LexRAJ PAL versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2013) 1 S.C.R. 168 RAJ PAL v. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. !517 of 2008) JANUARY 7, 2013 [DR. B. S. CHAUHAN AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: s. 302134 - Murder - Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment awarded by trial court - Affirmed by High Court - Held: The fatal injuries sustained by deceased could not have been self-inflicted - Once the death was found to be 0 homicidal, the evidence of eye-witnesses becomes relevant and the same being consistent in narrating the manner in which the deceased was attacked by accqsed and co- accused, with specific reference made to weapons used and further supported by the medical evidence, there is no E infirmity in the verdict of courts below - Evidence - FIR. Evidence: Testimony of related witnesses - Murder committed in a farm house - Brother and sister of deceased witnessed the F incident - Held: When the deceased was in one part of the house, while the witnesses and other blood relatives were in some other portion, there would not have been any difficulty for them in rushing to the deceased, who was making a frantic call for help on being attacked by accused with dangerous G weapons - Their version was cogent, natural and convincing and there was no good ground to reject their version on the sole ground that they were interested witnesses. H 168 RAJ PAL v. STATE OF HARYANA 169 FIR: A Delay in registration of FIR - Murder committed late in the night - Victim brought to hospital injured and unconscious - Held: Trial court has held that there was in fact, no delay in carrying out various formalities with regard. to the receipt of 8 'ruka', holding of inquest, recording the statement of the witnesses, registration of FIR and forwarding special report to the magistrate and concluded that the same was carried out within a reasonable time - Further, keeping in view the distance of hospital and Police Station from the place of C occurrence, no exception can be taken with regard to the alleged delay in registration of complaint, in order to hold any infirmity in the case of the prosecution - Delay/Laches. The appellant and the co-accused were prosecuted for murder of the brother of the complainant (PWG). The o prosecution case was that there was a dispute between the appellant and the deceased over a ridge. On the date of occurrence there was an exchange of hot words between the two in this regard. In the late night, PW 6, his sisters and mother heard cries of the deceased from the E · adjoining "Kotha". When they rushed there, they saw that the appellant and the co-accused were pouncing upon the deceased with a "Pharsa" and a "Kulhari". Soon thereafter, the assailants ran away. The injured was taken to the hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries. The trial court convicted the appellant and the co-accused and sentenced them to imprisonment for life and the same was affirmed by the High Court. The appeal of the co- accused had been dismissed. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. At the very outset it may be noted that the deceased was attended on by the doctor (P.W.4), when F G he was admitted in the hospital. P.W.4 has stated that the patient was unconscious and collapsed within about half an hour. In the injury report, he mentioned the incision H 170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 1 S.C.R. A in the trachea, which was exposed and transparent. Post mortem was conducted by P.W.5. A combined reading of the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5 discloses that there was nothing to suspect either of the versions, having regard to the specific role played by P.W.4 whose main concern B was to take every effort to save the life of the person rather than noting down the injuries in detail, as compared to the role played by the post mortem doctor (P.W.5), whose prime duty was to record the details of all the injuries found on the body along with determining the c cause of death. According to P.W.5, injury Nos. 1 and 2 were fatal and could not have been self-inflicted. Once the death of the deceased was found to be homicidal, then the other evidence became relevant to find out as to who was responsible for the death. In that respect there is the 0 evidence of P.Ws. 6 and 7, the brother and sister of the deceased, who were the eye witnesses. [para 12-13] [177- A-B-C-H] 1.2. As far as the plea that P.Ws. 6 and 7 could not have witnessed the incident as nar
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.