Criminal Appeal against conviction and life imprisonment for murder. The High Court upheld the trial court's verdict, finding the appellant guilty based on ocular evidence, forensic linkage of the murder weapon to the appellant, and blood stains on his clothes.
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence of life imprisonment and fine upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRA No. D-347-DB of 2008
- 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. D-347-DB of 2008 Decided on : 12th December, 2012
Vinod Kumar son of Jagdish, resident of Village Kaluana, District Sirsa
.....Appellant.
Versus
State of Haryana
..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SARON HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. BANGARH
Present: Mr. Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. H.S. Sran, Addl. AG, Haryana for the respondent.
S.P. BANGARH, J
The appellant has assailed the judgment of conviction dated 21.04.2008 and order of sentence dated 24.04.2008, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa, in Sessions Case No. 104 of 2007, emanating from FIR No. 97 dated 05.05.2007, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short - 'IPC), Police Station Sadar Dabwali, whereby, he was convicted for commission of offence punishable under 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of `5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.
It is the case of the prosecution that the mother of Siri Chand (complainant) had expired on 30.04.2007 and his brother Jagdish had sold his old house to his sons Ram Singh and Dharam Pal. Jagdish deceased brother of complainant used to reside in a
CRA No. D-347-DB of 2008
- 2-
separate house in village for the last 6/7 months. Appellant was addicted to poppy husk for the last two years. He used to quarrel with his parents. On 04.05.2007 at about 9:00 P.M., entire family members of all the brothers of the complainant had slept in the house and the appellant earlier had picked up a quarrel with his parents under the influence of intoxication. The appellant also slept in the house of complainant and Jagdish (deceased), brother of the complainant, had slept in his outside house. At about 2:00 A.M on 05.05.2007, when the appellant woke up to take water, complainant also woke up and the former after taking water, had gone out of the house and at about 2:00 A.M, complainant heard some noise from the house of Jagdish, whereupon, he and his son Kalu Ram went towards the house of Jagdish (deceased) and they found latter, lying on a cot in an injured condition. Appellant on seeing them fled away from there. In the presence of complainant and his son Kalu Ram, Jagdish (deceased) breathed his last on account of injuries received by him on his left hand and neck.
The complainant after leaving his son Kalu Ram with the corpse of Jagdish (deceased) went to his house and informed his other brothers and Jagdev Singh Sarpanch. When the complainant along with Jagdev Singh Sarpanch was going to lodge a report, the police met them at bus stand Bijjuwali, where, statement Ex.P1 was made by the complainant-Siri Chand before Balbir Singh Inspector and the, latter made endorsement, thereon, Ex.32 and sent the same to the police station, where formal FIR Ex.P2 was recorded. Thereafter, Balbir Singh Inspector along with complainant-Siri Chand and Jagdev Singh Sarpanch inspected the spot and prepared inquest report Ex.P17 on the corpse of Jagdish (deceased), He also collected one blanket having cut marks, pillow, bed sheet, wrist watch, pair of hawai chappal of blue colour from the spot and converted those into separate parcels, which were sealed by him with the seal
CRA No. D-347-DB of 2008
- 3-
bearing impression 'BS'. He seized those parcels vide recovery memo Ex.P24. He also got the corpse of Jagdish (deceased) and place of occurrence photographed. He also prepared site plan Ex.P33 and sent the corpse of Jagdish (deceased) to General Hospital Dabwali for conducting autopsy.
On 05.05.2007, Dr. M.K. Bhadoo, conducted the autopsy on the corpse of Jagdish (deceased) and found five injuries on his preson vide autopsy report Ex.P15. Appellant was arrested in this case on 05.05.2007. After his arrest, appellant was interrogated, who suffered disclosure statement Ex.P26 and pursuant, thereto, he got recovered one spade (kassi in local parlance) Ex.P23 from the bushes standing near the water works. Rough sketch of the spade Ex.P23 was prepared by Balbir Singh Inspector who converted it into a parcel which was sealed with the seal bearing impression 'BS' and seized vide memo Ex.P27. The shirt and payjama of the appellant were stained with blood. Those were seized vide memo Ex.P28 by Balbir Singh Inspector after converting those into a parcel, that was sealed with the seal bearing impression 'BS'. On 23.05.2007 , Balbir Singh Inspector got prepared scaled site plan from the Draftsman, as also, recorded the statements of the witnesses.
After completion of investigation, Station House Officer of Police Station Sadar Dabwali instituted police report under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C-for short) before the learned Illaqa Magistrate to the effect that it appeared that the appellant had committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
On presentation of police report, copies of documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. were furnished to the appellant and the case was later committed to the Court of Session, where charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant, whereto, he pleaded
CRA No. D-347-DB of 2008
- 4-
not guilty and claimed trial. Consequently, prosecution evidence was summoned.
At the trial, the prosecution examined Dharambir SI as PW-1, Rameshwar Dutt HC as PW-2, Radhey Sham HC/Draftsman as PW-3, Sunil Kumar Constable as PW-4, Kailash Chander HC as PW-5, Inder Singh Constable as PW-6, Dr. M.K. Bhadoo as PW-7, Siri Chandcomplainant as PW-8, Kalu Ram as PW-9 and Balbir Singh Inspector as PW-10 and closed the prosecution evidence later, after tendering the reports of the Forensic Science Laboratory Exs.P29 to 31.
After the closure of prosecution evidence, the appellant (Vinod Kumar) was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein, he denied the allegations of the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication in this case.
Vinod Kumar (appellant) gave his own version that his uncle Siri Chand (PW-8) wanted to grab his land, as his sister was already married and that he was the only son of his parents. Some unknown person committed the murder of his father (Jagdish) and falsely got him challaned in this case with the ulterior motive.
Appellant-Vinod Kumar was called upon to enter in defence, but he closed the same without examining any witness in defence.
After hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, convicted and sentenced the appellant, as described in the first paragraph of this judgment. Aggrieved, thereagainst, the appellant, who was accused before the learned trial Court has come up in this appeal with prayer for acceptance, thereof, and for his acquittal of the charge framed against him for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
CRA No. D-347-DB of 2008
- 5-
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent and perused the record of the learned trial Court with their assistance.
First of all it is to be seen, as to what the PWs deposed in this case.
PW-1 Dharambir SI testified that on receipt of ruqa Ex.P1, he recorded formal FIR Ex.P2.
PW-2 Rameshwar Dutt HC, Constable tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.P3, in respect of handing over special report to him by Dharambir SI (PW-1).
PW-3 Radhey Sham HC/Draftsman testified that he prepared the scaled site plan Ex.P4 on 13.05.2007 with correct marginal notes on the pointing out of Siri Chand (complainant), which bears his signatures.
PW-4 Sunil Kumar Constable testified that he took the photographs Exs. P5 to P8 of the the corpse of Jagdish (deceased) and proved the negatives, thereof, Exs.P9 to P12.
PW-5 Kailash Chander HC tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.P13.
PW-6 Inder Singh Constable also tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.P14.
PW-7 Dr. M.K. Bhadoo, Medical Officer, CHC Mandi Dabwali, testified that he conducted the autopsy on the corpse of Jagdish (deceased) and found the following injuries on his person:
CRA No. D-347-DB of 2008
- 6-
underlying vessels and muscles.
He further testified that the cause of death was due to the
neck injuries caused by sharp edged weapon and injuries (supra) were sufficient to cause death in due course of life. He brought the original autopsy report and proved copy, thereof, Ex.P15. He also proved the pictorial diagram showing the receipt of injuries Ex.P16. He, further testified that on 08.05.2007, on police application Ex.P21, he gave his opinion Ex.P22, thereon, to the effect that the injuries on the person of the deceased (Jagdish) could be possible with the spade (kassi in local parlance) Ex.P23, shown to him and the deceased (Jagdish) might have received injuries at 2.00 am on the intervening night of 04.05.2007 and 05.05.2007.
PW-8 Siri Chand-complainant deposed as per his statement Ex.P1 made before the police.
CRA No. D-347-DB of 2008
- 7-
PW-9 Kalu Ram also corroborated the testimony of PW-8 Siri Chand-complainant.
PW-10 Balbir Singh Inspector conducted the investigation of this case and deposed on the lines of investigation
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the latter, has been implicated falsely in this case by the complainant-Siri Chand (PW-8), as he wanted to grab the property of his father. He also contented that the evidence of PW-8 Siri Chand-complainant is after-thought, as the deceased (Jagdish) was alone in his house and possibility of someone else, killing him, than the appellant cannot be ruled out.
On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent contended that the appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which do not suffer from any illegality or impropriety and, therefore, those may be upheld and affirmed.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties. We find merit in the case of prosecution, as PW-8 Siri Chand-complainant had no animus or hostility against the appellant, prior to the day of incident. PW-8 Siri Chand-complainant in candid words testified that on the intervening night of 04.05.2007 and 05.05.2007, he saw the deceased in injured condition and appellant standing near the deceased (Jagdish) and on seeing him, the appellant ran away. He, further testified that his son Kalu Ram (PW-9) was also with him at
CRA No. D-347-DB of 2008
- 8-
the time of incident. So, Siri Chand-complainant (PW-8) and Kalu Ram (PW-9) in candid words testified that the deceased (Jagdish) was seen in injured condition and the appellant was standing near the deceased, who on seeing them ran away. It is, no doubt, true that there is no mention about the carrying of the spade (kassi in local parlance) by the appellant with him, but that seems to be inadvertent omission. PW-8 Siri Chand-complainant and Kalu Ram (PW-9) did not testify that they made efforts to apprehend the appellant. This omission can not be said to be fatal to the case of the prosecution.
Indeed, the evidence of Siri Chand-complainant (PW-8) and Kalu Ram (PW-9), who are the eye witnesses of this occurrence could not be shattered during cross-examination. They were subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the learned counsel for the appellant before the learned trial Court, but long crossexamination failed to elicit anything worth the name, which could possibly cause any dent in their testimonies. No motive can be ascribed to them to testify falsely in this case, especially, when they have no animus or hostility against the appellant, prior to the date of occurrence.
Indeed, it has been mentioned in the testimonies of Siri Chand-complainant (PW-8) and Kalu Ram (PW-9) that the appellant is addicted of poppy husk and under the influence of intoxication, he used to pick up quarrel with the deceased (Jagdish). Obviously, he needed money for the purchase of poppy husk. When the deceased (Jagdish) would not have been paying him the money for this
CRA No. D-347-DB of 2008
- 9-
purpose, appellant might be picking up quarrel with the deceased.
Possibly, the appellant may not be liking his deceased father, as he may be putting obstructions in his consumption of poppy husk. He might not have been able to bear this resistance given to him by the deceased and that would have caused irritation and venom in his mind. On the night of occurrence, while he was sleeping in the house of Siri Chand-complainant (PW-8) and Kalu Ram (PW-9) woke up around mid night. When he was taking water, Siri Chand-complainant (PW-8) also woke up and then the appellant went to the house of the deceased nearby the house of Siri Chandcomplainant (PW-8) and on hearing shrieks, Siri Chand-complainant (PW-8) and Kalu Ram (PW-9) went towards the house of the deceased, where both spotted the appellant standing there and on seeking them, he ran away.
There is no inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. The occurrence took place at 2.00 am on 05.05.2007 while FIR was recorded at 8.15 am on 05.05.2007, itself. Keeping in view the distance of police station from the place of occurrence as 40 km, the delay of about 6 hours is bound to occur and cannot be said to have been used for fabricating the case against the appellant. Sister and mother of the appellant are alive. If the appellant would have been falsely implicated in this case, they would have complained against the alleged false implication of the appellant in this case.
Even the appellant would have lodged a complaint against Siri Chand-complainant (PW-8) for his alleged false implication in this case. The father of the deceased (Jagdish) had been killed. It was
CRA No. D-347-DB of 2008
- 10-
his bounded duty to lodge FIR regarding his unnatural death. This silence on the part of the appellant would reveal that he is the killer of his father and, if someone else would have been the killer, the FIR would have been lodged against that person.
No motive can be ascribed to Siri Chand-complainant (PW8) to depose falsely in this case, as also to make false statement Ex.P1 before the police. He was not going to gain anything on account of death of his brother (Jagdish). He was not to inherent his property, especially when the sister and the mother of the appellant are still alive. Obviously, on the natural course of succession, only the appellant, his sister and mother would have inherited the property.
The police also investigated all the aspects of the case and rightly believed the statement Ex.P1 of Siri Chand-complainant (PW8) and arrested the appellant. Injuries, which were mentioned by Siri Chand-complainant (PW-8) and Kalu Ram (PW-9) on the corpse of Jagdish (deceased) were found in the autopsy report Ex.P15. Five injuries have been found on the person of the deceased (Jagdish) and one injury was on the neck of the deceased (Jagdish) and all the injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
The evidence of Dr. M.K. Bhaddoo, could not be shattered in the cross-examination. Spade (kassi in local parlance) Ex.P23 was shown to Dr. M.K. Bhadoo (PW-7) during investigation and vide his opinion Ex.P22, on 08.05.2007, he opined that the injuries on the person of Jagdish (deceased) with the spade Ex. P23 (kassi in local
CRA No. D-347-DB of 2008
- 11-
parlance) were possible. So, this evidence, implies that the spade (kassi in local parlance) Ex.P23, which was recovered from the appellant during investigation was used by the appellant for killing his father.
The occurrence of this case took place at 2.00 am on 05.05.2007. PW-7 (Dr. M.K. Bhadoo) gave his opinion that Jagdish (deceased) might have received injuries at 2.00 am. There is no reason to disbelieve this testimony. So, the ocular evidence of PW-8 (Siri Chand-complainant) and Kalu Ram (PW-9) having been corroborated by the medical evidence of PW-7 (Dr. M.K. Bhadoo) must be accepted to be veritable. No variation or contradiction between the ocular evidence of PW-8 (Siri Chand-complainant) and PW-9 (Kalu Ram) and medical evidence of PW-7 (Dr. M.K. Bhadoo) has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant.
The Forensic Science Laboratory report Ex.P31 would also indicate that the cut marks marked Q1 to Q6 on blanket marked Ex.4 could have been caused by kassi Ex.7 (Ex.P23). This kassi (Ex.P23) was recovered from the appellant, pursuant to his disclosure statement Ex.P26. There is no reason to disbelieve the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.P31 (ibid) and that would establish that the spade (Ex.P23) was used in the occurrence and cut marks on the blanket were caused by this spade (kassi in local parlance) (Ex.P23).
There was blood stain on the kurta and payjama of the appellant and those were recovered during investigation from him, as can be seen from the testimony of Balbir Singh Inspector (PW-10),
CRA No. D-347-DB of 2008
- 12-
who in candid words testified that shirt and payjama of the appellant were sealed in a parcel with the seal bearing impression 'BS' and that parcel was seized vide recovery memo Ex.P28. This parcel was also sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and the latter vide its report Ex.P29 opined that these pyjama and kurta Ex.8a and Ex.8b respectively were stained with blood, while blood stain on the kurta was declared as material disintegrated. So, one thing is very much certain that pyjama was stained with human blood and the appellant has failed to explain the circumstances, whereunder, blood stain occurred on his pyjama and, how human blood stain appeared on his pyjama, as opined by the Forensic Science Laboratory in its reports Ex.P30.
Link evidence in this case is complete. Case property of this case was handled by Kailash Chander HC (PW-5), Inder Singh Constable (PW-6) and Balbir Singh Inspector (PW-10). Their testimonies during cross-examination could not be shattered. So, it follows that the case property, so long as, remained in possession of these witnesses, was not tampered with by them or anyone else. Therefore, the link evidence in this case is complete.
It is not the case of the appellant that some intruders intruded into the house of his father and committed his murder. As already held, he failed to lodge the report regarding the murder of his father accusing, therein, some unknown persons or some definite person to be his killer.
Appellant was seen standing near his father by PW8 and PW9. At that time, father of appellant was in an injured condition. If
CRA No. D-347-DB of 2008
- 13-
the appellant had not seen killer of his father, he would not have fled from the place of occurrence on arrival of PW8 and PW9. Indeed, it was required of him to stay there and satisfy PW8 and PW9 that he came there on hearing cries of his father to whom some one else caused injuries. His escape from the place of incident would make him guilty of patricide.
So, the learned trial rightly relied upon the testimonies of PW-8 (Siri Chand-complainant) and Kalu Ram (PW-9), which have been corroborated by the medical evidence of PW-7 (Dr. M.K. Bhadoo) for arriving at the conclusion that it is the appellant, who committed the patricide.
There is, thus, no illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which are, hereby, upheld and affirmed.
Resultantly, the appeal fails and is, hereby dismissed; impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are upheld and affirmed.
(S.P. BANGARH) (S.S. SARON) JUDGE JUDGE
December 12, 2012 sham
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction and sentence for murder under Section 302 IPC of the appellant, who was present near the deceased and fled upon witnessing others discover the body, be upheld.
Whether the evidence of ocular witnesses corroborated by medical opinion and forensic reports establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Vinod Kumar
State of Haryana
S.P. BANGARH
S.S. SARON
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
