Deciding Authority: Supreme Court of India
Name of the Judges: Justice Harjit Singh Bedi, Justice C.K. Prasad
Date of Judgment: 28 July 2010
Facts of the Case: 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 and Beg Raj accused. On 16th January 1991 at about 8.00 a.m., Chanda left for the school leaving Sher Singh asleep in the house. While on the way, Chanda observed Pawan Kumar and Ram Niwas armed with Pharsas were 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. 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 and arrested all of them on 19th January 1991 and pursuant to disclosure statements made by Pawan Kumar and Ram Niwas to Inspector Ashok Kumar PW9, 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. 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. 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.
Judgment: Mr. Sarvesh Bisari, the learned counsel for the appellant 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 was also 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 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. The State counsel, however, supported the judgment of the trial court and the High Court. The trial court 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 was in this situation that the trial court drew a distinction between the two sets of accused. The Court found from the judgment of the High Court that this aspect had been carefully examined and the findings have been affirmed. It was 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 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 supported the ocular version, and additionally, the trial court had given the benefit of doubt to some of the accused, as they had no active role to play, the possibility of false implication had also been examined and dealt with.
Decision: The courts below have, in the Court’s 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 was thus called for by us in this appeal. It was accordingly dismissed.
By: Roopali Mohan, 2nd Year, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, New Delhi
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS