Full Judgment
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh .....(1) Criminal Appeal not D-776-DB of 2008 ....Date of decision:21.5.2013 Vikram ...Appellant v.
State of Punjab ...Respondent ...(2) Criminal Appeal not S-1971-SB of 2008 ....Sohan Lal ...Appellant v.
State of Punjab ...Respondent ...(3) Criminal Revision No.2733 of 2008 ....Manmohan Lal ...Petitioner v.
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents ...Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.
Jeyapaul Hon'ble Mr.Justice Inderjit Singh ....Present: Mr.R.S.Cheema, Senior Advocate with Mr.A.S.Cheema, Advocate for the appellant in Cr.
Appeal not D-776-DB of 2008.
Cr.
Appeal Nos.D-776-DB of 2008 etc.[2].Mr.R.S.Cheema, Senior Advocate (Amicus Curiae) with Mr.A.S.Cheema, Advocate for the appellant in Cr.
Appeal not S- 1971-SB of 2008.
Mr.B.S.Bhalla, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.
None for the petitioner in criminal revision.....Inderjit Singh, J.
This judgment will dispose of above mentioned two appeals i.e.Criminal Appeal not D-776-DB of 2008 filed by Vikram and Criminal Appeal not S-1971-SB of 2008 filed by Sohan Lal and Criminal Revision No.2733 of 2008 filed by Manmohan Lal, as these arise out of the same judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.9.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur.
These criminal appeals and criminal revision have been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.9.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, whereby both the accused- appellants, namely, Vikram and Sohan Lal have been held guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 450, 307, 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `IPC') and accused-appellant Vikram has also been held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
They have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of `1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for three months each for the offence under Section 450 IPC.
Appellant Vikram has also been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of `5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Cr.
Appeal Nos.D-776-DB of 2008 etc.[3].imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 307 IPC (pertaining to Sunita Devi injured).He has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of `2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 307 IPC (pertaining to Neeraj Kumar injured).Appellant Vikram has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of `500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC.
He has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of `1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Appellant Sohan Lal has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of `500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC (pertaining to Sunita Devi injured) and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of `500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC (pertaining to Neeraj Kumar injured).Appellant Sohan Lal has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of `500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 325 IPC.
All the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
Cr.
Appeal Nos.D-776-DB of 2008 etc.[4].The brief facts of the prosecution case are that FIR in the present case has been registered on the statement of one Manmohan Lal made to Jaspal Singh, SI/SHO, Police Station, Khui Khera on 4.6.2007 at about 2.00 a.m.In the statement Manmohan Lal stated that he has four children.
Eldest is Mamta, who is married with Vikram Godara.
His another daughter Naveena is married with Amit.
His two sons, namely, Neeraj and Dheeraj are married.
They all three i.e.father and sons are living together in a joint house.
On the death of his fiRs.wife on 1.4.2000, he contracted second marriage with Sunita on 4.8.2001.
About 19 acres of land came to the share of his daughter Mamta from their holdings.
Since the time he contracted second marriage, Vikram his son-in-law started harassing him because he did not like his second wife Sunita Devi.
After this marriage, he started demanding the share of land of Mamta from him.
He got a case filed from Mamta regarding the share of land from their joint holdings.
This case is pending in the Court of Deputy Commissioner.
On 3.6.2007, he (complainant).his wife Sunita Devi, his two sisters-in-law, namely, Mamta and Annu, his both sons, his both daughters-in-law, namely, Pushpa wife of Neeraj and Kavita wife of Dheeraj were present in different rooms of their house.
Suddenly, he heard the noise of stopping of some vehicle in their courtyard, entering through the back door of his house.
He got up from his room.
Meanwhile, his son-in-law Vikram Godara holding revolver in his right hand tried to come inside after opening the door of his room.
On seeing him, Vikram at once went to the room in which Sunita and his sisters-in-law Mamta and Annu were present.
He was accompanied by another clean shaven person, aged about 40 yeaRs.having average body, Cr.
Appeal Nos.D-776-DB of 2008 etc.[5].wearing white shirt and Pajama, empty handed, who was called as Sohnia by his son-in-law, and he could identify him on coming before him.
After entering the room, Vikram fired two shots aiming at Sunita, who was lying on the bed, which hit her on the abdomen and on the chest.
The complainant came forward and tried to catch Vikram.
He and his companion scuffled with him and the complainant felt as if his right arm would have been fractured and he also received scratches on the right thumb.
In the meantime, his son Neeraj came out of the room.
Vikram fired two shots at him from his revolver one hitting on his abdomen and another on his back of right thigh.
On hearing the noise of shots, complainant's younger son Dheeraj came from outside.
In order to scare away, Vikram fired two shots in the air.
Then both the accused along with revolver, succeeded in running away by sitting in a big car of white colour.
A locket of gold colour like `Taveej' was lying on the bed where they had scuffled.
The locket might have fallen from the neck of his son-in-law Vikram.
Then Dheeraj took the complainant, Sunita and Neeraj to Civil Hospital, Fazilka for treatment.
Seeing the condition of Sunita and Neeraj being serious, they were referred to Daya Nand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana, where they all the three remained under treatment.
The complainant also stated that his son-in-law Vikram aforesaid and unknown co-accused trespassed his house forcibly and fired shots aiming his wife Sunita and son Neeraj with intention to kill them.
After recording the statement, `Ruqa' was sent to the Police Station on the basis of which FIR was registered by SI/SHO Jaspal Singh.
Then the raid was conducted by the Investigating Officer to Cr.
Appeal Nos.D-776-DB of 2008 etc.[6].arrest the accused in their respective houses but could not arrest them.
He visited the place of occurrence on 4.6.2007 and site plan Ex.PW.10/G was prepared.
He recovered bullets from two different places which were taken into Police possession after preparing sealed parcel.
The blood was also lifted from the place of occurrence and taken into Police possession after preparing sealed parcel.
Blood stained bed sheet and pillow cover were taken into Police possession after preparing sealed parcel.
The locket along with chain of Vikram recovered from the place of occurrence, which was identified by Dheeraj, was also taken into Police possession.
Statements of witnesses were recorded.
On 28.6.2007, accused Vikram was arrested.
His search was conducted and revolver of 32 bore was recovered and on unloading six live cartridges were recovered which were taken into Police possession after preparing separate sealed parcels.
Licence of the revolver was recovered from his pocket along with currency notes.
Accused Vikram was interrogated.
He got recovered the car make Civic from the garage behind the shop which was taken into Police possession.
After necessary investigation, the challan was filed in the Court.
On presentation of challan, the trial Court finding prima facie case against accused-appellants Vikram and Sohan Lal, framed charges for the offences under Sections 450, 307, 307 read with Section 34 on two counts, 325 IPC and also framed charge for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act against accused-appellant Vikram.
The accused- appellants pleaded not guilty to the above charges and claimed trial.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Dr.
Hans Raj, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Fazilka.
He mainly deposed that he Cr.
Appeal Nos.D-776-DB of 2008 etc.[7].was posted at Civil hospital, Fazilka on 3.6.2007.
He sent information Ex.P.1 to Police Station, Khui Khera regarding gun shot injured, who were brought by Manmohan Lal.
On the same day, both the injured were referred to DMC, Ludhiana.
PW-2 Manmohan Lal is the complainant and injured eye witness, who mainly deposed as per prosecution version.
PW-3 Sunita Devi is also injured eye witness.
She also deposed as per prosecution version.
PW-4 Lady Doctor Garima Daga, who was posted in Emergency Ward of Daya Nand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana on 3.6.2007 medico-legally examined injured Neeraj Kumar at 8.55 p.m.and found the following injuries on his person:- “1.
Entry wound about 1 cm in diameter with black collar.
Singeing present, inverted margins present 2 cm above the umbilicus.”
2. Entry wound about 1 cm in diameter, with black collar, singeing present, inverted margins in the right loin.
6 Cms lateral to the right ASIS (Anterior superior iliac spine).”
On the same day, she also medico-legally examined Sunita Devi and found the following injuries:- “1.
Entry wound about 1 cm in diameter-4 cm above and 2 cm left to the umbilicus - diffuse ooze, black collar present singeing present, margins inverted.”
2. Entry wound in the left breast.
Louter lower quadrant.
About 6 cm lateral and 2 cm below the nipple with bruise of 5 cm x 5 cm, diffuse ooze black collar present, singeing Cr.
Appeal Nos.D-776-DB of 2008 etc.[8].present, margins inverted.”
3. Entry wound 4 cm medial to left nipple in the left breast in the junction of upper and lower inner quadrants diffuse ooze, black collar present, margins inverted.”
4. Entry wound in the back on the left side about 6 cm below the inferior angle of scapula - diffuse ooze, black colour present, singeing present, margins inverted.”
On the same day at 9.40 p.m., she medico-legally examined injured Manmohan Lal and found the following injury:- “1.
Right upper limb abnormal mobility, tenderness, crepitus mid distal third forearm with swelling over the same area.”
In cross-examination, she stated that she declared injuries No.1, 2 and 4 on the person of Sunita Devi to be dangerous to life and injury No.3 to be simple in nature.
She also stated that injuries No.1 and 4 were corresponding entries and exit wound and injury No.2 caused Haemothorax.
She declared injuries 1 and 2 on the person of Neeraj Kumar to be dangerous to life depending upon intra-operative findings.
Injury No.1 was entry wound and injury No.2 was exit wound.
Injury on the person of Manmohan Lal was stated to be caused with blunt weapon.
PW-5 Neeraj Kumar is another injured eye witness, who also deposed as per prosecution version.
PW-6 Pankaj Sharma, Photographer mainly deposed regarding a CD Ex.PW.6/1 and photographs Ex.PW.6/2 to PW.6/4.
PW-7 Sanjeev Kumar, Draftsman prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PW.7/A.
PW-8 HC Birbal Singh is formal witness, who mainly deposed regarding depositing of two parcels with Forensic Science Laboratory at Cr.
Appeal Nos.D-776-DB of 2008 etc.[9].Chandigarh.
PW-9 HC Mohinder Singh is a formal witness, who deposed regarding depositing of parcels containing blood stained bed sheet etc., blood stained earth and clothes of injured Neeraj Kumar and another parcel containing blood stained clothes of Sunita Devi etc.in the office of CFSL.
PW-10 SI Jaspal Singh is the Investigating Officer, who mainly deposed regarding conducting the post-mortem examination.
PW-11 Ramesh Kumar is MHC, who mainly deposed regarding depositing of the case property with him and also handing over parcels to Police official for depositing the same in FSL etc.PW-12 HC Kartar Singh mainly deposed regarding the parcel, which was handed over to him by the doctor of Daya Nand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana which he handed over to SI Jaspal Singh.
PW-13 Dr.
Bikram Singla, Senior Registrar, Orthopaedic Daya Nand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana deposed that on 4.6.2007 he along with other Doctors performed the operation of right forearm of Manmohan Lal as there was fracture of his right forearm, a plating of fracture was done.
PW- 14 Dr.
Jasdeep Singh, D.M.C.and Hospital, Ludhiana mainly deposed regarding the operation performed on Neeraj Kumar and Sunita Devi.
He also deposed that bullet was removed from left lateral chest wall of Sunita Devi.
At the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.and were confronted with the evidence of the prosecution.
They denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded themselves as innocent.
Accused-appellant Sohan Lal deposed that he is innocent.
He had been falsely implicated in the present case.
He was not present at the time of occurrence.
His name had been dragged in suspicion.
Cr.
Appeal Nos.D-776-DB of 2008 etc.[10].Accused-appellant Vikram deposed that he is innocent.
Manmohan Lal complainant is his father-in-law.
After the death of Muni Devi his mother- in-law, Manmohan Lal contracted second marriage with Sunita Rani, who divorced her fiRs.husband.
Her fiRs.husband was giving threats to Manmohan Lal and Sunita Rani for marrying Manmohan Lal due to greed of money and was following her to the house of Manmohan Lal.
Apart from this Manmohan Lal owned 100 acres of land out of which 50 acres were in his name, while 50 acres were in the name of his deceased wife Muni Devi.
After her death, the land was distributed amongst children of Manmohan Lal and 19 acres were given to Mamta his (Vikram's) wife.
After the death of Muni Devi, Sunita Rani second wife of Manmohan Lal was pressurizing her husband to take back the land given to Sunita regarding which litigation was also pending between them.
Due to above reasons, he was falsely implicated in the present case.
He was away to Bombay.
When he heard about the occurrence, he went to inquire about health of his relations at Ludhiana, where he was arrested by the Police.
His revolver was taken into possession along with his gold chain and `65,000/- by the Police.
No defence evidence has been produced by the accused- appellants.
After going through the evidence and material produced on record, the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants for the offences as mentioned above.
Criminal revision petition has been filed by the revision petitioner- complainant for enhancement of sentence.
At the time of arguments, learned senior counsel for the Cr.
Appeal Nos.D-776-DB of 2008 etc.[11].appellants argued that in the present case, as per statement of the Investigating Officer in the Court, one Surya Parkash informed him on telephone and as per evidence Surya Parkash got the information from Manmohan Lal and he passed over the same to the Police Station.
Therefore, he argued that FIR should have been registered on the basis of that information.
He further argued that the motive in the present case is rather on the other side as Manmohan Lal contracted second marriage when he had already four children from the fiRs.marriage and his daughters are married and as per evidence Sunita Devi obstructed in lawful transfer of the land.
Learned senior counsel further argued that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case and are innocent.
He further argued that Sohan Lal appellant is not named in the FIR, rather as per complainant one unknown person was with Vikram and he was empty handed.
No injury has been attributed to him.
No other overt act has been attributed to him.
No identification parade has taken place in the present case.
All the eye witnesses have improved their versions by saying that they were knowing Sohan Lal from the time of the occurrence.
If they were knowing Sohan Lal earlier to the occurrence, then his name might have been mentioned in the FIR.
Learned senior counsel for the appellants further argued that there is delay in recording the FIR which also shows that FIR was registered after due deliberation and concoction.
Therefore, he argued that a reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution version and the appeals should be accepted accordingly.
He also argued that there is no merit in the revision petition and in the alternative learned senior counsel for the appellants argued that the sentenced imposed on the appellants be reduced.
Cr.
Appeal Nos.D-776-DB of 2008 etc.[12].On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the respondent-State argued that the prosecution has duly proved its case by leading cogent evidence.
Three injured eye witnesses have supported the prosecution version which is further supported and corroborated by medical evidence.
Further recovery of licensed pistol from the appellant Vikram and the FSL report that this revolver was used in the occurrence further supports and corroborates the prosecution version.
He argued that there being no merit in the appeals, these should be dismissed and revision petition be allowed and sentence imposed upon Sohan Lal be enhanced.
We have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully and have heard learned senior counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the respondent- State.
From the evidence on record, we find that it is a case of direct evidence i.e.eye witnesses account.
As per prosecution version, PW-3 Sunita Devi and PW-5 Neeraj Kumar have received firearm injuries, which as per doctor were dangerous to life.
PW-2 Manmohan Lal also received fracture in the arm with blunt weapon.
Therefore, the presence of all these three eye witnesses cannot be doubted.
PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5 have consistently deposed as per prosecution version.
There are no material contradictions in their statements.
The mere fact that statements of PW-3 and PW-5 have been recorded after 12 days, in no way, would create a reasonable doubt in view of the fact that PW-3 and PW-5 remained admitted in Daya Nand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana.
Cr.
Appeal Nos.D-776-DB of 2008 etc.[13].As regards appellant Vikram, no reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution version.
He was arrested with revolver and gave fire shot injuries to Sunita Devi and Neeraj Kumar and also scuffled with Manmohan Lal complainant and turned his arm due to which Manmohan Lal received injuries.
The recovery of locket of Vikram on the spot further supports and corroborates the prosecution version.
The revolver has been recovered from appellant Vikram.
The bullet was also recovered from the body of Sunita during operation.
The report of FSL further supports and corroborates the prosecution version.
As per result of examination, .32 inch IOF revolver not FG 1950.was found in working condition.
One .32 inch lead bullet marked CB/1 contained in parcel `A', had been fired from .32 inch IOF revolver not FG 1950.under reference.
Therefore, this FSL report further supports and corroborates the prosecution version that Vikram fired from his revolver on Sunita Devi and Neeraj Kumar.
Appellant Vikram is also named in the FIR.
There is also motive for Vikram to cause the occurrence as he was having grievance with Manmohan Lal and civil litigation was also pending.
It is also in the evidence that Manmohan Lal was not giving land of the share of his daughter Mamta.
The argument that FIR should have been recorded by the Police on the information passed over by Surya Parkash to the Police, though the Police should have registered the FIR at the very fiRs.instance of receiving information from Surya Parkash but even then if the same is not recorded at that time, no reasonable doubt exists regarding the guilt of accused-appellant Vikram in the present case.
The PWs have consistently deposed against him and there are no material contradictions or material improvements in the statements of PWs qua Cr.
Appeal Nos.D-776-DB of 2008 etc.[14].appellant Vikram.
Therefore, from the evidence on record, we find that appellant Vikram has been rightly convicted by the learned trial Court and the judgment of conviction qua him is upheld.
As regards the argument of the learned senior counsel for the appellants regarding reducing sentence, we find merit in the argument keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the fact that it was a family dispute and appellant Vikram is a young man of 34 yeaRs.we reduce the sentence imposed upon appellant Vikram and he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years instead of life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC pertaining to Sunita Devi injured, as the case of Sunita Devi is also similar to that of Neeraj Kumar where he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 307 IPC.
As regards the sentence of fine, the fine already imposed upon by the trial Court shall remain the same.
As regards the sentences for the other offences qua appellant Vikram, the order of sentence recorded by the learned trial Court is upheld.
Criminal Appeal not D-776-DB of 2008 filed by appellant Vikram is, therefore, partly allowed to the extent of reducing his sentence to ten years instead of life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC pertaining to injuries inflicted to Sunita Devi injured.
As regards appellant Sohan Lal, we find that he was not named in the FIR.
In the FIR, Manmohan Lal had mentioned him as unknown person who came with Vikram.
At one time, he also stated that Vikram was calling the other person as Sohnia.
From the FIR, it is clear that Manmohan Lal was not knowing appellant Sohan Lal, otherwise he might have Cr.
Appeal Nos.D-776-DB of 2008 etc.[15].mentioned his name in the FIR, rather giving description of appellant Sohan Lal.
Admittedly, in the present case, no identification parade has taken place.
The statement of PW-2 Manmohan Lal while appearing in the Court that they were knowing Sohan Lal earlier to the occurrence cannot be believed and it amounts to material improvement.
Similarly, the statement of Sunita Devi that she was also knowing Sohan Lal cannot be believed.
There was no reason or ground not to mention the name of Sohan Lal in the FIR especially when the occurrence took place at about 4.00 p.m.on 3.6.2007 and the FIR was registered on 4.6.2007 at 2.00 a.m.Further we find that even as per FIR the person who accompanied Vikram was empty handed.
No injury is attributed to Sohan Lal appellant.
No other overt act has been attributed to him.
Therefore, a reasonable doubt exists regarding the participation of Sohan Lal in the commission of the offence along with Vikram.
The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused-appellant Sohan Lal beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent evidence.
Therefore, by giving benefit of doubt to appellant Sohan Lal, he is acquitted of the charges framed as against him.
The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed upon him by the trial Court are set aside.
Accordingly, Criminal Appeal not S-1971-SB of 2008 filed by appellant Sohan Lal is allowed.
He is acquitted of the charges framed as against him.
The sentence of appellant Sohan Lal was suspended by this Court on 11.11.2008 during the pendency of appeal and he is stated to be on bail, therefore, his bail/surety bonds stand discharged.
As regards Criminal Revision No.2733 of 2008 for enhancement of sentence of appellant Sohan Lal, it has become infructuous, Cr.
Appeal Nos.D-776-DB of 2008 etc.[16].as Criminal Appeal not S-1971-SB of 2008 filed by Sohan Lal has been allowed and he has been acquitted of the charges framed as against him.
Therefore, this criminal revision petition is dismissed.
(M.
Jeyapaul) (Inderjit Singh) Judge Judge May 21, 2013.
*hsp*