Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1580 OF 2010
RANDHIR @ RANDHIR PAL & ORS. .....APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA ....RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
J. S. KHEHAR, J.
1. The instant criminal appeal by special leave, was
originally filed by eight of the accused namely Randhir
A2, Amrit - A3, Vijay Kumar - A4, Satyawan - A5,
Rajesh - A6, Lakhmi Ram - A7, Shiv Narain - A8 and Manoj
- A11.
2. By this Court's order dated 22.2.2010, notice was
issued only with reference to the appeal preferred by A2,
JUDGMENT
A4, A7, A8 and A11. The special leave petition preferred
by the remaining accused was dismissed.
3. The details of the occurrence under reference,
emerges from the statement of Raj Mal - PW7, who had made
a complaint on the date of occurrence itself -
26.11.2002. In the complaint, he had asserted, that he
himself and his two brothers, namely, Randhir - PW8 and
Laxman (the deceased), were present at their shop at 8.30
a.m. At 8.40 a.m., six of the accused namely Satpal - A1,
Page 1
2
Amrit - A3, Satyawan s/o Baru Ram - A5, Rajesh - A6,
Rajinder s/o Jita - A9, and Rajinder s/o Baru - A10,
entered their shop. They were carrying a country made
pistol, knives and “gandasas” (axes). In the complaint it
was also asserted, that Satpal – A1 fired a shot with the
pistol in his possession, which hit the chest of the
complainant's brother - Laxman. He further claimed, that
Rajinder s/o Jita - A9 gave a “gandasa” blow on the left
cheek of the deceased Laxman. And that, Satyawan - A5
gave a “gandasa” blow on the left shoulder of Laxman. He
also asserted, that Amrit - A3 inflicted a knife blow on
the forehead of Laxman, and further that, Rajinder s/o
Baru - A10 inflicted a “gandasa” blow on the left ear of
Laxman. Having committed the aforesaid assault, it was
maintained by the complainant, that the aforesaid six
accused came out of the shop. It was also pointed out,
that at that juncture, Randhir - A2, Vijay Kumar - A4,
JUDGMENT
Lakhmi Ram - A7, Shiv Narain - A8, and Manoj - A11, were
standing guard outside the premises of the shop. They
were preventing persons from entering the shop, as also,
passersby from moving on the street in front of the shop.
4. The aforestated details depicted in the complaint,
which came to be converted into the First Information
Report, were affirmed by two prosecution witnesses, who
claimed to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence, namely
Raj Mal – PW7, and Randhir - PW8. Needless to mention,
that both Raj Mal - PW7 and Randhir - PW8 were brothers
Page 2
3
of Laxman (on whom the aforestated injuries were
inflicted) and who subsequently succumbed to the injuries
inflicted on him.
5. Insofar as the deposition of Raj Mal – PW7 is
concerned, in his examination-in-chief he asserted, that
he had seen Shiv Narain - A8, and Randhir - A2 on the
northern side of the shop. And that, they were armed with
“lathis” (fighting sticks) and “jellies” (pitchforks). He
also asserted, that he had seen Manoj - A11, Lakhmi Ram -
A7 and Vijay Kumar - A4 standing on the southern side of
the street, in front of the house of Shiv Lal, and that,
they were also similarly armed. It was pointed out by
him, that they were trying to stop persons coming
towards the shop. During his cross-examination, he
deposed as under :
“The accused who were standing outside the shop
have stopped Bir Bhan, Vinod and one Harijan to
come towards the shop, where the occurrence has
taken place. I have not told the names of those
person to the police nor the police enquired
about it. Bir Bhan and Vinod came one after the
other from one side, while Laxman Harijan came
from the other side of the street. They were
stopped at a distance of about 30 feet from our
shop. I did not disclose about the places to the
Draftsman or to the police where the above named
three persons were stopped by the accused from
the proceeding towards our shop.”
JUDGMENT
From his aforestated statement it emerges, that besides
stopping people from moving on the street, some named
persons, were also prevented from entering into the shop.
It is not a matter of dispute, that the instant version
Page 3
4
was an addition to the original version depicted by Raj
Mal – PW7, at the time of registering the complaint.
Inasmuch as, in the First Information Report, it was
neither stated that any of these appellants, namely -
Randhir - A2, Vijay Kumar - A4, Lakhmi Ram - A7, Shiv
Narain - A8 and Manoj - A11, were armed. And furthermore,
none of the persons who have now been named (as having
been prevented from entering the shop), were mentioned
earlier.
6. The version depicted by Randhir – PW8, when he
deposed before the trial court, was on similar lines as
Raj Mal - PW7. Based primarily on the evidence of the
above two eye-witnesses (Raj Mal – PW7, and Randhir –
PW8), the trial court found the appellants guilty of the
charges levelled against them, under sections 148, 302,
342, 452 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code,
as also, as against Satpal - A1 under the Arms Act.
JUDGMENT
7. All the appellants preferred an appeal, against the
judgment dated 23.7.2004, rendered by Additional Sessions
Judge, Jind, to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the High Court)
which was registered as Criminal Appeal No.715 DB/2004.
The above appeal was dismissed by the High Court on
18.9.2009.
8. This Court by its order dated 22.2.2010, dismissed
the appeal preferred by Satpal - A1, Amrit - A3, Satyawan
- A5, Rajesh - A6 and Rajinder s/o Baru – A10. The only
Page 4
5
remaining appellants before this Court, in the present
appeal are, those who were allegedly standing in the
street. These appellants were accused of preventing
people from entering the shop at the time of occurrence,
and from moving on the street in front of the shop.
9. It is pertinent to mention, that the High Court
acquitted the accused Rajinder s/o Jita – A9, on the
ground that the prosecution had not been able to prove
its case against him beyond all reasonable doubt. The
allegations levelled against the remaining appellants
namely Randhir - A2, Vijay Kumar - A4, Lakhmi Ram - A7,
Shiv Narain - A8 and Manoj – A11 as noticed above, were
limited to the assertion, that they were preventing
persons from entering into the shop premises, and also,
preventing passersby from moving on the street in front
of the shop.
It was the vehement contention of the learned Senior
JUDGMENT
Counsel for the appellants, that it is not even the case
of the prosecution witnesses, and not even the assertion
of two of the brothers of the deceased – Laxman, who had
appeared as prosecution witnesses (Raj Mal - PW7 and
Randhir - PW8), that the present five appellants, were in
any way involved in the injuries, which were inflicted on
the deceased Laxman. It was not even their assertion,
that the present five appellants had entered the shop
premises at the time of the occurrence, or had
participated in the occurrence in any manner whatsoever,
Page 5
6
except that, they were allegedly preventing passersby
from moving on the street, and from entering the shop,
wherein the occurrence had taken place.
10. It was also the submission of the learned Senior
Counsel for the appellants, that according to the
prosecution story, the motive for committing the crime
was the murder of Prem s/o Baru on 30.8.2001 i.e., about
one and quarter years prior to the present occurrence,
wherein, the deceased herein – Laxman, was allegedly
involved. It was submitted, that the effort now was to
involve as many members of the family as possible, of the
deceased - Prem S/o Baru. It was also the contention of
the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, that the
exact position where the five appellants were positioned,
when the occurrence took place, has also not been
disclosed. It was also his contention, that the persons
who were stopped from moving on the street, or coming
JUDGMENT
into the shop by the present appellants, were not
originally named. Insofar as Bir Bhan, and Laxman Harijan
are concerned, it was submitted, that the contention of
Raj Mal - PW7 was, that they were prevented from coming
into the shop premises, whereas, they were not named in
the First Information Report. It was also pointed out,
that neither the concerned passersby, nor the persons
named (who had been prevented, from entering into the
shop premises), were recorded during the course of the
investigation, or thereafter, during the course of the
Page 6
7
trial.
11. During the course of hearing, when the factual
position, indicated at the behest of the learned Senior
Counsel for the appellants, was brought to the notice of
the learned counsel representing the State of Haryana, he
acknowledged, that none of the present five appellants
participated in the occurrence, within the premises of
the shop. It was also not disputed, that with reference
to A2, A4, A7, A8, and A11, the factual assertion
contained in the First Information Report dated
26.11.2002 was limited to the fact, that “..... Vijay -
A4 S/o Ram Kumar, Manoj - A11 S/o Rajender and Lakhmi -
A7 S/o Baru, Brahaman by caste, were standing in front of
the house of Rama Kala S/o Shiv Lal, Brahaman, in the
street, and Shiv Narain – A8 S/o Sunder and Randhir – A2
S/o Jai Narayan, Brahaman, residents of the same village,
were standing in front of the house of Pura S/o Kanbiya,
JUDGMENT
Brahaman, in the street and were stopping the
passersby......” None of these accused, according to
learned counsel, were stated to be standing outside the
shop in question, or were preventing persons from
entering the shop. It was also acknowledged, that none of
these five appellants were alleged to have been possessed
of any weapons, or that, they had caused any injuries on
the deceased - Laxman.
12. It was disputed, by the learned State counsel, that
their (A2, A4, A7, A8, and A11) position, was not
Page 7
8
depicted in the rough sketch map. Insofar as the instant
assertion is concerned, referring to the site plan Ex.PC,
it was pointed out, that their exact location was marked
at points 'J' and 'K', on the street in question. It was
however not disputed by the learned State counsel, that
the persons who were allegedly stopped from moving on the
street, and others who were allegedly prevented from
entering into the shop premises (as per the statements of
the prosecution witnesses, recorded by the trial court),
were neither examined at the investigation stage, nor any
evidence was produced in that behalf, by the prosecution,
during the course of the trial.
13. Based on the rival submissions advanced at the hands
of the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the
view, that even as per the statements of two
eye-witnesses, namely, the brothers of the deceased (Raj
Mal – PW7, and Randhir - PW8), the present five
JUDGMENT
appellants were not involved in the assault which had
taken place within the shop premises, on 26.11.2002.
Neither of these five appellants can, therefore, be
stated to have caused any injuries to the deceased
Laxman, on the fateful day.
14. We are of the view, that the persons named by Raj
Mal - PW7, as being prevented from entering the shop
premises, namely Bir Bhan, Vinod, and Laxman Harijan, was
an afterthought, as these persons were not named when Raj
Mal - PW7 registered his complaint, on the date of the
Page 8
9
occurrence itself. Not only that, the statement of
Randhir - PW8 clearly demolishes the version, with
reference to Bir Bhan, Vinod, and Laxman Harijan, since
in the statement of Raj Mal - PW7, for the reason, that
Randhir - PW8 took the position, that after the
occurrence, he had gone to his field, to call for help.
And from his field, he had brought with him Vinod, Laxman
Harijan, Tek Chand and Bir Bhan. Even though there is no
material on the record of the case, to identify whether
the persons named in the statements of Raj Mal - PW7 and
Randhir - PW8, were the same persons, it is quite
apparent, that they indeed seem to be the same persons,
on account of the names being the same, especially Laxman
Harijan. The testimony of Raj Mal – PW7, with reference
to stopping persons from coming into the shop, by the
five named appellants before this Court, appears to be
false. In any case, this factual position cannot be
JUDGMENT
stated to be fully established.
15. When examined closely, we are of the view, that one
of the present appellants namely Randhir - A2, is the
nephew of Prem s/o Baru, whose murder had been committed
on 30.8.2001. Lakhmi Ram – A7, is the son of Baru, and
therefore, the brother of the deceased Prem (in the
earlier occurrence). Manoj – A11, is the son of Rajinder
s/o Baru - A10 and in that sense, the nephew of the
deceased Prem (in the previous incident). It is apparent,
that on account of enmity, innocent family members of the
Page 9
10
accused persons, were also roped in. The assertions made
by learned Senior Counsel, on behalf of the accused, and
the response thereto by the learned State counsel,
noticed in paragraphs 10 to 12 hereinabove, are also very
meaningful, specially because the same confirm the
position recorded by us in the course of our
consideration, hereinabove.
16. We are, therefore, of the view that it is difficult
to conclude with certainty, that the present five
appellants, were truly and factually involved in the
occurrence. In the above view of the matter, we are
satisfied, that the appellants are entitled to the
benefit of doubt. Accordingly, while giving the benefit
of doubt to the appellants, we acquit the appellants
(Randhir – A2, Vijay Kumar – A4, Lakhmi Ram – A7, Shiv
Narain – A8 and Manoj – A11) of the charges levelled
against them. Since the present appellants are on bail,
JUDGMENT
their bail bonds shall stand discharged.
….....................J
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR]
....................J
[ARUN MISHRA]
NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 6, 2016.
Page 10