LexSURESH @ HAKLA versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 1207
,j
SURESH @ HAKLA
A
v.
STATE OF HARYANA
(Criminal Appeal No. 1295 of 2006)
APRIL 7, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 - ss 302, 307 rlw s. 149 and s. 148 -
Murder - Fatal gun shot injuries on account of enmity -
Conviction under sections, by courts below - Challenge to, by c
three of the accused - On appeal held: Conviction of two of
the accused justified since they were named in FIR - ·
Prosecution witnesses clearly described the role played by
them - However, conviction of the other accused set aside
since he was not named in FIR and in the original statement-
D
Role ascribed to him was differently described - There was
r
no evidence to show his participation - He was also not known
to the witnesses - No Test Identification Parade was carried
out.
According to the prosecution case, on the fateful day,
E
on account of enmity, accused SS, LR, BS and SC fired
gun shots at M-Sarpach. M was accompanied by PW-14
and 15-father of M, DR and RP. Accused PP threatened
the witnesses at gun point. Accused took out important
documents, cheque and cash from M's pocket and also
F
the licensed gun of PW-14 from the car and _fled away. M
-1
was taken to the Hospital and was declared dead. PW-15
also suffered injuries in the firing. On basis of the
statement of PW 14, FIR was registered, Investigation was
carried out. The post-mortem examination was conducted G
and five gun shot injuries on the dead body of M were
found. Accused SC, PP and SS were arrested. On their
disclosure statement weapons where recovered. The trial
)
court convicted and sentenced all the accused under
1207
H
1208
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2008] 5 S.C.R.
A section 302, section 307 r/w section 149 and under section
148 IPC, including accused BS and LR since they had
been named in the FIR. Accused S was also convicted
though he was not named in FIR but had figured in the
supplementary statements of the witnesses and his
B involvement was also clear from the statement of PW-15-
injured witness, and was also the driver of the car in which
accused came. The High Court upheld the order. Hence
the present appeal by accused BS, LR and S.
Allowing Criminal Appeal No. 1295 of 2006 and
c dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 1296 of 2006, the Court
HELD: 1. Accused BS and LR were named in the FIR,
the role played by each one of them has been clearly
described by PWs. 14 and 15. Their presence at the spot
D cannot be doubted. PW 15 is an injured witness. As a
matter of fact there has been recovery of the pellet. The
stand that the evidence of Doctor-PW 2 shows fire arm
i
injuries is not possible, is also not correct. He does not
say so. On the contrary, he said that the possibility of
E injuries by fire arm cannot be ruled out. In that view of the
matter, the appeal of accused BS and LR is without merit
and is dismissed. [Para 7) [1214-E-G]
2.1 Appellant S was not named in the FIR and in the
original statement. His role in the incident has been
F described in different manners by PWs 14 and 15. S was
not known to the witnesses. In fact it has been
categorically noted by the High Court that PW-15 has
accepted that he did not know him earlier. There was no
Test Identification Parade. There is also major variance
G as to whether S participated in pulling out the deceased,
while one witness says he did and other says that he was
driving car. [Paras 6 and 8) [1214-G-H; 1215-A; 1214-C-D]
2.2 The High Court drew an inference that because
{
S was a driver in pre-planned murder, the role of such
H driver is crucial. Such an inferential conclusion is without
SURESH @ HAKLA v. STATE OF HARYANA
1209
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT. J.)
any evidence to show participation of accused S. While A
PW 15 stated that S was threatening the witnesses who
were present, PW 14 gave a different version. He did not
speak a word about the participation of accused S. Thus,
the conviction of accused S cannot be maintained and is
set aside. [Para 9) [1215-8-C]
B
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal
Appeal No. 1295 of 2006.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 5.10.2004 of
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. A. c
No. 118-DB/2002
WITH
Criminal Appeal No. 1296 of 2006.
D
'
Nagindra Rai, Rishi Malhotra and Prem Malhotra for the
t
Appellant.
""
Naresh Bakshi and T.V. George for the Respondent. .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.