RAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Seven accused persons, namely, Krishna, Ram Singh, Karambir, Satbir Singh, Sita Ram, Jagdish and Rattan singh were sent up for trial for offences punishable under Sections 302/323/325/148 read with Sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) on the allegations that they had gone to the land cultivated by deceased Mani Ram who claimed to be a tenant of Krishna on the intervening night of 17/18.6.1982 and on being exchorted by Krishna, Karambir and Satbir other accused persons who were carrying 'lathis' and 'spade' assaulted the deceased and dragged his body to the house of Rattan Singh. The incident, as put forth by prosecution, was witnessed by Dinesh Kumar,P.W.5, the grand son of Mani Ram. Dinesh,P.W.5, and Bhagirath, P.W.6, followed the accused persons to the house of Rattan Singh and beseeched them to spare Mani Ram and made an effort to save his life. Though the occurrence took place about 3.00 a.m. yet Dinesh and Bhagirath were detained in the house of Rattan Singh till 8.30 a.m.. The factual score would further reveal that FIR was lodged by Vijay, the other son of Mani Ram at the Police Station alleging kidnapping of his father. After 8.30 a.m. when Dinesh and Bhagirath were released they came to the Police Station and eventually the dead body was recovered and FIR was registered under Sec. 302 IPC.

(2.) The learned trial Judge on the basis of ocular and documentary evidence brought on record found that all the seven accused persons were guilty of the charge and accordingly convicted them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life with a default clause under Sec. 302 Penal Code and further imposed separate sentences in respect of other offences.

(3.) On an appeal being preferred the High Court took note of the stand raised before it especially the contention that the testimony of P.W.5 who was cited as an eye-witness, could not be believed regard being had to the discrepancies in the Statement under Sec. 161 Crimial P.C. and the version of Dinesh and Bhagirth in court and the impossibility of hatching of conspiracy by Krishna with his two brothers Satbir and Karambir to commit the crime, as the son of Krishna was on dialysis at Chandigarh. The High Court opined that the whole testimony could not be disbelieved because of some exaggeration and accordingly expressed doubt about the presence of Krishna, Satbir and Karambir at the scene of occurrence. Being of this view, it acquitted those three convicts and maintained the conviction in respect of four accused persons.