Full Judgment Text
[REPORTABLE]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 115 OF 2007
Ram Niwas …..Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana …..Respondent
J U D G M E N T
HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the
th
Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 18 January 2006
whereby the appellant’s appeal has been dismissed.
2. As per the prosecution story Chanda PW.6 was
working as a Chowkidar in the Nuna Girls High School,
which was being run under the aegis of the Panchayat of
the village. He had three brothers, namely, Subhash, Tej
Ram and Sher Singh. Raj Singh, the father of the three
brothers, had been convicted and sentenced for the
murder of one Prem, uncle of Ram Niwas and Pawan
Kumar accused and the brother of Jog Raj, Raj Singh
th
and Beg Raj accused. On 16 January 1991 at about
8.00 a.m., Chanda left for the school leaving Sher Singh
Crl. Appeal No.115 of 2007
2
asleep in the house. While on the way, Chanda
observed Pawan Kumar and Ram Niwas armed with
Pharsas coming towards him. Chanda ran into the
school but was followed by Pawan Kumar and Ram Niwas
who caused an injury each to him. Chanda raised a
roula which attracted Kanwal Singh and Tara and in
their presence the two caused more injuries to Chanda
and then ran away from the spot. A short while
thereafter Tej Raj PW-8, Chanda’s brother and their
mother Brahmi PW7 reached the school premises and
told him that Pawan Kumar, Ram Niwas, Jog Raj and Raj
Singh had murdered Sher Singh while he was in the
house. Brahmi and Tej Raj thereafter removed Chanda
to the hospital where his statement Ex.PF was recorded
by Sub-Inspector Som Dutt PW10 and on its basis the
formal FIR was registered in Police Station Sadar,
Bahadurgarh at 1.30 p.m. the same day. The Sub-
Inspector then proceeded to the village and found Sher
Singh lying dead on the charpai. He made the necessary
investigations on the spot and also dispatched the dead
body for the post-mortem examination to the Civil
Hospital, Bahadurgarh. He also searched for the accused
th
and arrested all of them on 19 January 1991 and
pursuant to disclosure statements made by Pawan
Kumar and Ram Niwas to Inspector Ashok Kumar PW9,
Crl. Appeal No.115 of 2007
3
two Pharsas were duly recovered. On the completion
of the investigation, the accused were charge-sheeted for
offences punishable under Sections 148 and 452, and
under Sections 302 and 307 against Pawan Kumar and
Ram Niwas and under Sections 302 and 307 read with
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code against Jog Raj,
Beg Raj and Raj Singh.
3.
To support its case, the prosecution examined, inter-
alia, Dr. N.K. Mudra PW3, Dr. M.K. Bishnoi PW5,
Chanda PW6, Brahmi PW7,Tej Ram PW8, Inspector
Ashok Kumar PW9 and Inspector Som Dutt PW10
respectively. The prosecution case then put to the
accused and they denied the allegations levelled against
them and some of them pleaded alibis. They also
examined certain witness in defence. Pawan Kumar and
Beg Raj died during the trial. The learned Additional
Sessions Judge on a careful consideration of the evidence
acquitted Raj Singh and Jog Raj but convicted Ram
Niwas under Section 302 and 307 of the IPC and
sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life
and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- on two counts and in
default thereof to undergo further imprisonment for three
years on each count.
Crl. Appeal No.115 of 2007
4
4. The matter was thereafter taken in appeal by the solitary
appellant, Ram Niwas. The High Court on a
consideration of the arguments observed that merely
because the statement of Brahmi PW7 with regard to the
participation of Raj Singh and Jog Raj had not been
believed, could not mean that the case against the
appellant was not made in the light of the fact that it was
the case of the prosecution that only Ram Niwas and
Pawan Kumar (since deceased) had been wielding
Pharsas, that had been used on Sher Singh and Chanda.
It was further stated that Chanda PW6 was an injured
witness and had lodged the FIR of the murder on
information received from Brahmi and that the ocular
evidence was fully corroborated by the medical evidence
as the deceased had six incised injuries on his person.
5. Mr. Sarvesh Bisari, the learned counsel for the appellant
has argued that having disbelieved the prosecution story
as given by PW7 Brahmi with respect to the involvement
of Yog Raj and Raj Singh, there was no justification
whatsoever in relying on her evidence with respect to the
murder of Sher Singh by the appellant. It has also been
submitted that the appellant and his brother had been
roped in on account of the admitted animosity between
the parties inasmuch that Chanda’s and Sher Singh’s
father had been convicted for the murder of Prem, the
Crl. Appeal No.115 of 2007
5
uncle of Ram Niwas and Pawan Kumar and brother of
Jog Raj, Raj Singh and Beg Raj and in this view of the
matter, the statement of the two witnesses Brahmi and
Chanda was to be looked at with suspicion.
6.
The State counsel has, however, supported the judgment
of the trial court and the High Court.
7. We have gone through the judgment of the trial court
with respect to the acquittal of Raj Singh and Yog Raj.
We reproduce herein below the portions thereof:
“However, as far as the other three accused,
namely Yog Raj, Raj Singh and Beg Raj (who
died during the pendency of trial) are
concerned, they are alleged having been
seen present with lathis at the house of PW7
Brahmi Devi and they, as PW7 deposed, had
even run after her and her son Tej Ram.
However, neither their presence is marked
nor any role is associated to them for
second part of the happening at the school
compound where Chanda Singh received
injuries. As such, the five accused get
grouped as Ram Niwas and Pawan (who
died during trial), as first group and the
remaining three accused, namely, Jog Raj,
Raj Singh and Beg Raj ( who died during the
trial) as the second group.
Though charge against the accused is
that all of them having common object for
the present crime, but for the deposition of
PW6 and PW7 Brahmi Devi that she had
seen all the five accused together in her
Crl. Appeal No.115 of 2007
6
house, the prosecution has failed to lead
any other evidence of prior meeting of minds
or other circumstances from which it may
be inferred that at any occasion, prior to the
happening, they had even physically met
and agreed over any such object.”
8. The trial court further observed that no positive act
towards the murder had been attributed to these accused
for the injury to Chanda or the murder of Sher Singh and
there was no evidence whatsoever of a prior meeting of
minds between all the accused so as to show their
common object or common intention. On the contrary,
the trial court observed, that the evidence of Chanda and
Brahmi with respect to the involvement of Ram Niwas
and Pawan Kumar (who died during trial) was categorical
that it was these two, who had committed the murder of
Sher Singh, and caused injuries to Chanda. It is in this
situation that the trial court drew a distinction between
the two sets of accused. We find from the judgment of
the High Court that this aspect has been carefully
examined and the findings have been affirmed.
9. It is true, as contended, that the relations between the
two parties were extremely strained on account of the
murder of Prem. While this fact could, undoubtedly, be a
reason for false implication of the accused, but on the
contrary, it could also be a motive for the commission of
Crl. Appeal No.115 of 2007
7
the crime. However, in the light of the fact that the
FIR had been recorded within a reasonable time of the
incident and the medical evidence fully supports the
ocular version, and additionally, the trial court has given
the benefit of doubt to some of the accused, as they had
no active role to play, the possibility of false implication
has also been examined and dealt with. The courts
below have, in our opinion, rightly assessed the evidence
and being cognizant of the strained relations between the
parties and the possibility of false implication, have
accordingly given the benefit of doubt to two of the
accused. No interference is thus called for by us in this
appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.
……………………………..J.
(Harjit Singh Bedi)
……………………………J.
(C.K. Prasad)
New Delhi,
Dated: July 28, 2010