Darshan & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2001
Petitioner: Darshan & Ors.
Respondent: State of Haryana
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 2001
Judges: Dr. A.S. ANAND, CJI., R.C. LAHOTI & ASHOK BHAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 19, 2001
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sections 100, 101 – Self-defence – Murder case – Incident admitted – Plea taken only at the stage of examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. Held that it was an after-thought. (Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Twelve persons were tried for offences under section 302/149, 325/149, 324/149, 323/149 and 148 IPC for an occurrence which took place on 28.3.1992 at about 7.45 a.m. in village Kansala. In the said occurrence, one Rati Ram suffered fatal injuries while nine others including PW-5 Ram Karan, PW-8 Ram Kumar, PW-10 Roshni and PW-11 Satbir Singh belonging to the complainant party were injured. The first information report was lodged by PW-5 Ram Karan, son of the deceased and was recorded by PW-13 Sl. Ishwar Singh. Investigation was taken in hand and after trial the learned trial court convicted all the appellants for offences under sections 325/324/323/149 IPC and 148 IPC and sentenced them to undergo various terms of imprisonment and to pay fine. Only four out of the twelve namely, Takdir, Amar Singh, Sri Bhagwan and Darshan Singh were convicted and sentenced under section 302/34 IPC to life imprisonment.
2. Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, all the twelve convicts filed appeals in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Ram Chand, Lila, Jagdish, Chandgi Ram and Surje were acquitted by the High Court but the conviction of others were maintained and so was their sentence. Four of the convicts, namely, Takdir, Amar Singh, Darshan and Sri Bhagwan who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for an offence under section 302/34 IPC have preferred this appeal. The State has not filed any appeal against the acquittal of the accused. Ram Chand, Lila, Jagdish and Chandgi Ram and Surje. The convicts Hawa Singh, Ballu and Naresh have not filed any appeal.
3. The prosecution case in short is that Bhima s/o Ballu had an altercation in which he slapped Kala s/o Lilu PW on 26.3.1992. A panchayat was convened to settle the matter between the two families on 27.3.1992. It is alleged that on 28.3.1992 while the complainant party was present near their house, they were attacked by the appellants and their co-accused. The accused party was armed with knives, pharsas, gandasas and lathis. After Ram Karan, PW-5 lodged the FIR with PW-13 Sl Ishwar Singh at police station, the injured were sent for medical examination. The postmortem on the deceased was preformed by Dr.R.K. Wadhwa PW-3. The trial prosecution examined various witnesses including PW-5 Ram Karan, PW-8 Ram Kumar, PW-10 Smt.Roshni and PW-11 Satbir Singh, all injured and, thus, stamped eye-witnesses. The trial court after careful appraisal of the evidence on the record recorded convictions and sentences as noticed above. The division bench of the High Court also after appreciating the evidence maintained the conviction and sentence of the appellants. Though, we are not happy with the manner in which an order of acquittal of Ramchand, Leela, Jagadish, Surje and Chandgi Ram was recorded by the High Court, for it gives no reasons in support of the view that they were entitled to benefit of doubt. However, since, there is no appeal filed by the state against their acquittal, we need not detain ourselves to consider this aspect any further.
4. Apart from the eye-witnesses account, the statement of the medical witnesses and the investigating officer who all connect the appellants with the crime, we find that Balu in his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. has for all intent and purposes admitted that on 28.3.1992, an occurrence did take place in which the named accused as well as the named members of the complainant party participated resulting in the death of the deceased. According to him, the accused party attacked the complainant party in defence of Amar Singh and Takdir and in their own defence. However, evidence led by the prosecution which had stood the test of cross-examination well, clearly establishes that plea of self-defence taken by Balu in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. is only an after-thought and has no basis.
5. Our analysis of the judgments and the evidence on the record shows that conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants is well-merited. The appreciation of evidence by the trial court and the High Court suffers from no infirmity whatsoever. This appeal has no merit. It fails and is accordingly dismissed.
1. Twelve persons were tried for offences under section 302/149, 325/149, 324/149, 323/149 and 148 IPC for an occurrence which took place on 28.3.1992 at about 7.45 a.m. in village Kansala. In the said occurrence, one Rati Ram suffered fatal injuries while nine others including PW-5 Ram Karan, PW-8 Ram Kumar, PW-10 Roshni and PW-11 Satbir Singh belonging to the complainant party were injured. The first information report was lodged by PW-5 Ram Karan, son of the deceased and was recorded by PW-13 Sl. Ishwar Singh. Investigation was taken in hand and after trial the learned trial court convicted all the appellants for offences under sections 325/324/323/149 IPC and 148 IPC and sentenced them to undergo various terms of imprisonment and to pay fine. Only four out of the twelve namely, Takdir, Amar Singh, Sri Bhagwan and Darshan Singh were convicted and sentenced under section 302/34 IPC to life imprisonment.
2. Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, all the twelve convicts filed appeals in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Ram Chand, Lila, Jagdish, Chandgi Ram and Surje were acquitted by the High Court but the conviction of others were maintained and so was their sentence. Four of the convicts, namely, Takdir, Amar Singh, Darshan and Sri Bhagwan who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for an offence under section 302/34 IPC have preferred this appeal. The State has not filed any appeal against the acquittal of the accused. Ram Chand, Lila, Jagdish and Chandgi Ram and Surje. The convicts Hawa Singh, Ballu and Naresh have not filed any appeal.
3. The prosecution case in short is that Bhima s/o Ballu had an altercation in which he slapped Kala s/o Lilu PW on 26.3.1992. A panchayat was convened to settle the matter between the two families on 27.3.1992. It is alleged that on 28.3.1992 while the complainant party was present near their house, they were attacked by the appellants and their co-accused. The accused party was armed with knives, pharsas, gandasas and lathis. After Ram Karan, PW-5 lodged the FIR with PW-13 Sl Ishwar Singh at police station, the injured were sent for medical examination. The postmortem on the deceased was preformed by Dr.R.K. Wadhwa PW-3. The trial prosecution examined various witnesses including PW-5 Ram Karan, PW-8 Ram Kumar, PW-10 Smt.Roshni and PW-11 Satbir Singh, all injured and, thus, stamped eye-witnesses. The trial court after careful appraisal of the evidence on the record recorded convictions and sentences as noticed above. The division bench of the High Court also after appreciating the evidence maintained the conviction and sentence of the appellants. Though, we are not happy with the manner in which an order of acquittal of Ramchand, Leela, Jagadish, Surje and Chandgi Ram was recorded by the High Court, for it gives no reasons in support of the view that they were entitled to benefit of doubt. However, since, there is no appeal filed by the state against their acquittal, we need not detain ourselves to consider this aspect any further.
4. Apart from the eye-witnesses account, the statement of the medical witnesses and the investigating officer who all connect the appellants with the crime, we find that Balu in his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. has for all intent and purposes admitted that on 28.3.1992, an occurrence did take place in which the named accused as well as the named members of the complainant party participated resulting in the death of the deceased. According to him, the accused party attacked the complainant party in defence of Amar Singh and Takdir and in their own defence. However, evidence led by the prosecution which had stood the test of cross-examination well, clearly establishes that plea of self-defence taken by Balu in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. is only an after-thought and has no basis.
5. Our analysis of the judgments and the evidence on the record shows that conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants is well-merited. The appreciation of evidence by the trial court and the High Court suffers from no infirmity whatsoever. This appeal has no merit. It fails and is accordingly dismissed.
