. Grewal, J.

This appeal is directed against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, dated 2.9.1987, whereby, Satar Singh, Ram Kumar Jasvir Singh, Amar Singh, and, Balwant Singh, accused, were convicted under Sections 147, and 302 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code. Under Section 147, Indian Penal Code, each of the said convicts has sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, whereas, under Section 302 read Section 149, Indian Penal Code, each of them was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, and, to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ or in default payment thereof, the defaulting accused was sentenced to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were, however, ordered to run concurrently.

In brief the facts of the prosecution case are that Ram Niwas deceased was the son of Thawaria complainant in this case. Ram Niwas was working as Cashier in Central Cooperative Bank at Jhajjar during the days of occurrence, whereas the five accused were the employees of Central Cooperative Bank, Machhroli. Ram Niwas used to go daily to the place of his posting from his village Bhatera. About a week prior to the present occurrence, Ram Niwas had informed his father Thawaria that the accused had threatened to kill him because a dispute had arisen between the accused, and, Ram Niwas during the elections of the Cooperative Bank.

On the evening of the occurrence, i. e., 8.5.1985 Ram Niwas returned from Jhajjar by the last bus. He got down at Machhroli at about 7.30 P.M. Amar Singh, and Balwant Singh accused met him there. In the presence of Mam Chand P.W. they told him that the Manager of the Cooperative Bank wanted to see him. Before accompanying the said accused, Ram Niwas told Mam Chand P.W., his co villager, to wait for him as they would go together to the village. Mam Chand P W. wanted for Ram Niwas in the tea shop on the groundfloor, whereas, Ram Niwas, went to the firstfloor, where the Central Cooperative Bank used to function. Meanwhile, Mohinder Singh (P.W. 2) a cloth vendor and covillage of Mam Chand P.W., and, Kala also came there. They too waited for Ram Niwas in the same tea shop. After some time all the three of their heard cries of Ram Niwas from the firstfloor that he be saved, otherwise, he would be killed. All the three of them then went on the back side of that building and, were in the process of climbing the staircase, when they saw all the five accused bringing Ram Niwas down stair case. Ram Niwas was unconscious at that time. He was brought down, and, made to lie near a corner of the Post Office, in the unconscious condition. The aforesaid three witnesses, i.e., Mam Chand, Mohinder Singh, and, Kala were, however, not permitted to go near Ram Niwas on the pretext that the matter concerned the bank. The said three witnesses then went back to the village Mam Chand P.W. went to the house of Thawaria complainant in order to inform him about the occurrence, but the latter was not available there as he had gone in search of his buffalo, which was missing. Thawaria returned home late in the night, and, heard from his wife, and, children that Ram Niwas had not come back as yet.

On 9.5.1985 at about 12.30 A.M. Ram Niwas was first taken to Civil Hospital, Jhajjar, from where he was referred to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak, as his condition was serious. He was medically examined by Dr. S.K. Nawal (P.W. 8) at 3.50 3.50 A. M. on 9.5.1985 in the Medical College and Hospital at Rohtak, who found one lacerated wound 21/2 cm x 1/2 cm on the left side of the face, just near the chin. The patient smelt of alcohol. Opinion of the Surgeon, for head injury, as also that of Dental Surgeon, was sought as well. Ram Niwas died in the said hospital on that very day.

On receipt of information concerning the death of Ram Niwas, S. 1. Raj Kumar (P.W. 12) went to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak on 9.5.1985. He prepared inquest report on the dead body, and, sent it for postmortem examination.

Autopsy on the dead body of Ram Niwas on the following day by Dr. D.K. Sharma (P.W 9) revealed a lacerated wound 3 cm X 2 cm on the left side of the neck region. Extradural and subdural haematoma was present on the scalp on the left side. The left eye was exposed. Fracture of the frontal bone on the left side was also found. Genital organ was swollen and putrified. The case of death in, the opinion of the doctor, was due to shock and coma as a result of head injury, which was ante mortem in nature, and, was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

On learning about the death of Ram Niwas, Mam Chand P.W. went to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak where he met the complainant, and, narrated the entire incident seen by him on 8. 5. 1985.

After cremation of the dead body on 10. 5. 1985, the complainant went to Police Station, Jhajjar on the following day, but the Thanedar did not take any further action in the matter. On 19.5. 1985 the Thanedar of Jhajjar Police Station convened a Panchayat of several villages, including the villages of the accused and the deceased. The Thanedar allegedly asked the complainant to take Rs. 50.000/, or, Rs. 60,000/ from the accused, and, not to pursue the matter. The complainant, however refused to do so. The complainant along with his covillagers approached the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak. Subsequently, on the written complaint of Thawaria, case was registered against the accused under section 302, Indian Penal Code. The Police, however, did not arrest the accused. The complainant sent application to the higher authorities, including the Prime Minister of India. Thawaria then filed a complaint in the Court on 15.10.1985. After recording preliminary evidence, and securing the evidence of the accused, the case was committed to the Court of Session. When examined under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied the prosecution allegations appearing in evidence against them, and, pleaded false implication. Satar Singh accused pleaded that because of birth of his son on 2841985, his coaccused Jasvir Singh had arranged a party in the premises of Central Cooperative Bank at Machhroli, on the evening of 8. 5. 1985 Ram Niwas deceased, being a bank employee, was also invited in that party. The parapet wall on the roof of the first floor of the said building where the party was arranged, was hardly 11/4 ft. in height in those days. Liquor was served in that party. Ram Niwas had taken liquor in excessive quantity, as a result of which he vomitted, and, then fell down on the back of the bank in the from the roof of the first floor of the bank building. He (Satar Singh accused), and, his coaccused removed him to Jhajjar Hospital on the same night. From there Satar Singh accused removed Ram Niwas deceased to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak, on the advice of the doctor. The statement of this accused was adopted by his other coaccused. In defence Jasvir Singh accused examined A. S. I. Gurbachan Singh.

The accused were tried, convicted, and, sentenced, as detailed above. Aggrieved against the order of their conviction, and, sentence, they have filed the present appeal.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and, perused the evidence on the record with their help.

Prosecution in the instant case has alleged, a definite motive. According to Thawaria P.W., his son Ram Niwas deceased had complained to him about a week prior to the present occurrence that the accused had threatened to kill him, as a dispute had arisen between them during the elections of the Central Cooperative Bank, and because of that grudge the accused had committed the crime. In the earliest version before the Police, which finds mention in the first information report lodged on 29.5.1985, it is mentioned that there was a dispute between the accused, and the deceased over elections of the Central Cooperative Bank. On that ground he suspected that the accused had committed the murder of his son. There is no other material evidence on the record about the nature of any such dispute between the accused, and, the deceased. Nor there is any reliable evidence on the record as to in what respect the accused, and, the deceased were interested in such an election dispute. In case there had been any serious dispute between the accused, and the deceased, or, the former had threatened to kill the latter because of any such dispute, it was quite unlikely that the latter would accompany Amar Singh and Balwant Singh, accused at about 7.30 P.M. on the evening of the occurrence. Nor in such an eventuality, the deceased was expected to take liquor with the accused. The evidence of Mohinder Singh (P.W.2). and, Mam Chand (P.W.3), covillagers of the deceased, does not inspire any confidence in this regard, particularly when Mam Chand omitted to mention in his statement before the Committing Court on 30.11.1985 about the name of Amar Singh, and, Balwant Singh, accused, who are said to have taken the deceased with them from the Bus Stop to the Bank building on that fateful evening. The motive, thus, cannot be said to be entirely on the side of the accused.

There is an inordinate delay in filing the complaint, as well as, in lodging the first information report. According to the complainant, he approached the Thanedar on 11.5.1985, but his statement was not recorded by the police. The written complaint was subsequently made on 21.5.1985. The first information report was, however, recorded on 29.5.1985. The complainant was not satisfied when the accused were not arrested and, no further progress in investigation of the case was made, according to the prosecution. Still the complaint was filed in the Court of the Ilaqa Magistrate as late as 15.10.1985. It is true that during the intervening period the complainant was ventilating his grievance by sending complaints to the higher authorities. The fact remains that, according to the complainant''s own case, a Panchayat of several villages was convened as early as 19.5.1985 and, in the presence of the accused the Thanedar had asked the complainant to take Rs. 50,000/ or 60,000/ from them, and not to pursue the matter any further. In case this aspect of the case had been true, the complainant would know at that stage that the Investigating Agency was not interested in properly investigating the case. He waited for sufficiently long time before he filed the present complaint against the accused. The delay in lodging the first information report, or, in filing the complaint would not perse be sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution story. Its only effect would be to scrutinise the prosecution evidence more thoroughly, so as to sift the grain from the chaff, or, disentangle truth from falsehood. It would also be prudent to seek independent corroboration of the prosecution story on material aspects.

It is the admitted case of the prosecution that neither Mam Chand, and, Mohinder Singh, P.Ws., nor Kala had seen any accused inflicting any injury to the deceased. They allegedly, heard the shrieks of the deceased, and, subsequently saw all the accused bringing the deceased, in an unconscious condition, down the staircase. The medical evidence has revealed only a lacerated wound on the left side of the neck of the deceased, underneath which there was fracture of frontal bone of linear nature, and, this injury subsequently proved fatal. It is also prudent to note that the deceased smelt of alcohol, when, he was medically examined by Dr. S.K. Nawal (P.W. 8) on the next morning of the occurrence at 3 50 A. M. Report of the Forensic Science Laboratory revealed presence of ethyl alcohol in the viscera, and, blood of the deceased. This fact clearly indicates that the deceased had taken sufficient quantity of liquor before the occurrence. The testimony of Mam Chand, and Mohinder Singh, P.Ws., in our opinion, is not worthy of credence. In case these two covillagers of the deceased had actually been present on the ground floor, just before the occurrence took place, and, had seen the accused bringing the deceased, in unconscious condition, down the staircase, normally they were expected either to take, or, accompany Ram Niwas injured to the hospital. Instead went back the village, without even caring to inform the Police. The evidence of these witnesses that the accused did not permit them to come near Ram Niwas injured, or render any help, on the pretext that the matter related to the bank employees., cannot be believed. In case these witnesses had been present, and suspected any foul play, normally they were expected to inform the police immediately, or, at least, they were expected to go back, and, inform the near relations of the said injured. MamChand (P.W.3) did state that on his return to the village that night, he went to the house of the complainant in order to inform him about the said incident, but the complainant was not available, as he had gone out in search of his missing buffalo. According to him, he again went to the house of the complainant next morning, and learnt from the ladies that Ram Niwas had not returned home on the previous night. In case this witness had actually seen Ram Niwas injured on the previous night, and had informed the relations of the injured about the occurrence, it would be quite apparent that the question of the ladies telling him that Ram Niwas did not return home, would hardly arose. Rather Mam Chand P.W. could only meet the complainant in the Medical College and Hospital at Rohtak that morning at about 10, or, 11 A. M., and learnt that Ram Niwas had already died, this aspect of the case is conspicuous by its absence from the first information report recorded on the basis of the complaint made by Thawaria P.W., father of the deceased, on 29.5. 1985. Rather at that stage it was mentioned that Net Ram had informed the complainant on the morning of 9. 5. 1985 that he had seen all the five accused, who were, the employees of Central Cooperative Bank, Machhroli, taking Ram Niwas in unconscious condition in a four wheeler to the Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak. In case the version given by Mom Chand P.W. and Thawaria complainant, during the trial, had been correct, then the complainant was not expected to omit the information allegedly, conveyed to him by Mam Chand, in the first information report. The explanation put forth during the trial that the S.H.O. Jhajjar obtained thumb impression of the complainant on the application, without reading over the same to him, is not worthy of reliance, particularly when, according to the complainant. the Thanedar had approached him on 19.5.1985 before the panchayat of several villages, convened by him (Thanedar)not to pursue the matter against the accused. and accept Rs. 50,000/, or 60,000/ from them. It is also difficult to believe that in case any such Panchayat had been convened, the Thanedar would openly side with the accused before such a Panchayat, where, besides the Panchas, and Sarpanchas, local M.L.A. Shri Banarsi Dass was also present and would ask the father of the deceased not to pursue the matter, or instead accept substantial compensation from the accused.

It is true that the accused had admitted that the deceased had joined the party thrown by Jasvir Singh accused to celebrate the birth of his son in the bank building on that fateful night. The plea set up by the accused that the deceased had received injury by falling from the roof top, may not be true, because in such an eventuality the deceased was also expected to receive injuries on other prominent parts of the body as well, but the fact remains that the prosecution has to stand on its own legs. Mere suspicion, how much strong it may be, cannot fill in the lacunae in the prosecution case. The distance what may be true, or, shall be true, is a long one, which has to be covered by the prosecution by leading cogent and reliable evidence. It is significant to note that only a single injury was received by the deceased on his neck during the entire occurrence which subsequently, proved fatal. No ocular account is forthcoming about the manner in which the said injury was caused or who actually inflicted it. Besides the five accused, possibly, some other persons too were present when the occurrence allegedly took place. Medical or other a circumstantial evidence brought on the record is not sufficient to connect the accused with the crime for which could they have been charged. After the occurrence, the accused had taken Ram Niwas injured first to Civil Hospital, Jhajjar, and, from there he was removed to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak, by Satar Singh accused. All these circumstances do not, in any manner, point towards the guilt of the accused.

For the foregoing reasons it is quite apparent that the prosecution has failed to prove all the links in chain of evidence, so far complete, as would be consistent only with the guilt of the accused or would be incompatible with their innocence. Thus, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has not been able to bring home charge against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. Therefore, while setting aside the order of conviction and sentence passed against the accused, and giving them the benefit of doubt, we hereby acquit them. Consequently, this appeal is allowed.

S.S. Dewan, J. I agree.