LexRAJENDER SINGH & ANR. versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 108 A RAJENDER SINGH & ANR. v. ST ATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 1662-1663 of 2005) JANUARY 9, 2009 B [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA AND B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.] ~ Penal Code, 1860 - s. 3021342 read with s. 34 - Murder c and wrongful confinement - Accused persons wrongfully confined deceased and beat him resulting in fatal injuries - Conviction under, of accused persons except one - High Cqurt upheld conviction of A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4, however, acquitted A-5 and A-7 - Interference with - Held: Not called D for- Evidence of prosecution witnesses was satisfactory and reliable - Even though they were related to deceased, their • evidence could not be discarded - Opinion of doctor that "' injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of ' nature - There was motive for accused to commit murder of E deceased - There was no reliable and clinching evidence against A-5, A-6 and A-7 - All other accused constructively liable uls. 302 rlw. s. 34 though fatal injury was inflicted by A- 1 only, as other accused participated in giving beatings to deceased. F Prosecution case was that on the fateful day the accused persons murdered D. They wrongfully confined D in the house of appellant-A-1. A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A- 7 and A-6 tied the hands and legs of D with a rope and inserted a wooden stick in the anus of D resulting in fatal G injuries. PW-9-jeep driver had informed PW-10-brother of D's grand father that accused persons had confined D. PW-1 father of D, PW-11-grandfather of D and PW-10 rushed to the house of A-1. They all heard the shrieks of D and witnessed the incident in the electric bulb light. It H 108 RAJENDER SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA 109 was within their sight. When PW-1, PW-11 and PW-10 A raised an alarm appellants fled away and took stick and piece of rope with them. Motive behind the alleged occurrence was that a year ago, A-1 had registered a case against D u/s. 376 IPC in which D was acquitted. FIR was registered. Investigation was carried out. Post B mortem examination of body of D was carried out. The doctor-PW-8 opined that stick could cause fatal injury to .,_ the deceased. Witnesses were examined. A-1, A-2, A-3, and A-4 were arrested. On their disclosure statement the stick and the rope were recovered. Trial court held A-1, A-2, A- c 3, A-4, A-5 and A-7 guilty of the charges and convicted and sentenced them u/s. 302/342 read with s. 34 IPC, however, acquitted A-6. High Court dismissed the appeals of A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4, however, allowed the appeals of A-5 and A-7 and acquitted them. Hence the present D ~ appeals. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 In the teeth of the evidence of eye- witnesses PW-1-father of the deceased and PW-11- E grandfather of the deceased, corroborated by the ·testimony of PW-9-jeep driver and PW-10-uncle of deceased's father, it is established beyond any doubt that in fact the occurrence had taken place at the given time "." in the house of A-1 where the dead body of D was found lying by the police which was sent to the doctor for post F mortem examination. PW-1 immediately lodged complaint of the incident to PW-14-ASI who met him 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 G in the village when the Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence. A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 were produced before PW-12-S.I. by resident of the same village. Recovery of two pieces of 'danda' and 'rope', taken into possession by PW-12 pursuant to the disclosure H 110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S. C.R. A statement made by A-1 during the course of interrogation "' was proved which were used by the appellants in the commission of the offence. The ocular version of PW-1 and PW-11 was further corroborated by the doctor, who found as many as 12 injuries on the dead body of D. [Para B 21] [120-F-H; 121-A-C] 1.2. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death of D was shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries _, to the vital organs which were ante-mortem in nature and c sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. [Para 22] [123-B-C] 1.3. On reappraisal and scrutiny of the evidence no parUcular reason could be found as to why the two eyewitnesses PW-1 and PW-11 should falsely depose D against the appellants. It is difficult to be
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.