Vinod and Another vs State of Haryana

Hemant Gupta, J.—The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 17.11.2001 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sonepat, whereby the Appellants Vinod and Virender both sons of Chander Bhan stands convicted for the offence punishable u/s 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the ''Code'') and order of sentence dated 22.11.2001 to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.

The prosecution case was set in motion, on the basis of the statement of Suraj Mal (PW-13), teacher in a Government Primary School, Rai and father of the deceased-Virender Kumar, made to SI, Dharampal on 7.3.1999 at 10.A.M., at Jaipur Golden Hospital, Rohini, New Delhi, in respect of the incident which took place on 5.3.1999. He stated that on 3.3.1999, there was a quarrel between his sons Virender Kumar, Ravinder Kumar and Virender son of Raghbir and Vinod Son of Chander Bhan. Vinod son of Chander Bhan, the present Appellant No. 1 was admitted in the Government Hospital, Sonepat for treatment. After returning from school, he along with his sons Virender Kumar and Ravinder Kumar went to the house of Vinod for apology so that both sides may forget ill will against each other. Chander Bhan-father of Vinod told him to go to the hospital. On 5.3.1999, at about 12.30 P.M., he (Suraj Mal) along with Ravinder Sarpanch and his both sons Virender Kumar, Ravinder Kumar and Virender and Devinder sons of Raghbir reached hospital. Vinod was admitted on the third floor of the hospital and his brother Virender @ Beena and his father Chander Bhan son of Chandgi were present as attendant near him. When his son Virender beg apology from Vinod after touching his feet, then Vinod caught hold hands of his son and Vinod''s brother Virender @ Beena inflicted a knife blow near the right side of chest with an intention to kill him and said that they will take revenge for causing injury.

Virender was admitted in the emergency ward of the Hospital. Since, the condition of the injured was serious, doctors referred him to PGI, Rohtak but in stead of taking Virender to PGI, Rohtak, they took him to Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi. The condition of the injured did not improve, then they shifted him to Jaipur Golden Hospital, Delhi. Virender was operated upon but he died during the night time.

ASI, Satish Kumar recorded FIR (Ex PA) on receipt of ruqa (Ex. PN) from the doctors of General Hospital, Sonepat. An application (Ex. PJ) was submitted by HC Ajit Singh to doctor for his opinion in respect of fitness of the injured to make statement. The doctor opined that the injured Virender has been referred to PGI, Rohtak. The police team went to Rohtak but doctor at PGI, Rohtak told that the injured is not admitted there. On 6.3.1999, HC Ajit Singh reached the village Kurar where they came to know that the injured Virender is admitted in Hindu Rao Hospital, New Delhi. On this, Ajit Singh reached Hindu Rao Hospital where the doctor reported, vide Ex. PK/1, that the patient had left hospital against the medical advice. It is alleged that no person was available who could inform about the injured. On receipt of the telephonic message on 7.3.1999, the police officials reached Jaipur Golden Hospital, Delhi for initiating proceedings where Suraj Mal-father of the deceased gave statement on the basis of which, FIR (Ex. PA) was recorded and the special report sent to the Magistrate.

Insp. Ram Kalan (PW-9) arrested accused Virender and Vinod on 11.3.1999. Accused, Virender made a disclosure statement (Ex. PB) that he has kept concealed the knife near embankment of bridge of Roht canal. In pursuance of such disclosure statement, knife (Ex. P1) was recovered vide recovery memo Ex PB/2. The prosecution also produced in evidence (Ex. PR/2), a ruqa sent by the doctor to the police post in respect of the incident and (Ex. PR), medico legal report prepared by Dr. Manju Arora, PW-10 at Civil Hospital, Sonepat referring the patient to PGI, Rohtak. Ex. PJ is the request of the HC Ajit Singh to the Medical Officer, General Hospital, Sonepat to find out the fitness of the injured to make the statement. Ex-PJ/2 is the endorsement of the doctor that the patient has been referred to PGI, Rohtak whereas PJ/1 is the endorsement that the patient has not reported at PGI at 6.45 P.M on 5.3.1999. Ex. PK is the request of HC Ajit Singh to doctor-in-charge of Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi regarding the fitness of injured to make the statement. PK/1 is the endorsement of the doctor that patient left against the medical advice. Ex. PG is the death report prepared by Jaipur Golden Hospital, Delhi and Ex. PQ is the post mortem report conducted by PW-12, Dr. K. Goyal who found injury No. 4 was caused by sharp cutting weapon whereas other injures are surgical in nature. Prosecution also examined PW-11, Dr. Navjeet Chhabra, Surgeon at Jaipur Golden Hospital, New Delhi who has operated upon injured, Virender on 6.3.1999. He deposed that the patient was admitted at 11.57 A.M on 6.3.1999 and died at 12.05 am (in the night) on 7.3.1999.

Apart from the aforesaid medical evidence, the prosecution examined the father of the deceased-Suraj Mal as PW-13. The witness has supported the prosecution story as mentioned in the FIR (Ex. PA). In the cross-examination, Suraj Mal has admitted that the room in which Vinod was hospitalized was having six beds for the patients but the remaining five were without patient and there was no doctor or nurse in the hospital. He denied the suggestions that 15/20 relatives of Vinod were present in the hospital on 5.3.1999 though he admitted having met Suraj Bhan elder brother of Chander Bhan -father of the accused in the lawns of the hospital. He denied the suggestions that his son grappled with the relatives of Chander Bhan in the lawns of the hospital. He has deposed that they stayed in the emergency ward for about half an hour and did not shift Virender to PGI, Rohtak because the condition of the road towards Rohtak was not good and his son was also serious. He also stated that his son was shifted from Hindu Rao Hospital as he was not recovering in the hospital. He admitted that he along with his two sons and two sons of Raghbir and two of his cousins Mahabir and Raj Singh and Ravinder, Ex-Sarpanch came to the hospital but only five persons including he went to the bed of Vinod. He has further admitted that he along with his two sons Ravinder and Virender and two sons of Raghbir remained in hospital and did not return to the village.

PW-14 Devinder deposed that on 5.3.1999, he accompanied Virender and Ravinder sons of Suraj Mal and his brother Virender and Ravinder-Sarpanch went to Civil Hospital, Sonepat at about 12.30 P.M. When Virender son of Suraj Mal apologized then the accused-Vinod caught hold the hands of Virender-deceased and Virender son of Chander Bhan inflicted a knife blow near the right side of chest with the intention to kill him. In the cross-examination, he also stated that there was no other patient on other five beds and that neither there was a nurse nor a doctor in the room.

In the statement u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Appellant-Vinod denied the prosecution evidence and asserted that he was assaulted by the sons of Raghbir and Virender-deceased son of Suraj Mal with the intention to kill him. He stated that they wanted to eliminate him when they came to the hospital. Their well wishers obstructed Virender-deceased and others to go near to him. The well wishers ultimately grappled with the deceased-Virender and his companions in the lounge of the hospital so as to obstruct them from eliminating him. During scuffle, Virender-deceased fell on the ground and received injuries in the stomach. Similar is the statement of the accused-Virender.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants has vehemently argued that though the incident has taken place on 5.3.1999 at about 12.30 P.M., but the FIR (Ex. PA) was recorded only at about 10 A.M on 7.3.1999. Even if the deceased-Virender before his death could not make statement and the fact that his father can be said to be occupied in taking care of his injured son but the fact remains that there were many other relatives or friends of Suraj Mal who could lodge report in respect of the occurrence. Such unexplained delay in lodging of the FIR throws serious doubt on the credibility of the prosecution story.

It is contended that it is impossible to imagine that an attendant with an injured in hospital would carry a knife and after attack escape from hospital. It is contended that the entire prosecution story is unreliable, untruthful and does not inspire confidence so as to convict the present Appellants for an offence u/s 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

Though, the FIR has been lodged after delay and after the death of Virender at about 10.00 AM on 7.3.1999 as against the occurrence which has taken place on 5.3.1999 at about 12.30 P.M., but the fact remains that such delay has been explained and does not prejudicially affects the defence in any manner. From the evidence mentioned above, it transpires that the injured was being shifted from one hospital to another so as to provide the best medical care. The police officials were trying to chase the injured and his family members but could not succeed in recording the statement of the injured or of the relations. The delay in lodging FIR does not materially alter or create any doubt on the prosecution story. As per the prosecution, there was an incident between the parties on 3.3.1999 in which Vinod-accused received injuries. Such fact is admitted which is evident from the line of cross examination as well from the statement of the accused u/s 313 of the Code. Still further, as per the accused, large number of their friends have gathered in the hospital. Had the complainant-party any intention of causing harm, the complainant-party could not move ahead and reach the third floor when the relations were sitting in the lawns of the hospital. The complainant-party has gone to hospital to seek apology but the action of Vinod in holding hands of the deceased-Virender and giving a knife blow is based on creditable evidence from the testimonies of PW-13, Suraj Mal and PW-14, Devinder Singh. It is not suggested that any of the complainant''s party was armed with any weapon. The delay in recording of FIR (Ex. PA) has not led to any improvement in the prosecution case in as much as the presence of the complainant in the hospital and large gathering of persons on behalf of the accused-family is admitted on 5.3.1999. The prosecution case to the said incident stands corroborated by the statement of the accused u/s 313 of the Cr. P.C.

Still further from the testimony of PW-13-Suraj Mal, it transpires that the accused-Vinod, though admitted in the hospital was not having any bandage on his person. The knife (Ex. P1) has been recovered on the basis of the disclosure statement of accused Virender. Though, knife is not found to have any blood but the fact that it was recovered on the basis of disclosure statement suffered by Virender, corroborates the prosecution story. There is nothing on the record which may lead to any inference that the prosecution story is unreliable, untrustworthy and has not been corroborated. Accused Vinod is proved to have caught hold of the hands of the deceased-Virender and the fatal blow has been inflicted by Virender.

We find that the findings recorded by learned trial Court convicting the present Appellants for an offence u/s 302 read with Section 34 of the Code does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity which may warrant interference in appeal.

Dismissed.