ANIL@ BAWA versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2016] 3 S.C.R. 508 · Decided: 25-02-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. GOPALA GOWDA, ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2016] 3 S.C.R. 508 
ANIL@ BAWA 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 894of2011) 
FEBRUARY 25, 2016 
[V. GOPALA GOWDA AND ARUN MISHRA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: s.302 r/w s.149 - Prosecution case was 
that victim-deceased, son of complainant was assaulted by the 
appellants and other accused with lathis and sword resulting in his 
death on the spot itself - Incident witnessed by father-complainant 
- Conviction by courts below - Challenged on the ground of delayed 
lodging of FIR and plea of false implication - Held: The ocular 
version that the accused persons had inflicted the injuries with 
weapons due to which the victim died was corroborated by medical 
evidence - The doctor clearly stated that injury Nos.I to 10 were 
caused by sharp-edged weapon and the contusion in the form of a 
lathi mark on the back, right side and multiple bruises and contusions 
in the for.111 of lathi marks on the front chest and both arms were 
caused by blunt object like lathi - Thus, the version of the 
complainant was quite reliable - He would be the last person to 
spare the actual assailant and would not implicate the accused 
falsely - He had no enmity with accused persons - Delay in lodging 
the FIR was sati5factorily explained, being father of deceased he 
became unwell for two hours after death of his son - Reading of 
the entire statement of complainant inspired confidence and both 
the courts below accepted the version after ji1ll appreciation of the 
evidence and there were no inherent improbabilities in the version 
unfolded by witness - Thus, conviction was rightly recorded by the 
i::ourts below which called for 110 interference in the appeals. 
The State of U.P. & Anr. 1' Jaggo alias Jagdish & Ors. 
AIR 1971 SC 1586; Bahal Singh v. State of Haryana 
AIR 1976 SC 2032 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
AIR 1971 SC 1586 
referred to 
AIR 1976 SC 2032 
referred to 
508 
Para8 
Para9 
ANIL@ BAWA v. STATE OF HARYANA 
509 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
A 
No. 894 of201 I. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.08.2009 of the High Court 
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 279-DB 
of 2006 
WITH 
Crl. A. Nos. 895 and 898 of201 I 
Pushpinder Singh, Kumar Km1ikay, Aruneshwar Gupta, Ama1j it 
Singh Bedi,Advs. for the Appellant. 
S.U.K. Sagar, Vishwa Pal Singh, Ms. Naresh Bakshi, Rao Ranjit, 
Advs. for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
I. The appeals have been preferred by the accused appellants 
against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 6:8.2009 
passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh thereby 
affirming the conviction recorded by the trial court as against the appellants 
under section 302 read with section 149 sentencing them to undergo life 
imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5,000 each; in default to undergo 
further simple imprisonment for a period of3 months and under section 
148 read with section 302 to undergo RI for one year. 
2. In the inciclent dated 4.7.2003 Pm1ap son of Anand Singh 
PW5 died. Anand Singh lodged the First Information Report at 4.30 
a.m. on 5.7.2003. The incident took place at about 8.30 p.m. It was 
mentioned in the FIR that Partap had gone to Akhara of the village. As 
he did not come back, he along with two others Lakhmi Chand and 
Ramesh went towards Akhara in search of Partap. When they reached 
near veterinary hospital, they saw Ran Singh and Pinda were quarrelling 
with Partap. Ran Singh was armed with a Lathi and Pinda with a sword, 
Roop Chand with a Lathi, Sushi! with sword and Anil alias Bawa also 
armed with a Lathi joined them. They shouted that Partap be taught a 
lesson for having an evil eye on the lady members of the family of the 
accused. Sushi I and Pinda inflicted injuric,; on the hands, stomach, waist 
and chest of Partap. Sushi I gave blows of sword to Partap on the head, 
right hand and on the left of the face of the deceased. Roop Chand and 
Anil alias Bawa inflicted Lathi blows on the person ofPartap. After 
beating Partap accused fled away. Pm1ap succumbed to l1is injuries at 
the place of incident itself. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
510 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 3 S.C.R. 
3. The prosecution examined in all 11 witnesses. Anand Singh 
PW5 is the complainant. The accused abjured their guilt and contended 
that as Partap had tried to outrage the modesty of Monika, villagers 
assembled and gave a beating to Pa

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.