ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.9 SECTION IIB
SUPREME COURT O F INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 894/2011
ANIL @ BAWA Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA Respondent(s)
(with office report)
WITH
Crl.A. No. 895/2011
(With Office Report)
Crl.A. No. 898/2011
Date : 25/02/2016 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA
For Appellant(s)
Mr. Pushpinder Singh,Adv.
Mr. Kumar Kartikay,Adv.
Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta,Adv.
Mr. Amarjit Singh Bedi,Adv.(NP)
For Respondent(s)
Mr. S.U.K.Sagar,Adv.for State.
Mr. Vishwa Pal Singh,Adv.(NP)
Ms. Naresh Bakshi,Adv.(NP)
Mr. Rao Ranjit,Adv.(NP)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed
Reportable order.
(SUMAN WADHWA)
AR-cum-PS
(MALA KUMARI SHARMA)
COURT MASTER
Signed Reportable order is placed on the file.
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.894 OF 2011
Anil @ Bawa
… Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana
… Respondent
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.895 OF 2011
Roop Chand
… Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana
… Respondent
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.898 OF 2011
Sushil
… Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana
… Respondent
ORDER
1.
The appeals have been preferred by the accused appellants
against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
6.8.2009 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at
Chandigarh thereby affirming the conviction recorded by the trial
court as against the appellants under section 302 read with section 149
sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of
Rs.5,000 each; in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for
a period of 3 months and under section 148 read with section 302 to
undergo RI for one year.
2.
In the incident dated 4.7.2003 Partap son of Anand Singh PW5
died. Anand Singh lodged the First Information Report at 4.30 a.m. on
5.7.2003. The incident took place at about 8.30 p.m. It was mentioned
in the FIR that Partap had gone to Akhara of the village. As he did not
come back, he along with two others Lakhmi Chand and Ramesh went
towards Akhara in search of Partap. When they reached near
veterinary hospital, they saw Ran Singh and Pinda were quarrelling
with Partap. Ran Singh was armed with a Lathi and Pinda with a
sword, Roop Chand with a Lathi, Sushil with sword and Anil alias
Bawa also armed with a Lathi joined them. They shouted that Partap
be taught a lesson for having an evil eye on the lady members of the
family of the accused. Sushil and Pinda inflicted injuries on the hands,
stomach, waist and chest of Partap. Sushil gave blows of sword to
Partap on the head, right hand and on the left of the face of the
deceased. Roop Chand and Anil alias Bawa inflicted Lathi blows on
the person of Partap. After beating Partap accused fled away. Partap
succumbed to his injuries at the place of incident itself.
3.
The prosecution examined in all 11 witnesses. Anand Singh
PW5 is the complainant. The accused abjured their guilt and
contended that as Partap had tried to outrage the modesty of Monika,
villagers assembled and gave a beating to Partap due to which he died.
The accused were not present at the place of occurrence. They have
been falsely implicated in the case. Defence also examined 8
witnesses. The trial court convicted all the 6 accused persons.
However, the High Court has acquitted Sandeep as his name was not
mentioned in the FIR. He has been given the benefit of doubt. Relying
upon the ocular evidence furnished by Anand Singh-PW5, and the
medical evidence of Dr. Naresh Dahiya-PW7, and other witnesses
related to the investigation it has convicted the remaining 5 accused
persons. Three of them are before us in the appeals.
4.
It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that
accused-appellants have been falsely implicated in the case. Deceased
Partap had tried to outrage the modesty of Monika due to which he
was beaten by the villagers. The FIR is belated. The house of the
accused was set on fire on the same day. Savitri, wife of accused
Roop Chand has filed a complaint under sections 323, 325, 436, 427,
307, 148, 149 and 452 of IPC against family members of deceased
Partap. The witnesses Lakhmi Chand and Ramesh have not been
examined whereas they were named in the first information report as
such adverse inference deserves to be drawn against the prosecution.
The guilt has not been established beyond periphery of doubt by the
prosecution.
5.
It was contended by learned counsel appearing for the State of
Haryana that both the courts have appreciated the evidence and
concurred with the finding that the deceased Partap was mercilessly
beaten and murdered by the accused appellants. Considering the
number of injuries which were sustained by deceased Partap and the
ocular version is supported by the medical evidence. Conviction has
been rightly recorded. Other two witnesses were not examined as
they were won over by the accused. The statement of the complainant
Anand Singh PW5 who was an eye witness to the incident has been
found to be worthy of reliance. Defence evidence has also been taken
into consideration. The conviction and sentence is absolutely proper
and does not call for interference.
6.
We have gone through the judgment as well as the evidence
placed on record. It is apparent from statement of eye-witness Anand
Singh-PW5, that the deceased Partap was given beating by accused
Sushil, Anil alias Bawa and Roop Chand. Sushil had inflicted injuries
with the help of a sword on the person of deceased Partap on various
parts of the body. Roop Chand and Bawa inflicted several Lathi
blows. The ocular version that the aforesaid persons had inflicted the
injuries with weapons in question due to which Partap died has been
corroborated medically by Dr. Naresh Dahiya-PW7. He has clearly
stated that injury Nos.1 to 10 were caused bysharp-edged weapon and
the contusion in the form of a Lathi mark on the back, right side and
multiple bruises and contusions in the form of Lathi marks on the
front chest and both arms were caused by blunt object like Lathi. Thus
the version of Anand Singh-PW5, being father of the deceased is quite
reliable. He would be the last person to spare the actual assailant and
would not implicate the accused falsely. He had no enmity with
accused persons. It has been found that the delay in lodging the FIR
has been satisfactorily explained, being father of deceased he became
unwell for two hours after death of his son. It also appears that
another incident of setting fire to the house of accused had taken place
in the same night with respect to which report had been lodged by
Savitri wife of accused Roop Chand. The trial court as well as the
High Court have found that the outcome of the murder of the deceased
Partap at the hands of accused persons was that house of accused was
set ablaze for which report had been lodged by Savitri.
7.
In the FIR it was mentioned that deceased Partap was given
beating on the allegation that he had an evil eye on the women-folk of
the family of the accused. In the circumstances, the accused persons
came armed with swords and Lathis and had caused large number of
injuries on the person of the deceased Partap due to which he
succumbed to death on the spot itself. The accused persons had no
right to take law into their hands and to beat Partap mercilessly and
intentionally to cause his death.
8.
The prosecution had not examined the two witnesses namely
Ramesh and Lakhmi Chand. However in the instant case the version
of Anand Singh PW5 is found to be reliable. Learned counsel for the
appellants has relied upon The State of U.P. & Anr. v. Jaggo alias
Jagdish & Ors. [AIR 1971 SC 1586] to draw an adverse inference
against the prosecution for non-examination of the aforesaid
witnesses.
Drawing of an adverse inference is dependent upon the
facts and circumstances of each case. In the instant case the version of
the father of the deceased is found to be reliable and he had no motive
to implicate the accused falsely and appears to be a truthful witness.
9.
Learned counsel has also placed reliance on Bahal Singh v.
State of Haryana [AIR 1976 SC 2032] so as to contend that being
related and chance witness, the version of Anand Singh PW5 is not
acceptable. In the case of Bahal Singh (supra), the best evidence was
kept behind and it was held that same had prejudiced a fair trial.
Certain circumstances were also not put to the accused which was also
considered to be a grave irregularity. In our opinion, it would depend
upon the facts of each case whether the accused has received a fair
trial. As Anand Singh had gone towards Akhara in search of his son
along with others could not be said to be unusual as he had to water
the fields along with Partap, his son. Reading of the entire statement
of Anand Singh-PW5, inspires confidence and both the courts below
have accepted the version after full appreciation of the evidence and
there are no inherent improbabilities in the version unfolded by
witness. Thus, in our considered opinion, conviction has rightly been
recorded by the courts below which calls for no interference in the
appeals. It cannot be said that the accused have not received fair trial
in the instant case.
10.
We find no ground to interfere in the appeals. The appeals being
devoid of merit, deserve to be and are hereby dismissed.
……………………..J.
(V. Gopala Gowda)
New Delhi;
…………………….J.
February 25, 2016.
(Arun Mishra)