State of Himachal Pradesh vs Gian Chand

Deepak Gupta, J.—These two appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment since they both arise out of the same judgment delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby he convicted the accused of having committed an offence punishable u/s 304, Part-II, of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of five years and pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation. In case of default of payment of fine, the accused was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused has filed Criminal Appeal No. 74 of 2005 challenging his conviction and sentence, whereas the State has filed Criminal Appeal No. 124 of 2005 and has prayed that the accused be convicted for having committed an offence punishable u/s 302 IPC and be sentenced accordingly.

The prosecution case totally revolves around the statement of PW-1, Ravinder Kumar. He was the driver of a truck belonging to HIMFED. According to this witness, he saw the accused, Gian Chand, and the deceased, Ranjit Singh, quarreling with each other. He intervened and set them apart. However, Gian Chand went to a room, took a knife and then attacked Ranjit Singh and gave him a blow of the knife on the neck. The matter was reported by Ravinder Kumar to the police the next day, whereupon his statement, Ex. PW1/A, was recorded. On this basis, the police came to the spot and carried out investigation. The statements of other witnesses were recorded and the accused was charged with having committed the murder of deceased, Ranjit Singh. After trial, the accused was acquitted of the offence u/s 302 IPC, but held guilty of the lesser offence punishable u/s 304, Part II, IPC and sentenced as aforesaid. Hence, these two appeals.

We have heard Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Counsel for the accused and Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, on behalf of the State.

On behalf of the accused, various contentions have been raised. It is urged that no reliance can be placed on the statement of PW-1, Ravinder Kumar, since he kept quiet the whole night and only reported the matter next morning. It is contended that, in fact, Ravinder Kumar, himself could have murdered the deceased. Various other points have also been raised which shall be dealt with at the time of discussion of the evidence.

The most important statement is that of PW-1, Ravinder Kumar. According to him, he works as a driver with the HIMFED. The deceased, Ranjit Singh, was also a driver in the HIMFED. They had both parked their trucks alongwith two other trucks in the compound of the store of the HIMFED. On 1st May, 2003, between 10.30-10.45 p.m., when this witness was sleeping in the truck, he heard some noises from outside. He got up and found that the accused and the deceased were quarreling with each other. He intervened and separated them. He took Ranjit Singh (deceased) towards the vehicle of Ranjit Singh. Gian Chand (accused) used to sleep in a room in the HIMFED building and went to that room. However, immediately thereafter, Gian Chand (accused) came back from the room and called the deceased "Aa ja". The deceased went towards the accused and they both started quarreling again and then the accused gave a blow of a knife on the neck of the deceased. The accused had brought this knife from his room. Ranjit Singh fell down near a huge boulder lying on the spot. Blood was coming out of his neck. Thereafter, the accused threatened Ravinder Kumar in the following manner: "Saale tu bhi aise hi marega". According to this witness, he got scared and went inside his truck, locked the doors of the truck and kept sitting in the vehicle. The accused remained standing in the veranda of the store.

Next morning, at about 6,00 a.m., PW-5, Chuni Lal, Chowkidar of the HIMFED store, came to the spot and was informed by PW-1, Ravinder Kumar, about what had happened. Ravinder Kumar asked PW-5, Chuni Lai to go to the Area Manager and inform him about the incident, whereas Ravinder Kumar kept standing near the gate. According to Ravinder Kumar, he had seen everything at night in the light of the electricity bulb in the veranda. At about 7.00 a.m., police alongwith Area Manager came to the spot and recorded his statement, Ex. PW-1/A. Thereafter, police started investigation in the matter. This witness identified the knife (chura), Ex. P-1, as the one being used by accused, Gian Chand.

This witness has been cross-examined at great length. He admits that there is no electricity bulb in the store, but volunteered that there is an electricity connection in the room. He also admitted that there are 2-3 houses at some distance from the place of incident. According to him, the Police Post was at a distance of 11/2 to 2 kilometers from the place of incident. Suggestion has been put to him that there is a jungle near the HIMFED store. According to him, there was a very little moonlight on that night. But he was confronted with almanac (Panchang), which showed that the night was a moonless night (Amavas). He has also stated that from the place of incident, his vehicle was at the fourth place and the truck of Ranjit Singh was the first. Meaning thereby that between his truck and truck of Ranjit Singh, there were two trucks. Suggestions have been put to him that his uniform was blood stained and that it was he, who killed the deceased with the knife in question. Further suggestion put to him is that he alongwith PW-5, Chuni Lal, Chowkidar; Dharam Chand, cleaner of the truck and Ranjit Singh (deceased) had consumed liquor and had killed the deceased and that is why they did not got recorded the complaint till the next morning. This witness has admitted that the house of Pratap Chand, a casual labourer, is at a short distance of ten meters from the room where Gian Chand was living in the store. He has been confronted with his statement, Ex. PW-1/A, wherein it has been recorded that the whole night, he stayed in the truck. He has also been confronted with the same statement which is silent about his asking Chuni Lal to inform the Area Manager about the incident. He has admitted that Ranjit Singh (deceased) used to drink heavily and his behaviour was very abusive. Another suggestion put to him is that there were broken pieces of bottle lying near the body and that the deceased got injuries from this bottle.

PW-5, Chuni Lal, states that he was working as Chowkidar in HIMFED and that he used to perform his duties from 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. On 1st May, 2003, he had gone home after about 5.00 p.m. According to him, he had kept a cow in the premises of the HIMFED store and next morning, i.e. on 2nd May, 2003, he came to the store at about 6.00 a.m. to milk the cow. He found Ravinder Kumar, driver, standing outside the gate. When he went inside the boundary, he found the dead body of Ranjit Singh, driver. When he inquired from Ravinder Kumar as to what had happened, he was told that Gian Chand had given a knife blow on the neck of the deceased and killed him. He/thereafter, went to inform the Area Manager, PW-4, Dinesh Acharya. Thereafter, Dinesh Acharya and he went to the police post. He further states that he could not inform Dinesh Acharya from the HIMFED store as the telephone was locked and the telephone of the Area Manager was out of order. He is not the eye witness to the incident and has denied the suggestion that he alongwith Dharam Chand and Ravinder Kumar had consumed liquor with the deceased and, thereafter, killed Ranjit Singh.

PW-4, Dinesh Acharya, states that on 2nd May, 2003, at about 7.00 a.m., PW-5, Chuni Lal, came to his residence and informed him that Ranjit Singh, driver, is lying dead in the store of the HIMFED. Thereupon this witness immediately called the Store Incharge, Kushal Kumar, PW-3 and then they both went to the Police Post alongwith PW-5, Chuni Lal and thereafter, went to the spot where the body of Ranjit Singh was lying with injury on the neck. According to this witness, house of Chuni Lal is at a distance of 400-500 meters from the store. He also states that in the room adjoining to the store inside the complex, there are two beds and sometimes, the employees of HIMFED sleep there. He also states that four trucks of the HIMFED were parked in the store complex that day. He has also admitted that house of Pratap Chand is at a distance of 20 meters from the big boulder where the body of the deceased was found.

PW-3, Kushal Kumar, was the Store Incharge. In his presence, the police carried out the investigation and he is a witness to the recovery memo, Ex. PW-3/A, which relates to the personal effects of deceased, Ranjit Singh. He is also a witness to the recovery of blood stained soil vide recovery memo, Ex. PW-3/C. In cross-examination, this witness states that there is no electricity connection in the HIMFED store. According to him, the entire HIMFED store is surrounded by a barbed wire fence. He also admits that the broken pieces of bottle were lying near the dead body. He has denied that when he alongwith Dinesh Acharya and Chuni Lal came to the spot, the police officials had conspired to hatch a story that in case Ravinder Kumar makes a statement then there will be a strong case for the police. A suggestion has been put to this witness that he alongwith Chuni Lal, Dharam Chand, Ranjit Singh (deceased) and other drivers and conductors consumed liquor and killed the deceased.

PW-2, Tarsem Singh, is an alleged witness to the recovery of the blood stained knife at the instance of accused, Gian Chand. The disclosure statement of the accused is Ex. PW-2/A. According to this witness, Gian Chand took the police to the drain near HIMFED store and produced the dagger hidden under the leaves. Thereafter, photographs of the dagger were taken. Thereafter, Gian Chand also produced the blood stained vest which was a little ahead.

PW-10, Gopal Krishan Sharma, is a photographer, who was called by the police and has proved the photographs, Ex. PW-10/1 to PW-10/ 19 and the negatives thereof, Ex. PW-10/20 to Ex. PW-10/39. In cross-examination/ this witness states that he had taken the photographs at the directions of the police. According to him, when he reached the spot, police was walking in front and Gian Chand was walking behind the police. He also states that he took the photographs as directed by the police.

PW-16, Dr. A.K. Sharma, conducted the post mortem of the deceased and found two ante mortem injuries; one an oblique incised wound of size 2.5 x 0.8 cm present over the left anterior aspect of the neck and another oblique incised wound of size 2.5 x 0.8 cm on the left arm. He also found two abrasions on the right shoulder and right elbow. As per his opinion, the deceased died of hemorrhagic shock as a result of the injuries suffered above and injuries No. 1 and 2 were caused by sharp edged weapon whereby injuries No. 3 and 4 were caused by blunt trauma. He further opined that time elapsed between injuries and death was a few minutes. He also states that injuries No. 1 and 2 could be caused by the knife, Ex. P-1.

PW-17, SI Balraj Singh, is the Investigating Officer and according to him, during the course of investigation, the accused was arrested and in the presence of the witnesses, the accused made disclosure statement and identified the spot, where he had hidden the knife and torn vest in the nalla.

This is the entire evidence. We have discussed the relevant evidence in detail because Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Counsel for the accused, has strenuously argued the case and drawn our attention to each and every discrepancy in the statements of the witnesses.

As noticed above, Mr. Dhaulta submits that Ravinder Kumar himself could be the person who killed Ranjit Singh. He also submits that the statement with regard to the light is totally wrong. It is alleged that if the body had been out the whole night in the open fields, the animals would have come and eaten up the parts of the body. It is also contended that a false story was hatched since the accused belongs to District Solan, whereas the other witnesses are from Kangra. He submits that if we take the photographer''s evidence into consideration, the recovery was not made at the instance of the accused.

Entire case has to be decided on the basis of the evaluation of the evidence. The main issue is whether we should rely upon the statement of PW-1, Ravinder Kumar, or not. The only reason which could be used to discard his statement is that he kept silent for the whole night and there are a few improvements in his statement. Even in the statement u/s 154 Cr.P.C., Ex. PW-1/A, Ravinder Kumar had clearly stated that the accused had threatened him that he would also be caught and he was scared that the accused may kill him.

Every human being reacts to a situation in a different manner. A person, who sees his colleague being murdered in front of him, that too on a dark night, would obviously get scared and the version of the witness that he got scared and hid in the truck cannot be said to be an implausible version. The version put forth by the accused is that the three of the witnesses alongwith one Dharam Chand killed the deceased. This is not a plausible version in view of the fact that only two injuries, i.e. incised wounds were inflicted on the deceased.

Assuming for the sake of the arguments that there has been an improvement with regard to the electricity bulb, even in the dead of night, when a person has separated two of his colleagues find they again enter into a quarrel, where their voices can be heard, the said person would be in a position to identify the assailant. The testimony of Ravinder Kumar inspires confidence. Chuni Lal came the next morning and was informed by Ravinder Kumar that it was the accused, Gian Chand, who had given knife blow to the deceased. This is the version given to PW-4 and PW-3 also. This version was given initially itself and, therefore, the case set up by the defence that later on they falsely implicate the accused cannot be accepted at all.

The learned trial Court has dealt with the matter in great detail and has come to the conclusion that the statement of PW-1, Ravinder Kumar, inspires confidence. It is the learned trial Court who had seen the demeanour of the witnesses and unless something totally illegal or wrong is pointed out in his judgment, we should not take a different view. The version of PW-1, Ravinder Kumar, is supported by the medical evidence. His version is also supported by PW-2, Tarsem Singh, who talks about the knife being recovered at the instance of Gian Chand, accused.

Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Counsel for the accused, has placed great reliance on the statement of PW-10, Gopal Krishan Sharma, photographer, who stated that the police officials were walking in front and the accused was walking behind when the knife was recovered. It may be stated that no such suggestions were put to PW-2, who is the recovery witness. Evidence of PW-2 is clear that Gian Chand took the police to the place where he had hidden the knife in the drain near the HIMFED store. Not only the knife but also the blood stained vest was recovered at the instance of Gian Chand. There is no suggestion to this witness that Gian Chand was behind and the police officials were in front. No advantage can be taken of the statement made by the photographer, who may have come later. The medical evidence also corroborates the version of the witness that the injuries could have been caused by the knife. As far as the broken pieces of glass are concerned, they may be of a bottle carried by the accused or by the deceased, which broke at the spot when there was quarrel.

The contention of Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Counsel for the accused, that if the body had been out in the open fields throughout the night, the animals would have come and eaten up the parts of the body cannot be accepted because it has come on record that the entire boundary of the HIMFED store was protected by a barbed wire fence. Merely because the main witnesses belong to District Kangra and the accused belong to District Solan is not a ground to discredit the statements of the prosecution witnesses.

We have no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-1, Ravinder Kumar and, therefore/ we are in agreement with the learned trial Court that it was he who struck the knife blow to the deceased. As far as appeal of the State is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that even as per the case of the prosecution, deceased Ranjit Singh was an aggressive person habitual to liquor and abusive in nature. It is apparent that he also was quarreling with the accused and, therefore, the accused did not act in premeditated manner, but just gave a blow of the knife in the heat of the moment. Learned trial Court was justified in convicting the accused of committing an offence punishable u/s 302, Part II, IPC. We, therefore, find no merit in both the appeals, which are accordingly rejected. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent-accused are cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court within four weeks from today for undergoing the sentence as imposed by the learned trial Court.