Sardar Singh and others State of Haryana II. Inder Dev State of Haryana v. Vs
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I. CRA-S-616-SB-2004 Sardar Singh and others State of Haryana II. Inder Dev State of Haryana Vs. Vs. . . . . Appellants . . . . Respondent CRA-S-646-SB-2004 . . . . Appellant . . . . Respondent **** Reserved on: 24.03.2025 Pronounced on: 25.03.2025 **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate for the appellants.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. R.K.S. Brar, Addl. AG, Haryana. DEEPAK GUPTA, J. **** In a case arising out of FIR No.255 dated 10.11.2000 registered at Police Sta-on Chhainsa, six accused namely Inder Dev, Sardar Singh, Nahar Singh, Shamsher Singh, Satbir Singh and Ram Singh were tried for commi2ng offences under Sec-ons 323, 307 and 120-B of the IPC. 2.1 Vide judgment dated 10.03.2004, court of learned Addi-onal Ses- sions Judge (Ad hoc), Faridabad held all six of them to be guilty and convicted them under Sec-on 120-B IPC. In addi-on, accused Inder Dev was also held guilty and convicted under Sec-ons 307 and 323 IPC. Vide a separate order of the even date, Inder Dev was sentenced as under: 307 IPC (cid:1) Imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of ₹2,000/- with default sentence of six months. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.03.25 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-616-SB-2004 CRA-S-646-SB-2004 323 IPC 120-B IPC (cid:1) (cid:1) Fine of ₹1,000/- with default sentence of three months’ imprisonment Imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of ₹1,000/- with default sentence of three months’ imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2.2 The remaining five accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay fine of ₹1,000/- each for com- mi2ng the offence under Sec-on 120-B IPC with default sentence of three months imprisonment. 3. Against the aforesaid convic-on and sentence, the present two ap- peals were filed, one by Inder Dev, and the other by the remaining five convicts. 4. During pendency of the appeal, three of the appellants namely Sardar Singh, Shamsher singh and Satbir Singh have expired and as such, pro- ceedings qua all three of them stood abated. 5. Thus, this court is now concerned with the appeals pertaining to appellant Inder Dev in CRA-S-646-SB-2004; and appellants Nahar Singh & Ram Singh in CRA-S-616-SB-2004. 6.1 As it emerges on perusal of the paper-book, on 10.11.2000 ASI Kr- ishan Lal (PW-12) went to Escorts Medical Centre Faridabad, where RaFan (PW- 2) met him and made statement Ex.PB sta-ng therein that on 9.11.2000 at about 8:50 pm, he, his brother Mahabir (PW-1) and Mahabir's wife Parva- (PW- 3) were si2ng in the Kotha of the tubewell in the fields of village Jawa, where two young boys, aged about 20-25 years, came and pressed the mouths of Ma- habir and Parwa-. During scuffle, one of them fired shots upon Mahabir and the other upon Parwa-. The shots hit the right hand, and leK side abdomen of Ma- habir, and the leK side of the forehead of Parwa-. Upon hearing the alarm raised by RaFan, several persons came there, at which the two assailants fled NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.03.25 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 2 of 7 CRA-S-616-SB-2004 CRA-S-646-SB-2004 away from the spot. It was claimed that he (RaFan), Mahabir and Parwa- could iden-fy the assailants, if they came face to face before them. 6.2 On the basis of the aforesaid statement Ex.PB, formal FIR was recorded under sec-ons 323 & 307 IPC and sec-on 25 of Arms Act (copy Ex. PJ) and inves-ga-on was ini-ated. Statements of Mahabir and Parwa- were recorded under sec-on 161 CrPC on 13.11.2000, who made statements on the same lines. On 27.12.2000, both RaFan and Mahabir made supplementary statements under sec-on 161 CrPC that as per their enquiries, one of the as- sailants was Inder Dev resident of village Alika, without disclosing the basis of this belief. Accused Inder Dev was arrested on 4.1.2001. Nothing could be recov- ered from him. He alone was prosecuted by the police vide challan report dated 14.1.2001. 6.3 During pendency of the case against Inder Dev, the police carried out further inves-ga-on and submiFed a supplementary challan under sec-on 173(8) of CrPC against the remaining accused namely, Sardar Singh, Nahar Singh, Shamsher Singh, Satbir Singh and Ram Singh on the basis of statements of PW-9 Rajender Singh, PW-10 Harkesh and the Mahender, who stated that they had over-heard conversa-on between the above accused persons while hatching a conspiracy to eliminate Mahabir PW-7 who was helping Jagdish in some land li-ga-on with Sardar Singh accused. 6.4 On the basis of both the challan reports, the accused persons were charged on 23.8.2001 for the commission of the offences under sec-ons 307, 323 and 120B IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6.5 To prove its case, the prosecu-on examined as many as 12 wit- nesses. The material witnesses are Mahabir PW-1, RaFan PW-2, Parwa- PW-3, Dr. Rakesh Singh PW-7, Raghubir Singh, Inspector Police PW-8, Rajender PW-9, Harkesh PW-10 and ASI Krishan Lal PW-12. 6.6 In their statements recorded under Sec-on 313 Cr.PC, the accused pleaded their false implica-on by taking the plea of their strained rela-ons with NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.03.25 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 3 of 7 CRA-S-616-SB-2004 CRA-S-646-SB-2004 Mahabir PW-1. 6.7 AKer hearing both the sides, trial court found all the accused to be guilty and convicted and sentenced them, as per details given earlier. 7. It is vehemently contended by learned counsel for the appellants that convic-on of the appellants is the result of complete misapprecia-on of ev- idence on record, indica-ng their false implica-on. On the other hand, learned State counsel has defended the impugned judgment of convic-on and order of sentence. 8. This Court has considered submissions of both the sides and have perused the record. 9. Evidence produced by prosecu-on reveals that Inder Dev accused is the daughter's son of Sardar Singh accused. He was known to the PWs Ma- habir, RaFan and Parwa- even prior the incident in ques-on. Mahabir PW-1 has admiFed in his cross-examina-on that the said Inder Dev was the daughter’s son of Sardar Singh and claims that he had seen him running from the spot. RaFan PW-2 has similarly admiFed that Inder Dev was son of Sardar Singh's daughter and the said Inder Dev had studied in his village up to 7th standard and further that he was known to him because he was residing in his neighbour- hood. Similar admissions are made by PW-3 Parwa-, Raghubir Singh Inspector PW-8, Rajender PW-9, and ASI Krishan Lal PW-12. 10. Thus, it stands firmly established that Inder Dev accused was known to the complainant as well as the injured. Despite this, the complainant RaFan PW-2 did not men-on the name of Inder Dev in his statement Ex. PB which is the founda-on of the FIR. S-ll further, injured Mahabir PW-1 and his wife Parwa- PW-3 did not name said Inder Dev as one of the assailants in their statements under sec-on 161 Cr.PC made on 13.11.2000. It was for the first -me that RaFan and Mahabir came out with the version on 27.12.2001 through their supplementary statements under sec-on 161 CrPC that it was their belief that one of the assailants was Inder Dev. Even in these statements, they did not NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.03.25 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 4 of 7 CRA-S-616-SB-2004 CRA-S-646-SB-2004 disclose the basis of this belief. It is also worth men-oning that RaFan PW-2 during the trial admiFed that he could not iden-fy the assailants at the -me of incident and for this reason, he could not tell their names before the police. Thus, it appears to be a case of total false implica-on of Inder Dev accused by the witnesses, who are not reliable at all. 11. S-ll further, Mahabir and RaFan PWs are not found to be credible witnesses. Mahabir PW admiFed during the trial that he had made statement dated 27-12-2000 under sec-on 161 CrPC. In the said statement, there is no averment that Rajender & Harkesh PWs had told him about any conspiracy hatched by Sardar Singh and others to eliminate him. He was also confronted with supplementary statement Ex. DA made on 27-2-2001, in which also he did not allege so. RaFan PW-2 has stated during the trial that the factum of conspir- acy hatched by accused persons was revealed to him aKer 3 days of the inci- dent, when Mahabir PW-1 told him aKer gaining consciousness. He further claimed that he had revealed aspect of conspiracy to the police aKer 3 days in the hospital. However, both the brothers never made any such statement before the police during inves-ga-on at any stage. It is also note-worthy that Rajender PW-9 has himself admiFed that he had not disclosed the factum of the alleged conspiracy to anybody and that he had disclosed the same to the police aKer 10-15 days. Harkesh PW-10 has likewise stated that he had disclosed this aspect to the police aKer 10-15 days. Harkesh PW-10 also stated aKer hearing alleged conversion, he did not inform RaFan etc. Even the claim made by these wit- nesses that they had disclosed this aspect to the police aKer 10-15 days is wrong, as for the first -me the police had recorded their statement on 12-3- 2001. 12. Further, Parwa- PW-3 stated in her cross-examina-on that Inder Dev had fired shots from a distance of less than 3 feet. If that was so, there should have been blackening around the wounds of her husband, whom these shots were allegedly hit. Dr. Rakesh Singh PW-7 has, however, admiFed in his cross-examina-on that there was no blackening no-ced around the injuries of both Mahabir and Parwa-. It thus falsifies the prosecu-on version. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.03.25 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 5 of 7 CRA-S-616-SB-2004 CRA-S-646-SB-2004 13. Further no pistol has been recovered from Inder Dev accused dur- ing inves-ga-on. 14. The conten-on that Inder Dev accused had refused to join the test iden-fica-on parade and so, adverse inference should be drawn against him, has no merit in the facts and circumstances of the case. As noted above, Inder Dev is the daughter's son of Sardar Singh accused. He had studied in the village of Sardar Singh accused. He was known to witnesses Mahabir PW-1, RaFan PW- 2 and Parwa- PW-3, as has been admiFed by these witnesses. S-ll, they did not name him in their first version made before the police, as they had not iden-- fied him at the -me of incident. Inder Dev is named by them for the first -me on 27-12-2000, alleging that the firing was made by Inder Dev. All they stated was that they had made inves-ga-ons from which they were sa-sfied that Inder Dev had fired the shots. Mahabir PW-1 was duly confronted with the said state- ment dated 27-12-2000. So there is no force in the conten-on that an adverse inference has to be drawn against Inder Dev as he had refused to join the test iden-fica-on parade. Adverse inference cannot be drawn against the accused on account of his non-par-cipa-on in the test iden-fica-on parade as during the trial, the witnesses admiFed at the -me of incident, they had not iden-fied the accused. 15. The accused, other than Inder Dev, have been implicated via sec- -on 120B IPC. The relevant witnesses in this regard are PW-9 Rajender and PW- 10 Harkesh. PW-9 Rajender claims to have over heard conversa-on between the accused persons while hatching conspiracy to eliminate Mahabir on 5.11.2000. He came out with this version for the first -me before the police on 12.3.2001. He has admiFed that he did not disclose this conspiracy to Jagdish, Mahabir and any respectable person of his village. Like-wise, PW-10 Harkesh claims to have over-heard conversa-on between the accused on 4.11.2000 hatching a conspir- acy to finish Mahabir. In his cross-examina-on, he admiFed that aKer hearing this conversa-on, he did not go the houses of Jagdish or RaFan to inform them about this plan. He further admits that he did not disclose this informa-on to any Panch, sarpanch and Lambardar in the village. He also admits that he did NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.03.25 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 6 of 7 CRA-S-616-SB-2004 CRA-S-646-SB-2004 not inform the police when it came in village soon aKer the incident. 16. The charge of conspiracy, based upon the alleged over-hearing of conversa-ons in between the accused, appears to be mo-vated to falsely impli- cate the accused. It is strange that on all the dates i.e. 4.11.2000, 5.11.2000 and 7.11.2000, the witnesses found the accused persons indulging in similar conver- sa-on openly but s-ll, none of them reported or conveyed the same to the in- jured or any respectables of the village. 17. On account of en-re discussion as above, impugned judgments of convic-on and order of sentence, as passed by the trial court, cannot be sus- tained. Both the appeals are accepted. All the appellants – accused are acquit- ted of the charges. They are discharged from their respec-ve bonds. 25.03.2025 Nee(cid:3)ka Tuteja Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? Yes/No Yes/No (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.03.25 16:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 7 of 7