Rajender Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana
LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J. 1. Seven accused,
namely, Suraj Bhan (A-1 ), Balraj (A-2), Ram Niwas (A-3),
Rajender Singh (A-4), Dharambir (A-5), Sube Singh (A-6) and
o Sajjan Singh (A-7) were tried by Learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Rohtak, in Sessions Case No. 119 of 2002 for
committing the murder of Dinesh aged about 20 years.
2. By judgment and order dated 06.02.2003, the Learned
Trial Judge convicted (A-1), (A-2), (A-3), (A-4), (A-5) and (A-7)
E under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 342 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code (for short 'IPC') and sentenced each to undergo
imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/ - each and in
default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment
F for three years and under Section 342/34 IPC, they were
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six
months with a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - each and in default of
payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one
month. Ali the sentences were, however, ordered to run
G concurrently. Out of fine if realized, 90 per cent thereof was
ordered to be paid to the legal representatives of the deceased
Dinesh. The Learned Trial Judge acquitted (A-6).
3. The accused filed three sets of appeals before the High
H Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. (A-1 ), (A-4) and (A-
RAJENDER SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 113
[LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
5) filed Criminal Appeal No. 194-DB of 2003 whereas Criminal A
Appeal No. 207-DB of 2003 was filed by (A-2) and Criminal
Appeal No. 224-DB of 2003 was filed by (A-3) and (A-7). The
High Court by a common judgment and order dated August 16,
2005 modified the judgment of the Trial Court. It upheld the
conviction and sentence of (A-1 ), (A-2), (A-3) and (A-4). It, B
however, acquitted (A-5) and (A-7) .
..,. 4. (A-1), (A-2), (A-3) and (A-4) have now approached this
Court in these appeals. These appeals were heard together
and shall stand disposed of by this common judgment. c
5. The incident leading to the prosecution of the appellants
occurred on 29.05.2002. Dinesh, son of Dhararnbir (PW-1)
complainant, had gone to Delhi for ascertaining the date of his
interview for recruitment to the Police Force of Delhi
Government, but till late night he did not return to his village D
Sundana, Tehsil Kalanaur, District Rohtak. On the following day,
i.e. 30.05.2002, at about 4.00 a.rn. Randhir Singh (PW-10)
elder brother of PW-11 told PW-1 that Dinesh was wrongfully
confined in the house of appellant-Suraj Bhan (A-1). It was
Jagbir (PW-9), a jeep driver, who disclosed this fact to PW- E
10. On corning to know the fact of confinement of his son by
A-1, PW-1 alongwith his father Sube Singh (PW-11) and uncle
Raghbir Singh rushed to the house of A-1, where they found
'f the outer door of the house bolted from inside. They all heard
the shrieks of Dinesh "maardiya, maardiya". Thereupon, they F
peeped through the window and saw that all the appellants
including A-6 (since acquitted) had made Dinesh to lie down
on the floor of the room, his hands and legs were tied with a
rope. In the electric bulb light and within their sight, A-1 inserted
a "danda" (wooden stick) in the anus of Dinesh, who cried G loudly in pain. On seeing the occurrence, PW-1, PW-11 and
Raghbir Singh raised an alarm and forcibly broke open the door
of the room. On seeing them, the appellants fled away and took
"danda" and piece of rope with them. They attended Oinesh,
but he succumbed to his injuries at the spot. H
A 6. Motive behind the alleged occurrence was that about a
year prior to the incident in question, i.e. 28.04.2001, A-1 got
a case registered against Dinesh under Section 376 IPC for
committing sexual intercourse with his daughter. In the said
case, Dinesh was acquitted by the trial court on 18.03.2002.
B 7. PW-1 requested his father Sube Singh (PW-11) and
uncle Raghbir Singh to safe guard the dead body of Dinesh at
the place of occurrence and himself rushed to the Police Station ,._
for lodging a report. On the way, Om Parkash, ASI (PW-14) met
c PW-1 at the curve of Beri Road, where, he made statement
(Ex.PA) at 9.00 a.m. narrating the entire incident. PW-14 then
made his endorsement (Ex.PA-2) on the said report and sent
the same to the Police Station through Constable Krishan
Kumar, on the basis of which formal FIR (Ex. PJ) was recorded
by MHC Mohinder Singh (PW-6) at 11.00 a.m. on the same
D day. The Special Report thereof was sent to the lllaqa Judicial
Magistrate through Constable Udham Singh (PW-4), which was
received at his residence at 2.35 p.m. at Rohtak. Thereafter,
PW-14 alongwith PW-1 rushed to the place of occurrence and
got the dead body photographed from Gobind Ram,
E Photographer (PW-7). PW-14 prepared the inquest report (Ex.
PM) and then sent the dead body for post mortem examination.
From the spot, PW-14 lifted blood stained earth, pair of sport
shoes (Exs. P11 and P12) and jute rope (Ex.P13). They were
taken into possession vide recovery memos (Ex. PB to Ex. PD)
F and sealed in separate parcels. At the spot, rough site plan
(Ex.PR) of the place of occurrence was also prepared by the
Investigating Officer. On the same day, investigation of the case
was taken over by Sub-Inspector Rohtas Singh (PW-12). He
recorded the statements of PW-1, Randhir, Zile Singh, Jagbir
G (PW-9), a jeep driver, and other witnesses. Thereafter, PW-12
searched for the accused in the village but they were found
missing. The Deputy Superintendent of Police had also visited
t
the place of occurrence and verified the investigation of the
case. Naresh Kumar, Constable (PW-3), took the dead body
H of deceased Dinesh to the Hospital for post mortem
RAJENDER SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 115
[LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
examination. A
8. On 01.06.2002, A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 were produced
before PW-12 by Zile Singh. After their arrest by the
Investigating Officer, A-1 during interrogation made disclosure
statement (Ex.PQ) to the effect that he had kept concealed B "danda" and "rope" under an iron box in his house and in
pursuance thereof, he got recovered "danda" (Ex. P-18) (broken
into two pieces) and "rope" (Ex. P-19), which were taken into ...,. possession vide recovery memo (Ex.PQ/4). The entire
recovered articles were sealed and deposited with MHC of c Police Station, Kalanaur.
9. On 12.06.2003, Ajit Singh ASI (PW-13) made an
application (Ex.PN) to Dr. Paramjeet (PW-8) for obtaining his
opinion whether recovered "danda" could cause fatal injury to
the deceased or not, and Doctor opined in the affirmative. After D
taking his opinion Ex.PO, pieces of "danda" were resealed.
After completion of the investigation and receipt of the poE>t
mortem report and other material on record, charge sheet came
to be filed against the accused. At the initial stage, A-1, A-2,
A-3 and A-4 were challaned for commission of offences E
punishable under Sections 342/302/34 IPC. Later on, vide
order dated 30.09.2002, A-5, A-6 and A-7 were also
summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. All the accused persons
pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried.
y
F 10. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case,
examined as many as 14 witnesses, namely, Dharmabir (PW-
1), who lodged the complaint (Ex.PA); Sumit Kumar, Draftsman
(PW-2), prepared the scaled site plan (Ex.PE) of the place of
occurrence; Naresh Kumar, Constable (PW-3) placed his
G affidavit (Ex.-PF) on record regarding taking the dead body for
post mortem examination; Udam Singh, Constable (PW-4) filed
his affidavit (Ex.-PG) regarding taking the Special Report to the
lllaqa Judicial Magistrate; Jagbir Singh Constahle (PW-5), took
the case property to Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban;
Mohinder Singh, Head Constable (PW-6), recorded the formal H
A FIR (Ex.-PJ); Gobind Ram, Photographer (PW-7), proved on
record photographs (Exs. P-1 to P-5) and negatives thereof
(Exs.P-6 to P-1 O); Dr. Paramjit (PW-8), conducted the post
mortem and proved on record the post mortem report (Ex.PK);
Jagbir Singh (PW-9) a Jeep Driver; Randhir Singh (PW-10),
B who after being informed by PW-9 regarding the fact of
confinement of Dinesh at the house of Su raj Bhan (A-1) had
disclosed the said fact to PW-1; Sube Singh (PW-11 ), an eye
witness of the occurrence; Rohtas Singh SI (PW-12), the
Investigating Officer of this case; Ajit Singh ASI (PW-13) and
c Om Parkash ASI (PW-14), who had also completed the formal
investigation of the case.
11. The accused in their statements recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C denied the incriminating evidence
appearing against them. They pleaded that they have been
D implicated in a false case and they claimed to be innocent. They
examined three defence witnesses, namely, Suraj Mal (DW-1),
who deposed regarding disconnection of the electric
connection at the house of A-1; Rajinder Singh, DSP (DW-2),
on whose verification three persons, namely, Sajjan, Dharambir
E and Sube Singh were found innocent in this case and Jagbir
(DW-3) who was married to Poonam, daughter of Suraj Bhan
(A-1) on 26.05.2002. DW-3 stated that on the evening of
25.09.2002 Dinesh had misbehaved with his wife at his Village
Koh la.
12. The trial court, on appraisal of the entire evidence on
record, held A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5 and A-7 guilty of the
charges and convicted them under Section 302/342 read with
Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. However, learned trial judge
G acquitted A-6.
13. Being aggrieved, the accused filed three sets of
separate appeals before the High Court. The High Court
dismissed the appeals of A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4.Jt, however,
allowed the appeals of A-5 and A-7 and accordingly acquitted
H them.
RAJENDER SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 117
[LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.)
14. Feeling aggrieved thereby and dissatisfied with the A
judgment of the High Court, the above-said appeals have been
filed in this Court.
15. Ms. Garima Prashad, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellants, contended that the evidence produced 8
in this case is not sufficient and convincing to warrant the
conviction of the appellants. She contended that the evidence
of PW-1 and PW-11 could not be accepted as they are both
interested witnesses related to the deceased. She next
contended that PW-1, PW-9 and PW-10 in their deposition C
have given a concocted version which casts severe doubts
about truthfulness of the prosecution case. The learned counsel
also contended that the evidence appearing on record against
the appellants is verbatim version which was taken into
consideration by the trial court with regard to the acquittal of
A-5, A-6 and A-7 and, therefore, the case of the appellants D
cannot be decided on any other scale and should have been
treated at par for giving benefits of doubt to the appellants as
it was considered for the acquittal of A-5, A-6 and A-7. The
learned counsel then contended that as per the post mortem
report (Ex. PK), as many as 12 injuries were found on the dead E
body of Dinesh which would support the defence version of
DW-3 that the deceased was given beatings by the village
people of his village Kohla, when Dinesh misbehaved with his
wife at their residence on 29.05.2002. It was also argued that
there is no reliable evidence brought on record to prove that F
the appellants also shared common intention to murder Dinesh
and in the absence of such evidence, the appellants could not
be convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 read
with Section 34 IPC.
16. Mr. Sandeep Chaturvedi, Advocate, appearing on G
behalf of the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 615/2008, has
adopted and supported the arguments made by Ms. Garima
Prashad, Advocate. As against that, Mr. Rajiv Gaur Naseem,
Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, has canvassed for H
A the correctness of the view taken by the trial judge which was
confirmed by the High Court.
17. In order to appreciate the aforesaid rival contentions
of the learned counsel for the parties, we have independently
B scrutinized the oral and documentary evidence appearing on
record.
18. PW-1, father of the deceased Dinesh, at the relevant
time was serving in the Police Department. On 29.05.2002 he
was on leave for a period of one month. He stated that his son
c Dinesh had applied for recruitment in the Police of Delhi
Government. On 29.05.2002 Dinesh had gone to Delhi to
confirm about the date of interview to be held for the post. He
did not return to his house till late in the night. On 30.05.2002
at about 4.00 a.m., Randhir Singh, elder brother of his father
D Su be Singh (PW-11 ), came to his house and disclosed that
Dinesh was wrongfully confined by A-1 in his house. This ...
information was given to Randhir Singh by Jagbir (PW-9), a
jeep driver. On receipt of this information, he alongwith his
father (PW-11) and uncle Rar.dhir Singh went to the house of
E A-1. The outer door of the house of A-1 was found bolted from
inside. They peeped through the window and noticed that
Dinesh was made to lie facing his face towards the floor of the
room. At that time, an electric bulb was burning inside the room.
A-1 inserted "danda" in the anus of Dinesh in their presence
F and his hands and both legs were tied by a piece of rope.
Dinesh was crying in pain. They raised cry and in the process
they broke open the door and entered the room. All the accused
ran away carrying "danda" and "rope" with them. As per his
version, in spite of their best efforts, Dinesh could not be
G survived. He also stated that about one year prior to the present
incident, A-1 got a false case registered against Dinesh under
Section 376 IPC in which his son was acquitted by the Court
and as a result thereof, A-1 was nursing a grudge against his y'
son. He testified the contents of the repot (Ex.PA) ~odged to
H the Police, on the basis of which FIR (Ex. PJ) came to be
RAJENDER SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 119
[LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
registered by PW-6 at the Police Station. This witness has A
k corroborated the version of PW-12, the Investigating Officer, in
regard to taking into possession blood stained earth, a pair of
sports shoes belonging to deceased Dinesh and preparation
of the parcels containing the seized articles affixed with seals.
He showed his knowledge of ignorance about the marriage of B
the daughterof A-1 with Jagbir (DW-3) son of Om Prakash,
,.. resident of village Kohlapur, District Sonipat. A suggestion that.
+ on 29.05.2002 Dinesh had gone to village Kohlapur and there
he misbehaved with Poonam, as a result thereof he was given
beatings by the village people, has been emphatically denied c
by him. He has identified two pieces of "danda" (Exs.P-18 and
P-19), which were.used by A-1 in the commission of the crime.
He categorically stated that there was sufficient electric bulb light
inside the room when they saw accused persons giving
beatings to Dinesh. A suggestion of the defence that on D receiving telephonic information from Jagbir (DW-3) son-in-law
of A-1, he alongwith his father PW-11 and A-1 went to village
Kohla in a hired jeep and brought his injured son in the said
jeep and then they threshed Dinesh at bus stand of village
Sundana and as a result whereof Dinesh died on 30.05.2002 E at about 8.00 p.m., has been denied by him.
19. PW-11, the second eyewitness of the incident, has
corroborated the entire testimony of PW-1. He was cross-
examined at length but nothing could be elicited from his
statement which casts any doubt about the truthfulness of his F
testimony. Jagbir PW-9, the jeep driver, deposed that on
29.05.2002 at about 8.30 a.m. Ballu (A-2) alongwith four other
persons, who were identified in the Court, came to his house
and asked him to take them to village Kohla. They hired his jeep
and he took them to village Kohla. They left him with his jeep G
on the village street. On hearing alarm, he rushed to the place
-i- where he found son of PW-1 present. All the five accused
persons then asked him to take the son of PW-1 to village
Sundana, but initially he refused to oblige them as he
apprehended danger to the life of the son of PW-1, but later H
120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 1 S.C.R.
A on from the village Kohla he took the son of PW-1 alongwith " A-1 and six more persons in the jeep and left them except Sube
Singh (A-6) at bus stand of village Sudana. He disclosed this
incident to Randhir Singh Subedar uncle of PW-1 on the same
night. This witness in the cross-examination has stated that
B village Kohla is at a distance of 15-16 KMs from Gohana and
Gohana is at a distance of about 25-30 KMs from Rohtak,
whereas village Kohla is at a distance of about 60 KMs from
~
village Sundana. He stated that A-1 and son (Deceased) of
PW-1 had met him at the house of the daughter of A-1 in village
c Kohla. He admitted that A-1 told him that prior to this incident
Dinesh had teased his daughter and on the day of incident
Diriesh had gone to the house of DW-3, son-in-law of A-1. A
suggestion of the defence that Dinesh was assaulted by the
people of village Kohla and as a result thereof, he could not
D walk properly has been denied by him. He also denied the
suggestion that he had brought injured Dinesh in his jeep and
left him at Sundana Bus Stand. A further suggestion that PW-
1 and PW-11 grandfather of Dinesh, had accompanied him in
the jeep while going to village S•Jndana, has been denied by
E him.
20. Randhir Singh (PW-10) deposed that on 30.05.2002
at about 2.30 a.m. while he was sleeping in his house, Jagbir
(PW-9) came there and disclosed that A-1 had confined Dinesh
in his house. He immediately rushed to the house of PW-1,
F woke him up and thereafter passed on the said information to
PW-1. He stated that on the next morning, he came to know
about the murder of Dinesh in the house of A-1.
21. In the teeth of the evidence of eyewitnesses PWs 1
G and 11, corroborated by the testimony of PW-9 and PW-10
discussed above, it is established beyond any shadow of doubt
that in fact the occurrence had taken place at the given time in
the house of A-1 where the dead body of Dinesh was found
lying by the Police which was sent to the Doctor for post
H mortem examination. PW-1 immediately lodged complaint (Ex.
RAJENDER SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 121
[LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
PJ) of the incident to Om Prakash, ASI (PW-14) who met him A
'· on the way leading to the Police· Station. The names of all the
accused were specifically mentioned in the said complaint. The
accused persons were not found present in the village when
the Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence. A-1,
A-2, A-3 and A-4 were produced before Rohtas Singh S.I. (PW- B
12) by Zile Singh, who is the resident of the same village.
Recovery of two pieces of "danda" (Exs.P-18 and P-19) and
-+ "rope" (Ex. PQ/3) taken into possession by PW-12 pursuant
to the disclosure statement (Ex.PO) made by A-1 during the
course of interrogation, has been proved which were used by c
the appellants in the commission of the offence. The ocular
version of PW-1 and PW-11, the eyewitnesses, has been further
corroborated by Dr. Paramjit, who found as many as 12 injuriet
on the dead body of Dinesh. Dr. Paramjit in his post mortem
report (Ex.PK) had noticed the following injuries: D
-4. i. There was bruise contusion about 6 x 2 cm present
in left supra scapular area with blurred margins;
ii. There was contusion 2 x 1 cm on right shoulder with
blurred margins. On dissection, extra vestation of E
blood into true skin and subcutaneous tissues with
infiltration was present;
iii.. There was bruise 2 x 2 cm on right elbow with
discoloration of skin with blurred margins; F
iv. Multiple bruises 5 x 5 cm present on both hands on
dorsal aspect.
Margin blurred with discoloration of skin present. On
dissection, extra vestation of blood into skin and ,....
IJ
subcutaneous with infilteration.
-; V. There was bruise 2 x 1 cm on left lower arm with
margins blurred;
vi. Another bruise 1 x 1 cm on the left wrist joint below H
122
the above mentioned wound;
vii. A bruise 5 x 1 cm on the left side on interior
abdominal wall with margin blurred and
discoloration of skin;
viii. Bruise 3 x 2 cm on the left thigh with blurred
margins;
ix. An lacerated wound 2 x 1 cm on the left leg with
margins blurred and extra vestation blood into skin
C discoloration;
x. A lacerated would 5 cm below the above
mentioned wound;
xi. Bruise sweliing on ankle joint (right) 2 x 2 cm with
D discoloration of skin;
xii. There was lacerations present around the anal
opening at 3rd, 7th and 10th o clock position of size
2 cm, 1 cm, 3 cm respectively. Blood was coming
out from anus. Anal opening was distorted and
dilated. On dissection, blood was present in anal
canal and rectum with rupture (through and through)
of posterior lateral aspect ofrectal wall with
perforation of intestinal coils in the right side
alongwith through and through laceration of right
kidney withlacerations of right lob of liver, extending
through and through of liver. Large amount of blood
was present in peritoneal cavity. On dissection of
skull, large scalpel haematoma present with multiple
laceration on brain with subdural haemotoma. Walls,
ribs andcartilages externally healthy. On dissection,
blood was present in plural cavity with haemothorax
with laceration of right lung present in lower lobe just
above the diapharam right dome of dipharam
ruptured in posterior half. Left lung healthy. In heart
RAJENDER SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 123
[LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
• both chambers were empty. Abdominal wall as A
described above. Peritorium haemoperitome
present. Mouth pharnix and esophagus healthy,
stomach and its contents was healthy. Small
intestines andlarge intestines and liver already
described. Spleen was healthy. Bladder was empty. B
Organ of generation was healthy.
-I 22. In the opinion of Dr. Paramjit, the cause of death of
Dinesh was shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries to
the vital organs which were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient
c to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
23. On reappraisal and scrutiny of the evidence discussed
hereinabove, we find no particular reason as to why the two
eyewitnesses PW-1 and PW-11 should falsely depose against
the appellants. It is difficult to believe that the relatives of
deceased Dinesh would spare his real assailants and falsely D
involve other persons responsible for committing the offence.
It is well settled that if the witness is related to the deceased,
his evidence has to be accepted if found to be reliable and
believable because he would inter alia be interested in ensuring E that real culprits are punished. The trial court as well as the High
Court have rightly held that there was a motive for the accused
to commit murder of Dinesh because as per the prosecution
• evidence, A-1 was nursing a grudge against the deceased
because he allegedly sexually assaulted his daughter, for which
F offence Dinesh was acquitted by the trial court on 18.03.2002
whereas the prosecutrix was later on married to DW-3 on
26.05.2002. Dinesh was murdered on the intervening night of
29/30.05.2002 in the house of A-1 in village Sundana. The
evidence of PWs 1 and 11 h~s been found to be satisfactory,
reliable, consistent and creditable by the trial court as well as G
..,. by the High Court. Both the witnesses have been cross-
examined at length by the defence, but nothing tangible has
been extracted from their evidence to create any shadow of
doubt that they are not truthful witnesses. They have given
reliable and consistent version of the crime and their evidence H
A inspires confidence. On our examination of the judgment given
by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court, we find that
both the Courts have properly and rightly appreciated and re
appreciated the entire evidence on record and there is no
infirmity or perversity in the findings recorded by the Courts
B below to interfere with the well-reasoned judgments.
24. The ratio of the judgment in Prem Singh v. State of
Punjab [AIR 1977 SC 673) relied upon by the learned counsel
is of no help to the appellants in the facts and circumstances
of the present case. In that case, the evidence of two
C eyewitnesses who were brother of the deceased with regard
to participation of four other accused was found unreliable and
in the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case, the
conviction of those accused was held illegal by the Supreme
Court. In the present case, no reliable and clinching evidence
D was found by the trial court and by the High Court against A-5,
A-6 and A-7 who also participated in the commission of the
offence, therefore, they were rightly acquitted by the Courts.
Therefore, the contention that the appellants shall be held
entitled to the benefit of doubt in the same manner as A-5, A-
E 6 and A-7 have been acquitted cannot be accepted. The
occurrence as spoken by the eyewitnesses is fully established,
therefore, all the appellants will be constru~tively liable under
Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for the commission of
the crime, though the fatal injury was inflicted by A-1, only as
F the other appellants participated in giving beatings to the
deceased which caused injuries on other part of his body.
25. No other point has been raised by the appellants. We
thus, find no merit and substance in any of the submission made
on behalf of the appellants.
26. In the result, for the afore-stated reasons, there is no
merit in these appeals and these are, accordingly, dismissed.
N.J. Appeals dismissed.