The High Court
Case Details
CRA-D-1075-DB-2013 (O&M) and 2013 (O&M) and 2017 (O&M) CRR-3676-2017 (O&M) ( 1 ) In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh At Chandigarh CRA-D-1075-DB-2013 (O&M) CR Vikas & another Vikas & another Haryana State of Haryana Versus … Appellants ... Respondent CR CRR-3676-2017 (O&M) Rajender Singh Rajender Singh State of Haryana Haryana & others Versus … Petitioner ... Respondents Date of Decision:- 16.09.2025 Date of Decision CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA Present: Gautam Dutt and Mr. Sukhsharan Sra, Advocates, Mr. Gautam Dutt and Mr. Sukhsharan Sra, Advocates, for the appellants in CRA-D-1075 1075-DB-2013. Ms. Nidhi Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRR-3676 for the complainant in CRA-D- 3676-2017 and -1075-DB-2013. Sharma, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Munish Sharma, DAG, Haryana. GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J This judgment shall dispose of above is judgment shall dispose of above-mentioned mentioned appeal as well as criminal revision, as it is the same very judgment dated 17.08.2013 passed criminal revision, as it is the same very judgment dated criminal revision, as it is the same very judgment dated by learned Sessions Judge Sessions Judge, Jind, which is being assailed. being assailed. While in CRA-D- 1. 2. 1. 1075-DB-2013 2013, appellants – Vikas and Angrejo Vikas and Angrejo assail their conviction for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, the petitioner – VIMAL KUMAR 2025.09.16 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1075-DB-2013 (O&M) and 2013 (O&M) and 2017 (O&M) CRR-3676-2017 (O&M) ( 2 ) seeks enhancement of sentence as Rajender Singh in CRR-3676-2017 seeks enhancement of sentence as Rajender Singh ikas and Angrejo as well as grant of imposed upon the accused namely Vikas and Angrejo as well as grant of imposed upon Vide impugned judgment, the accused have been compensation. Vide impugned judgment, the accused have been compensation. sentenced as under: sentenced as under: Under Section Under Section 302 read with 302 Section 34 IPC Section 34 IPC rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay - To undergo rigorous a fine of Rs.50,000/- each and in default of payment of a fine of Rs.50,000/ RI for a further period of one year fine to undergo RI for a further period of one year each. 2.
Legal Reasoning
73 dated 22.02.2012, under Sections The matter arises out of FIR No.73 dated 22.02.2012, under Sections The matter arises out of FIR No. 302/34 IPC, Police Station City Jind (Ex.P 302/34 IPC (Ex.PA/2) lodged at the instance of Rajender. The translated gist of The translated gist of Rajender’s Rajender’s statement (Ex.PA) leading to recording of FIR reads as under: recording of FIR reads as under: am a labourer. “I am resident of Neta Ji Colony, Hansi Road, Jind and I am a labourer. “I am resident of Neta Ji Colony, Hansi Road, Jind and I “I am resident of Neta Ji Colony, Hansi Road, Jind and I I have two sons namely Parmod and Sushil I have Parmod and Sushil, whereas my daughter Rupali has been adopted by my sister-in-law Meena. has been adopted law Meena. My son Parmod visited after appearing in the final examinations of polytechnic at the house after appearing in the final examinations of polytechnic at the house Pundari and used to distribute ‘Aaj Samaj Pundari and Aaj Samaj’ newspaper to people’s homes early in the morning. On 20.02.2012 at about 1.00/1.30 PM, early in the morning. 2.2012 at about 1.00/1.30 PM, when my Parmod, wife Poonam, brother Satish and Amarjit, son of my sister- Parmod, wife Poonam, brother Satish and Amarjit son Parmod, wife Poonam, brother Satish and Amarjit in-law law, were sitting on the roof of their their house, Vikas son of Sant Ram came there and said that if in future we came there in future we were found sitting on the roof, it will not be good for us and that he will finish will not be good will finish us and started abusing us. Upon this, my wife replied that we were Upon this, my wife were sitting on our roof and that he could not object for the same. However, he continued could not object for the same. However, he continued hurling abuses. Mother of Vikas also reached there and said that her son is young and he other of Vikas also reached there and said that her son is young and he will do what he wants. However, my will do wife settled the matter and then they went to their houses went to their houses, but Vikas bore bore a grudge in his mind. Today i.e. on 22.02.2012 about 9.30 AM, when i.e. on 22 when my son Parmod left the house Pokhari Kheri for taking bill of newspapers and reached in the street for Pokhari Kheri for taking bill of newspapers and reached in the street Pokhari Kheri for taking bill of newspapers and reached in the street near the electric pole ahead of the house, Vikas caught hold of my son near the electric pole ahead of the house, Vikas caught hold near the electric pole ahead of the house, Vikas caught hold Parmod from his neck. His mother also Parmod mother also followed him while hurling VIMAL KUMAR 2025.09.16 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1075-DB-2013 (O&M) and 2013 (O&M) and 2017 (O&M) CRR-3676-2017 (O&M) ( 3 ) Poonam and brother Satish rushed abuses. Upon hearing noise, my wife Poonam and brother Satish rushed abuses to the spot. Vikas inflicted a blow with to the spot. Vikas inflicted a blow with ‘sua’ (bodkin) on the chest of Parmod and then on his waist as a result of which Parmod and then on his waist as a result of which my son Parmod fell MAR DIYA MAR DIYA and rescued down. We raised alarm of MAR DIYA MAR DIYA and rescued down Parmod from Vikas and his mother. Parmod from Vikas and his I and my mother Dhanpati also reached at the spot. Thereafter, we reached we took Parmod to the Doctor for son Parmod succumbed to the injuries before reaching treatment, but my son Parmod succumbed to the injuries before reaching treatment, but Civil Hospital. My son Parmod has been killed by those Civil Hospital. son Parmod has been killed by those heinous persons aimlessly by giving him injuries. Strict action be taken against them. Sd/- aimlessly by giving him injuries. Strict action be taken against them. aimlessly by giving him injuries. Strict action be taken against them. Rajender Singh” Rajender Singh 3. The matter was investigated by the police during the course of which The matter was investigated by the police during the course of which The matter was investigated by the police during the course of which inquest proceedings were conducted. The post-mortem examination was inquest proceedings were conducted. The post inquest proceedings were conducted. The post also got conducted . The police visited the place of conducted on the dead body. The police visited the place of occurrence and prepared a rough site plan (Ex.PQ). Statements of the occurrence and prepared a rough site plan (Ex.PQ). occurrence and prepared a rough site plan (Ex.PQ). witnesses were recorded. The accused were also arrested the same day. It witnesses were recorded. The accused were also arrested the same day. witnesses were recorded. The accused were also arrested the same day. upon interrogation, accused Vikas suffered is the case of prosecution that upon interrogation, accused Vikas suffered is the case of prosecution that a disclosure statement (Ex.PO) pursuant to which he got recovered a ‘sua’ a disclosure statement (Ex.PO) pursuant to which he got recovered a a disclosure statement (Ex.PO) pursuant to which he got recovered a allegedly used for commission of offence. (bodkin) allegedly used for commission of offence. allegedly used for commission of offence. 4. Upon conclusion of investigation, conclusion of investigation, challan was presented against challan was presented against accused Vikas and Angrejo in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind Vikas and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind on , who committed the case to the Court of Sessions vide order 09.05.2012, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions vide order , who committed the case to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 24.05.2012 24.05.2012. Learned Sessions Judge . Learned Sessions Judge, Jind framed charges against both the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC both the accused 302 read with Section 34 IPC on 07.06.2012 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 07.06.2012 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After recording of examination-in-chief of the complainant ( recording of the complainant (PW-1 Rajender) on , the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 13.08.2012, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 , the prosecution moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. seeking summoning of additional accused namely Sant Ram Cr.P.C. seeking . summoning of additional accused namely Sant Ram. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.09.16 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1075-DB-2013 (O&M) and 2013 (O&M) and 2017 (O&M) CRR-3676-2017 (O&M) ( 4 ) However, the said application was dismissed However, the said application dismissed by the trial Court vide order 21.08.2012. dated 21.08.2012. 5. The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as 13 The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as PWs. The gist of their statements is The gist of their statements is briefly referred to herein briefly referred to herein under:- Rajender (complainant) stated in tune with his statement (Ex.PA) PW-1 Rajender (complainant) stated in tune with his statement (Ex.PA) Rajender (complainant) stated in tune with his statement (Ex.PA) been lodged, wherein he has on the basis of which FIR had been lodged, wherein he has on the basis of which FIR ha categorically stated that on the day of occurrence, his son Parmod categorically stated that on the day of occurrence, his son Parmod categorically stated that on the day of occurrence, his son Parmod f by Angrejo and Sant Ram, while (deceased) was caught hold off by Angrejo and Sant Ram, while (deceased) was caught hold o accused Vikas inflicted injuries to him with a ‘sua’ (bodkin) on accused Vikas inflicted injuries to him with a accused Vikas inflicted injuries to him with a his back and chest. his back and chest PW-2 Satish, who is an eye witness, stated in tune with the case of Satish, who is an eye-witness, stated in tune with the case of prosecution to the effect that while prosecution to the effect that while Angrejo gave fist blows and Sant Ram caught hold of him and Vikas kicked the deceased, Sant Ram caught hold of him and Vikas kicked (bodkin) blows to the deceased. inflicted ‘sua’ (bodkin) blows to the deceased. inflicted Poonam, wife of Rajender (complainant), who is also stated to be PW-3 Poonam, wife of Rajender (complainant), who is also stated to be Poonam, wife of Rajender (complainant), who is also stated to be present when the occurrence took place, stated identically as present when the occurrence took place, stated present when the occurrence took place, stated stated by PW-2 Satish regarding the manner of occurrence. stated by regarding the manner of occurrence. She stated that while Angrejo gave fist blows and kicks, co-accused stated that while Angrejo gave fist blows and kicks, co stated that while Angrejo gave fist blows and kicks, co Sant Ram caught hold of deceased and Vikas inflicted blows with Sant Ram caught hold of deceased and Vikas inflicted blows with Sant Ram caught hold of deceased and Vikas inflicted blows with ‘sua’ to deceased on his chest and back. ‘sua’ to deceased on his chest and back. Dalbir, who is a witness to the recovery of ‘sua’ (bodkin) at the Dalbir, who is a witness to the recovery of PW-4 Dalbir, who is a witness to the recovery of instance of accused Vikas, specifically stated that on 23.02.2012, instance of accused Vikas, specifically stated instance of accused Vikas, specifically stated he had joined the investigation and that Vikas had led the police he had joined the investigation and that Vikas had led the police he had joined the investigation and that Vikas had led the police party and got recovered a ‘sua’ (bodkin) from the place party and got recovered a (bodkin) from the place disclosed by him, which was taken into possession vide recovery memo by him, which was taken into possession vide recovery memo by him, which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PC. Ex.PC. Kuldeep Gupta, Draftsman, stated that he had prepared the scaled PW-5 Kuldeep Gupta, Draftsman, stated that he had prepared the scaled Kuldeep Gupta, Draftsman, stated that he had prepared the scaled site plan and proved the same as Ex.PD. site plan and proved the same as Ex.PD. site plan and proved the same as Ex.PD. VIMAL KUMAR 2025.09.16 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1075-DB-2013 (O&M) and 2013 (O&M) and 2017 (O&M) CRR-3676-2017 (O&M) ( 5 ) PW-6 Dr. Arvind Kumar, Dr. Arvind Kumar, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Jind, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Jind, who mortem examination on the dead body of had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of had conducted post Parmod, apart from proving the post Parmod post-mortem report as Ex.PF, tendered his affidavit Ex.PE in evidence, wherein he described the tendered his affidavit Ex.PE in evidence tendered his affidavit Ex.PE in evidence and opined that the cause of death injuries found on the dead body and opined that the cause of death injuries found on the dead body shock & haemorrhage due to hemoperitonium and was due to shock & haemorrhage due to hemoperitonium and was due to , which were ante mortem in nature injury to vital organ i.e. Liver, which were ante mortem in nature injury to vital organ i.e. Liver & sufficient to cause death in normal course of nature. & sufficient to cause death in normal course of nature. & sufficient to cause death in normal course of nature. PW-7 Krishan Kumar stated that on Krishan Kumar stated that on 22.02 22.02.2012, he was posted as Sub Inspector at Police Station City Jind and that upon receipt of Inspector at Police Station City Jind and that upon receipt of Inspector at Police Station City Jind and that upon receipt of statement Ex.PA of Rajender, he had recorded formal FIR Ex.PJ. statement Ex.PA of Rajender, he had recorded formal FIR statement Ex.PA of Rajender, he had recorded formal FIR PW-8 HC Narender Singh HC Narender Singh stated that pursuant to recording of stated that pursuant to recording of FIR, he had delivered the special reports to the Illaqa Magistrate. had delivered the special reports to the Illaqa Magistrate. had delivered the special reports to the Illaqa Magistrate. PW-9 EASI Hawa Singh, who is a formal witness, tendered his affidavit EASI Hawa Singh, who is a formal witness, tendered his affidavit Ex.PK in evidence, wherein he deposed Ex.P in evidence, wherein he deposed regarding his having handled the case property. handled the case property PW-10 EASI Ramroop 22.02.2012 he had joined the EASI Ramroop stated that on 22.02.2012 he had joined the investigation of investigation of investigation of the case and the case and the case and that after that after that after the post-mortem the post the post examination had been conducted, the Doctor had handed over him examination had been conducted, the Doctor had handed over him examination had been conducted, the Doctor had handed over him sealed parcel containing clothes of the deceased, which he sealed parcel containing clothes of the deceased, which he sealed parcel containing clothes of the deceased, which he htash Singh, who took the same produced before the Inspector Rohtash Singh, who took the same produced before the Inspector Ro into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PL. into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PL. into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PL. PW-11 SI Ram Chander 22.02.2012, he was posted as SI Ram Chander stated that on 22.02.2012, he was posted as Incharge, Police Post Patiala Chowk, Jind and upon receipt of a Incharge, Police Post Patiala Chowk, J Incharge, Police Post Patiala Chowk, J telephonic message regarding arrival of a dead body in the telephonic message regarding arrival of a dead body in the telephonic message regarding arrival of a dead body in the General Hospital, Jind, he proceeded to the hospital and recorded General Hospital, Jind, he proceeded to the hospital and recorded General Hospital, Jind, he proceeded to the hospital and recorded the statement of Rajender (complainant). PW-11 further stated the statement of Rajender (complainant) the statement of Rajender (complainant) that he also conducted inquest proceedings an that he also inquest proceedings and moved an mortem examination conduced and application for getting post-mortem examination conduced and application for getting post VIMAL KUMAR 2025.09.16 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1075-DB-2013 (O&M) and 2013 (O&M) and 2017 (O&M) CRR-3676-2017 (O&M) ( 6 ) had also recorded statements of PWs Raju and Dinesh Kumar and had also recorded statements of PWs Raju and had also recorded statements of PWs Raju and had also visited the place of occurrence and that subsequently had also visited the place of occurrence and that subsequently had also visited the place of occurrence and that subsequently investigation was taken over by Inspector Rohtash Singh. investigation was taken over by Inspector Rohtash Singh. investigation was taken over by Inspector Rohtash Singh. PW-12 EHC Paramjit Singh from tendering into evidence his EHC Paramjit Singh, apart from tendering into evidence his 22.02.2012, he was posted at Police affidavit Ex.PP, stated that on 22.02.2012, he was posted at Police affidavit Ex.PP, stated that on and had joined investigation with SI Post Patiala Chowk, Jind and had joined investigation with SI Post Patiala Chowk, Jind Ram Chander and that the accused Vikas was interrogated in his Ram Chander and that the accused Vikas was interrogated in hi Ram Chander and that the accused Vikas was interrogated in hi presence during the course of which he had made disclosure presence during the course of which he had made disclosure presence during the course of which he had made disclosure statement Ex.PO. statement Ex.PO. PW-13 Inspector , who had investigated the case, stated in Inspector Rohtash Singh, who had investigated the case, stated in detail with regard to the investigation conducted by him and detail with regard to the investigation conducted by him and detail with regard to the investigation conducted by him and proved various documents and memos prepared during the course proved various documents and memos prepared during the course proved various documents and memos prepared during the course of investigation. He also stated with regard to the disclosure of investigation. He also stated with regard to the disclosure of investigation. He also stated with regard to the disclosure statement Ex.PO made by accused Vikas and the recovery of statement Ex.PO made by ac cused Vikas and the recovery of a ‘sua’ (bodkin) effected pursuant to the said disclosure statement. ‘sua’ effected pursuant to the said disclosure statement. 6. Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of both the accused Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of were recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they denied the were recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., were recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., case of prosecution and pleaded false implication. In their defence, the case of prosecution and pleaded false implication. case of prosecution and pleaded false implication. accused have examined DW-1 SI Karam Singh accused have examined SI Karam Singh, who had brought the original status report dated 16.05.2012 and proved the photocopy thereof original status report dated 16.05.2012 and proved the photocopy thereof original status report dated 16.05.2012 and proved the photocopy thereof as Ex.DA. 7. The learned trial Court, upon appraisal of The learned trial Court, upon of the evidence on record, held that the charges framed against the accused Vikas and Angrejo were fully that the charges framed against the accused Vikas and Angrejo were fully that the charges framed against the accused Vikas and Angrejo were fully both the accused for offence substantiated and accordingly convicted both the accused for offence substantiated and accordingly convicted punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC vide judgment punishable under Section 302 read with Sec punishable under Section 302 read with Sec VIMAL KUMAR 2025.09.16 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1075-DB-2013 (O&M) and 2013 (O&M) and 2017 (O&M) CRR-3676-2017 (O&M) ( 7 ) dated 17.08.2013 and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life 17.08.2013 and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life apart from imposing fine amounting to Rs.50,000/- on each of them. apart from imposing fine amounting to Rs.50,000/ apart from imposing fine amounting to Rs.50,000/ 8. Aggrieved by the same, while the appellants Aggrieved by the same, while appellants - Vikas and Angrejo preferred CRA-D-1075-DB-2013, the complainant preferred CRA complainant – Rajender has filed CRR-3676- -2017, as stated above. 9.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the appellants – Vikas and Angrejo Learned counsel for the Vikas and Angrejo, while assailing their conviction, submitted that conviction, submitted that they have falsely been implicated in the present case and that apart from the fact that all the eye present case and that apart from the fact that all the eye-witnesses are interested witnesses being relatives of the deceased, their statements are interested witnesses being relatives of the deceased, their statements are interested witnesses being relatives of the deceased, their statements are also not consistent and in fact a vain effort was made by them during the also not consistent and in fact a vain effort was made by them during the also not consistent and in fact a vain effort was made by them during the course of their statements to spread the net wider and they named a third course of their statements to spread the net wider and course of their statements to spread the net wider and person namely Sant Pal as well to be an accused although his name does person namely Sant Pal as well to be an accused although his name does person namely Sant Pal as well to be an accused although his name does Learned counsel further submitted that even figure anywhere in the FIR. Learned counsel further submitted that even figure anywhere the motive alleged is too flimsy to have actually prompted the accused to the motive alleged is too flimsy to have actually prompted the accused to the motive alleged is too flimsy to have actually prompted the accused to eased. Learned counsel further submitted that as a have killed the deceased. Learned counsel further submitted that as a have killed the dec matter of fact it is a case where the deceased was killed by someone else matter of fact it is a case where the deceased was killed by someone else matter of fact it is a case where the deceased was killed by someone else and the accused have been named falsely on account of some minor and the accused have been named falsely on account of some minor and the accused have been named falsely on account of some minor skirmish amongst neighbours. amongst neighbours. 10. It has also been submitted that the medical evidence in fact negates the also been submitted that the medical evidence in fact negates the case of prosecution and it cannot be said that the deceased had lost his life case of prosecution and it cannot be said that the deceased had lost his life case of prosecution and it cannot be said that the deceased had lost his life on account of the alleged blows with a ‘sua’ on account of the alleged blows with a ‘sua’ (bodkin). Learned counsel for the appellants, while referring to the st for the appellants, while referring to the statement of PW-6 Dr. Arvind submitted that the Doctor having stated that the injuries were Kumar, submitted that the Doctor having stated that the injuries were submitted that the Doctor having stated that the injuries were , the accused even if said to have inflicted the said injuries skin-deep, the accused even if said to have inflicted the said injuries , the accused even if said to have inflicted the said injuries VIMAL KUMAR 2025.09.16 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1075-DB-2013 (O&M) and 2013 (O&M) and 2017 (O&M) CRR-3676-2017 (O&M) ( 8 ) cannot be attributed the offence of murder. Learned counsel, thus, prayed cannot be attributed the offence of murder. Learned counsel, thus, prayed cannot be attributed the offence of murder. Learned counsel, thus, prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgment and for acquittal of both the aside of the impugned judgment and for acquittal of both the accused. On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that having regard to 11. On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that having regard to On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that having regard to witnesses supported by the medical the consistent version of the eye-witnesses supported by the medical the consistent version of the eye rence in the impugned judgment. evidence, there is no room for interference in the impugned judgment. rence in the impugned judgment. evidence, there is no room for interfe Learned counsel representing Learned counsel representing Learned counsel representing the complainant/petitioner, however, the complainant/petitioner, however, the complainant/petitioner, however, submitted that it is a case where a more stringent punishment ought to submitted that it is a case where a more stringent punishment ought to submitted that it is a case where a more stringent punishment ought to have been awarded awarded and in any case a heavier heavier fine including compensation been imposed upon the accused. ought to have been imposed upon the accused. ought to have We have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court and 12. We have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court and We have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court and with the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record of the with the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record of the with the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record of the case. 13. Since it is a case the medical evidence needs to be Since it is a case of homicidal death, the medical evidence needs to be scrutinized. PW-6 Dr. Arvind Kumar, who had conducted scrutinized. PW , who had conducted the post- mortem examination on the dead body of Parmod, proved the post- mortem examination on the dead body of mortem examination on the dead body of 6 Dr. Arvind Kumar tendered into evidence mortem report as Ex.PF. PW-6 Dr. Arvind Kumar tendered into evidence mortem report as Ex. described the injuries found on the dead his affidavit Ex.PE, wherein he described the injuries found on the dead his affidavit Ex.PE, where body as under: body as under: “1. Multiple punctured wound of size 0.5x0.5 cm, round in shape. Five punctured Multiple punctured wound of size 0.5x0.5 cm, round in shape. Five punctured over left shoulder, one over on anterior aspect of chest 6 cm wound present over left shoulder, one over on anterior aspect of chest 6 cm wound present below and 2 cm lateral to mid line on right side, one over right flank, on below and 2 cm lateral to mid line on right side, one over right flank, on below and 2 cm lateral to mid line on right side, one over right flank, on dissection all were skin deep, on further dissection thoracic cavity and its dissection all were skin deep, on further dissection thoracic cavity dissection all were skin deep, on further dissection thoracic cavity contents were found normal. On opening of peritoneal cavity was found full of contents were found normal. On opening of contents were found normal. On opening of blood approximately 3.5 lt. (Hemoperitonium) and liver was found lacerated.” blood approximately 3.5 lt. (Hemoperitonium) and liver blood approximately 3.5 lt. (Hemoperitonium) and liver VIMAL KUMAR 2025.09.16 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1075-DB-2013 (O&M) and 2013 (O&M) and 2017 (O&M) CRR-3676-2017 (O&M) ( 9 ) 14. While opining opining as regards cause of death, PW cause of death, PW-6 Dr. Arvind Kumar stated as under: Opinion – In my opinion, the cause of death in this case “Opinion In my opinion, the cause of death in this case was due to shock & haemorrhage due to Hemoperitonium and injury to vital organ shock & haemorrhage due to Hemoperitonium and injury to vital organ shock & haemorrhage due to Hemoperitonium and injury to vital organ i.e. Liver, which were ante mortem in nature & sufficient to cause death i.e. Liver, which were ante mortem in nature & sufficient to cause death i.e. Liver, which were ante mortem in nature & sufficient to cause death in normal course of nature.” in normal course of nature. Learned counsel for the accused/appellants, however, drew the attention 15. Learned counsel for the accused/appellants, however, drew the attention Learned counsel for the accused/appellants, however, drew the attention of this Court to the cross-examination of the said witness i.e. PW of this Court to the cross examination of the said witness i.e. PW-6 Dr. Arvind Kumar, which is reproduced herein under: Arvind Kumar, which is reproduced herein under: Arvind Kumar, which is reproduced herein under: “I gave my opinion on 28.02.2012 on police request at about I gave my opinion on 28.02.2012 on police request at about 10/11.00 A.M. I gave my opinion on 28.02.2012 on police request at about However, I had not mentioned the time on opinion Ex.PI/1. I had also not However, I had not mentioned the time on opinion Ex.PI/1. I had also not However, I had not mentioned the time on opinion Ex.PI/1. I had also not mentioned the length and width of the bodkin in my opinion. I had not noticed mentioned the length and width of the bodkin in my opinion. I had not noticed mentioned the length and width of the bodkin in my opinion. I had not noticed the blood on the bodkin at that time. The dead body was brought in the hospital the blood on the bodkin at that time. The dead body was brought in the hospital the blood on the bodkin at that time. The dead body was brought in the hospital A.M. There was no hole on the clothes of the deceased. There at about 10.30 A.M. There was no hole on the clothes of the deceased. There at about 10.30 was no specific mark on the clothes. I do not remember whether the parents of was no specific mark on the clothes. I do not remember whether the parents of was no specific mark on the clothes. I do not remember whether the parents of me in the hospital on that day. All the injuries on the dead the deceased met me in the hospital on that day. All the injuries on the dead the deceased met ath was not due to bodkin injuries, but body of Parmod were superficial and death was not due to bodkin injuries, but body of Parmod were superficial and de it was due to massive amount of blood in peritoneal cavity and injuries to liver. it was due to massive amount of blood in peritoneal cavity and injuries to liver. it was due to massive amount of blood in peritoneal cavity and injuries to liver. It is incorrect to suggest that I had conducted the post mortem examination as It is incorrect to suggest that I had conducted the post mortem examination as It is incorrect to suggest that I had conducted the post mortem examination as per desire of the police.” per desire of the police.” 16. Learned counsel for the accused/appellants vehemently argued that since Learned counsel for the accused/appellants vehemently argued that since no hole was found on the clothes of the deceased and all the injuries have no hole was found on the clothes of the deceased and all the injuries no hole was found on the clothes of the deceased and all the injuries been described as ‘superficial’ during cross been described as during cross-examination and the Doctor has even stated that the death was not due to bodkin injuries, the accused has even stated that the death was not due to bodkin injuries has even stated that the death was not due to bodkin injuries cannot be held responsible for having murdered the deceased. cannot be held responsible for having murdered the deceased. cannot be held responsible for having murdered the deceased. We do find that during the course of cross-examination the witness did We do find that during the course of cross 17. We do find that during the course of cross state that the injuries were ‘superficial’ and that the death was not due to state that the injuries were ‘superficial’ and that the death was not due to state that the injuries were ‘superficial’ and that the death was not due to VIMAL KUMAR 2025.09.16 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-1075-DB-2013 (O&M) and 2013 (O&M) and 2017 (O&M) CRR-3676-2017 (O&M) ( 10 ) ‘sua’ (bodkin) injuries, bu t he has very categorically added in that very (bodkin) injuries, but he has very categorically added in that very sentence that the death was due to massive amount of blood in peritoneal sentence that the death was due to massive amount of blood in peritoneal sentence that the death was due to massive amount of blood in peritoneal cavity and on account of injuries to liver. When anybody cavity and on account of injuries to liver. When anybody is stabbed with a thin pointed object, the visible external injury would be a thin pointed external injury would be very small on account of elasticity of the skin and the visible hole account of elastic the visible hole could even be less However, a sharp pointed substance, such than a centimeter in diameter. However, a sharp pointed substance, such than a centimeter in diameter. (bodkin) as in the present case, which measured about 4 ½ inches as, ‘sua’ (bodkin) as in the present case, which measured about 4 ½ inches (bodkin) as in the present case, which measured about 4 ½ inches damage to the internal organs as had long can cause extensive internal damage to the internal organs as had long can cause exten apparently been done in the present case inasmuch as the liver had been apparently been done in the present case inasmuch as the liver had been apparently been done in the present case inasmuch as the liver had been peritoneal cavity. lacerated and there was extensive bleeding in the peritoneal cavity. lacerated and there was extensive bleeding in the lacerated and there was extensive bleeding in the Further, the time between the injury and the death has been opined to be Further, the time between the injury and the death has been opi Further, the time between the injury and the death has been opi As such, it can safely be concluded that the within 6 to 36 hours. As such, it can safely be concluded that the within 6 to 36 hours. deceased lost his life on account of multiple injuries sustained by him deceased lost his life on account of multiple injuries sustained by him deceased lost his life on account of multiple injuries sustained by him (bodkin). with some sharp pointed object like ‘sua’ (bodkin). with some sharp pointed object like 18. As regards the contention that all the eye witnesses are close relatives of As regards the contention that all the eye-witnesses are close relatives of the deceased, and thus would be 'interested' the deceased, and thus would be 'interested' witnesses, the difference between an 'interested' and a 'related' witnesses stands well defined in a between an 'interested' and a 'related' witnesses stands well defined in a between an 'interested' and a 'related' witnesses stands well defined in a plethora of cases, stating that a witness may be called interested only plethora of cases, stating that a witness may be called interested only plethora of cases, stating that a witness may be called interested only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation. A three when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation. A three when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation. A three Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki, Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in