LexRAM CHANDER & ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
B c D E F G [20 17] 1 S.C.R. I 0 RAM CHANDER & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal Nos. 658-659of2010) JANUARY 02, 2017 [A. K. SIKRI AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: ss.148, 3021149 and 2011149 - Double murder - Prosecution case was that the appellants and other accused persons were related to the deceased mother and daughter and were annoyed with them over issue of engagement of daughter - A day prior to the incident they came to the house of deceased and threatened them to cancel the engagement else face dire consequences - PW-9 close relative of the deceased and also staying next door was present when threat was given by the accused persons - Next day, they all came equipped and assaulted both the women resulting in their. death and then they set ablaze the dead bodies - Thereafter they took mvay the ashes, bones and other burnt material in a tractor - The incident was witnessed by PW-9 through space in common wall - Courts below convicted the appellants and other accused persons primarily based on evidence of PW-9 - Appeal agai1.1st conviction on the ground that PW-9 was in close relation with the deceased persons, therefore, she should not be believe</ /'or want of evidence of any independent witness - Held: Close relationship of witness with the deceased or victim is no ground to reject her evidence - Therefore, PW-9 was rightly held to be eyewitness and two courts rightly relied upon her sworn testimony for sustaining appellant's conviction - The disclosure statements made by accused during interrogation on the basis of which the recoveries of incriminating articles were made which. 11'ere duly proved by investigating officer were sufficient to 'sustain the conviction - Evidence adduced was found sufficient to sustain the conviction - No reason to take a different view from one taken by the courts below. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. Both the Courts below were justified in accepting H the evidence of PW-9 for resting the appeliants' conviction upon 10 RAM CHANDER & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA it. The following facts were proved with the aid of evidence. PW- 9 was next-door neighbour to the house of both the deceased where the incident took place. She was closely related to the deceased family and the family of the accused. She was fully aware of the marriage issue of deceased daughter. She was present at the time of threat given by accused to the deceased mother. She was able to see the incident graphically due to sufficient space available in the common wall. The narration by PW-9 of entire incident was so graphic that it looked natural. It also showed how confidently she was able to narrate the role of every accused in commission of the offence. The existence of blood stains on wall and earth coupled with fresh mud and cow dung put on the walls/ earth duly proved by Investigating Officer (PW-11) and PW-7 .~~ corroborated statement of PW-9 that one of the accused before leaving the place of occurrence cleaned the place with mud and cow-dung. It is not possible to give description of an incident in such graphic manner and that too by a middle aged illiterate housewife unless she had actually seen such incident and why should PW-9 give evidence against the appellants and falsely implicate them when there is no evidence to prove their previous animosity. Motive to eliminate the two deceased was proved by -·· PW-9 against the appellants and lastly, nothing could be brought out to shake her testimony in cross-examination. PW-9 was rightly held to be an eye-witness and the two Courts rightly relied upon her sworn testimony for sustaining the appellants' conviction. [Paras 50, 51, 55] [21-F-H; 22-A-E; 23-C-DJ r . . , 2. There was no evidence to prove the fact as to whether 11 A B c D E the canal from where.the recovery of ashes and bones was made, f had any water therein or not at the relevant time. No question was put to any witness ·on this issue and secondly, no independent evidence was brought on record to prove as to whether the canal was full of water or had no water therein. In any event, one could not dispute that bones were recovered from the canal. In the absence of any evidence, which could otherwise be led in any form, this submission at this stage is, therefore, not acceptable. [Para 57) [23-E-F] 3. The incident had taken place during midnight when all the villagers were fast asleep.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.