Dismissed

Prem Bahadur v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Apr 2013CRA-D/959/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal against conviction and sentencing for murder and theft, the High Court upheld the Trial Court's judgment. The Court found the prosecution's circumstantial evidence, including the accused's confession and recovery of stolen articles, cogent and sufficient to convict the appellant.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld.

Prem Bahadur Vs State of Haryana — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Criminal Appeal No.D-959-DB of 2006 Date of decision : 26.04.2013

Prem Bahadur

.... Appellant

VERSUS

State of Haryana

.... Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

¶9

¶10

Present : Mr.H.S.Jaswal, Advocate, for the appellant.

¶11

Mr.Kshitij Sharma, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State.

¶12

Mr.S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate, for the complainant.

¶13

¶14

INDERJIT SINGH, J

¶15

The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 08.12.2006 and order of sentence dated 09.12.2006, passed by the Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar, vide which appellant Prem Bahadur has been held guilty for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 302 and 457 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of

¶16

[2]

¶17

Criminal Appeal No.D-959-DB of 2006

¶18

Rs.1,000/- under Section 457 IPC. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was ordered to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one year. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

¶19

Brief facts of the prosecution case are that FIR in the present case was registered on the statement of complainant Amrit Singh. The complainant, in his statement, stated that on the intervening night of 12/13.08.2006, he and his wife Sarojini Devi, after taking meal, were sleeping in the separate rooms. Complainant was sleeping in the room located in the northern side and his wife was sleeping in the rear room situated at the southern side. At about 2:00 a.m., when the complainant woke up to urinate then he heard the noise from the room in which his wife was sleeping. The complainant thumped the door with force and called his wife but the door was bolted from inside whereas they (complainant and his wife) had slept after opening that door in the night. When he was thumping the door then he heard the noise of opening the bolt of rear room situated at southern side. He rushed towards southern side from the outer northern side and then he saw that the door of the room in which his wife was sleeping was opened and his wife was lying on the bed with slit throat and huge quantity of blood was lying on the bed. The complainant saw that she was no more. He further stated that there is a store adjacent to that room in which valuable articles had been stored and those articles were lying scattered and both the almirahs were unlocked. Complainant further stated that

¶20

[3]

¶21

Criminal Appeal No.D-959-DB of 2006

¶22

some unknown person entered in their house with intention to commit theft during that night and he slit the throat of his wife Sarojini Devi with sharp edged weapon and after murdering her, decamped with stolen articles. The complainant further stated that the list of stolen articles will be submitted lateron after inquiry. Statement of complainant was recorded by ASI Gurdial Singh at 5:30 a.m. on 13.08.2006. On the basis of statement of complainant, ruqa was sent to the police station pursuant to which FIR was registered at 6:15 a.m. on 13.08.2006. Thereafter, photographer and Incharge of Sniffer dog were summoned at the spot. Photographer took the photographs of the deceased as well as of the place of occurrence. ASI Gurdial Singh then conducted the inquest proceedings of the dead body of Sarojini Devi. During search, one blood stained bed sheet and sample of blood lifted from the place where the dead body was lying, after converting into separate sealed parcels, were taken into police possession. Thereafter, Brij Raj Singh, son of complainant Amrit Singh and deceased Sarojini Devi, produced the list of stolen articles. DSP Sajjan Singh also reached the spot and verified the investigation. Spot was also inspected and rough site plan Ex.PO was prepared. Dead body of Sarojini Devi was sent for getting conducted postmortem examination. The accused was apprehended. On interrogation, he suffered disclosure statement Ex.PD regarding concealing of stolen articles and in pursuance thereof, he got recovered necklace, ear-ring, pair of chutkies,

¶23

[4]

¶24

Criminal Appeal No.D-959-DB of 2006

¶25

Rs.1295/- in cash and key-ring. He also got recovered one comb, bundle of smoking bidi, golden light match box and yellow colour cloth-sheet from nearby Gohara. All these articles, after converting into three separate sealed parcels, were taken into police possession vide recovery memo Ex.PE. On 14.08.2006, the accused in pursuance of his disclosure statement, got recovered his blood stained T-shirt and half pant (knicker) Ex.P11 and Ex.P12 and a knife Ex.P13. The sketch of knife was prepared and thereafter blood stained T-shirt, half pant (knicker) and knife, after converting into two separate sealed parcels, were taken into police possession vide recovery memo Ex.PG. Opinion from the doctor regarding the weapon of offence was also taken. Statements of witnesses were recorded. After necessary investigation, challan against the accused was presented before the Court.

¶26

On presentation of challan, copies of challan and other documents were supplied to accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Finding a prima facie case against the accused, he was chargesheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 457 and 302 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

¶27

The prosecution, in support of its case, examined PW1 Amrit Singh, complainant, who mainly deposed as per prosecution version. PW2 Brij Raj Singh, son of complainant Amrit Singh and deceased Sarojini Devi, deposed that he had received a telephonic message from his father regarding murder of his mother. He

¶28

[5]

¶29

Criminal Appeal No.D-959-DB of 2006

¶30

delivered a list of articles believed to be stolen. He further deposed that the first suspect was accused Prem Bahadur, who had been employed by them to look after their aged parents less than a couple of weeks earlier. The police nabbed him and subjected him to interrogation. He further deposed regarding the disclosure statement made by accused and recovery got effected by the accused. The sealed articles were identified by him as belonging to his mother. PW3 Head Constable Rajesh Kumar is a formal witness, who tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.PK. He also deposed regarding recording of formal FIR Ex.PJ. PW4 Constable Shashi Bhushan is also a formal witness, who tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.PL. PW5 Constable Mulakh Raj, Draftsman, mainly deposed regarding preparing of scaled site plan Ex.PM. PW6 Ram Karan, photographer, mainly deposed regarding photographs Ex.P14 to Ex.P18 and negatives Ex.P19 to Ex.P23. PW7 Constable Balbir Singh mainly deposed regarding delivery of special reports to Ilaqa Magistrate etc. PW8 Constable Karnail Singh is a formal witness, who tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.PN. PW9 Sub Inspector Parmod Kumar mainly deposed regarding preparing of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. PW10 ASI Gurdial Singh is the Investigating Officer, who deposed regarding the investigation conducted by him in this case. PW11 ASI Suraj Bhan, who joined the police party of Inspector Dhana Ram, mainly deposed regarding disclosure statement made by accused and the recoveries. PW12 Dr.Deepika

¶31

[6]

¶32

Criminal Appeal No.D-959-DB of 2006

¶33

Gupta mainly deposed that on 13.08.2006, she alongwith Dr.Ramesh conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Sarojini Devi and found the following injury on her person:-

¶34

“There was an incised wound of size 9 cms x 4 cms and 8 cms deep and margins were regular. The wound was triangular in shape. It extended from midline of the neck to the left side of neck 2 inches below left ear lobule. On dissection, underlying trachea, oesophagus, carotid artery and other vessels including the sterno mastoid were found cut and clotted blood was present. The lungs were pail and healthy. In the heart, both chambers were empty.”

¶35

As per the opinion of the doctors, the cause of death was injury to vital organs leading to asphyxia and shock. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in normal course of events. The probable time that elapsed between injury and death was instantaneous and between death and postmortem was within 24 hours. The doctor (PW12) also stated that possibility of injury on the neck of deceased having been caused with knife Ex.P13 cannot be ruled out. She also deposed regarding her opinion qua the weapon of offence. PW13 Inspector Dhana Ram, who partly conducted the investigation, deposed regarding the investigation conducted by him in this case.

¶36

At the close of prosecution evidence, the accused was

¶37

[7]

¶38

Criminal Appeal No.D-959-DB of 2006

¶39

examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and confronted with the evidence of prosecution. The accused denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded himself as innocent. He also pleaded that he has been falsely implicated by the police in the present case. He did not suffer any disclosure statement before the police nor he got recovered any article.

¶40

No evidence was led in defence.

¶41

The trial Court, after appreciation of evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused, as stated above.

¶42

At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution has failed to connect the accused with the crime by leading cogent evidence and a reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution case. The accused never made any disclosure statement nor any recovery was got effected by him. The recoveries have been falsely planted upon the accused. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that appeal should be allowed and appellant should be acquitted accordingly.

¶43

On the other hand, learned Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana, contended that the case of the prosecution has been duly proved. It is a case of circumstantial evidence and the circumstances proved by the prosecution point towards the guilt of the accused only and none else. The stolen articles were got recovered by the accused. The accused was arrested on the same day. Weapon of offence i.e. blood stained knife was also recovered

¶44

[8]

¶45

Criminal Appeal No.D-959-DB of 2006

¶46

from the accused and his blood stained clothes were also got recovered by him in pursuance of his disclosure statement. There is no explanation from the accused side how these stolen articles came into his possession. The accused was servant and was employed about 10 days prior to the occurrence. The house of deceased was not in the abadi area. The accused was also residing there in the outer house. There is no motive, reason or ground to falsely implicate the accused in the present case. Learned Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana, further contended that there being no merit in the appeal, it should be dismissed.

¶47

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana and with their assistance, we have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully.

¶48

From the record, we find no merit in the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant. First of all, there is no evidence on record to show any motive or reason for false implication of the accused in the present case. There is no motive of the PWs to falsely depose against accused. The police officials, who deposed regarding the disclosure statement of the accused and the recoveries effected from the accused, have also no motive or reason to falsely depose against the accused and to falsely implicate him. We have perused the statements of PW1 Amrit Singh and PW2 Brij Raj Singh, son of complainant. There is no suggestion given to these PWs that accused was not employed by the deceased Sarojini Devi and

¶49

[9]

¶50

Criminal Appeal No.D-959-DB of 2006

¶51

complainant Amrit Singh nor there is any suggestion that accused was not residing in the outer house. The occurrence took place at about 2:00 a.m. on 13.08.2006 at night time. Statement of complainant was completed at 5:30 a.m. on the same day. FIR was registered without any unnecessary delay and is prompt one. Otherwise also, it is a case of single accused and there is no reason or ground to falsely implicate the accused and to let off the actual culprit. In the FIR, name of accused has not been mentioned but it is stated that articles were stolen from the almirahs and other articles were lying scattered which itself shows that the motive to commit the crime was theft of the valuable articles. The list of the stolen articles was given by PW2 Brij Raj Singh to the police on the same day. The accused was also arrested on the same day as he was employed as servant by the complainant just some days ago. Otherwise also, it is natural for the police to start the investigation and have suspicion on the servant first, who was also in the outer house on that night. The disclosure statement, suffered by accused in police custody regarding concealing of stolen articles, weapon of offence and his clothes, is admissible in evidence and it supports the prosecution version. The recovery of the stolen articles, as discussed above, i.e. necklace, ear ring, clothes etc. in pursuance of disclosure statement of accused connects the accused with the crime. Blood stained knife i.e. weapon of offence was also got recovered by the accused in pursuance of his disclosure statement.

¶52

[10]

¶53

Criminal Appeal No.D-959-DB of 2006

¶54

There is no explanation how human blood came on the knife. Again, though the material was found disintegrated as per Forensic Science Laboratory report, the appellant-accused also got recovered his blood stained jacket/T-shirt and shorts (knicker) which further supports and corroborates the prosecution version. All the stolen articles were duly identified by PW2 Brij Raj Singh. There is no explanation how these stolen articles came in possession of the accused. The recovery of key-ring and the key of almirah further connects the accused with the crime. From the above-stated recoveries, we reached the conclusion that it is only the accused who committed the crime and none else. There is nothing on the record to show that accused is innocent or has been falsely implicated in the present case. The fact that, the accused did not run away from the spot after committing the crime itself no ground to hold that the prosecution version is improbable. It is in the mind of the accused how he thinks whether to run away from the spot or not. Otherwise also, if he would have run away from the spot there would have been no doubt regarding the commission of offence by him and by remaining there in the house, there is the chances that he may feel that accused may not be traced out. It is also possible that accused may have thought of leaving the sight after getting an opportunity. Therefore, on this ground, version of prosecution cannot be held as improbable. Therefore, from the aforesaid discussion, we find that the prosecution has duly proved its case by leading cogent evidence

¶55

[11]

¶56

Criminal Appeal No.D-959-DB of 2006

¶57

beyond any reasonable doubt. As such, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against appellant-accused are upheld.

¶58

Resultantly, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is

¶59

dismissed.

¶60

(M.JEYAPAUL) (INDERJIT SINGH) JUDGE JUDGE

¶61

26.04.2013 mamta

¶62

Criminal Appeal No.D-959-DB of 2006

¶63

[12]

Prem Bahadur v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Bahadur v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kala Ram Vs Subhash and Ors.

Dilbar Khan Vs State of Punjab

Jasbir Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sumit Poonia and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Nakul Shokeen Andors Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Parmod Chander and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.