STATE OF HARYANA Vs. RAM PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On June 28, 1986, at about 11.45 a.m. when Jagdish Lal and Sunil Kumar were present on the roof of Anjali Dye House to spread dyed curtains on the roof they saw Jawahar lal, their brother, being dragged by the accused inside a nearby house. They rushed down and went to the house of the accused where they found that Jawahar Lals hands were tied by a string towards his back and was forcibly taken inside one of the roofs of the house of the accused. On a lalkaar (exhortation) given by Ram Pal (one of the accused, Raja (the other accused) gave a blow with an iron rod (saria) on the head of Jawahar Lal who fell down and the accused gave further blows with their saria to Jawahar Lal, hitting him on all parts of the body. Jagdish Lal and Sunil Kumar could not do anything and raised an alarm which attracted the attention of Mohinder Singh who was drawn to the spot who too observed the occurrence. Thereafter the accused ran away from the spot with their respective weapons. These witnesses went inside to see Jawahar Lal and got released his hand which had been tied with the string and they found to their shock that the Jawahar Lal was already dead. On the basis an FIR was lodged and a case was registered against the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC. As Jagdish Lal was proceeding towards the police station to lodge the complaint he met S.I. Darshan Kumar before whom he made a statement which was recorded by 1.30 p.m. and a special report reached the Ilaqa Magistrate by 3 p.m. on the same evening. On completing the formalities such as the post-mortem examination of the deceased, Jawahar Lal, and collecting the blood stained earth and on the basis of the disclosure statements made by the accused recovered the sarias which were Exhibits P.7 and P.8 and a charge-sheet was laid. The post-mortem report disclosed that there were numerous injuries on the body which were either lacerated wounds or contusion and they were collectively to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. At the trial before the Sessions Court evidence was laid to support the case of the prosecution.

(2.) A defence was raised stating that on the fateful day, at about 4 a.m., Raj Pal, one of the accused, and his sister, Jai Bai, and their grand parents were sleeping inside their house, when Jawahar Lal came there with the intention of molesting Jai Bai. On the cries of Jai Bai all the inmates of the house got up and belaboured Jawahar Lal with their shoes. The other accused, Ram Pal, denied his presence on the spot. Jai Bai was also examined as DW. 1 who supported the version put forth by Raj Pal. The trial Court, on an analysis of evidence, took the view that the prosecutions story had a ring of truth and was acceptable and on that basis convicted both the accused. On appeal, the High Court unfortunately on a cursory examination of the evidence on record discarded the eye witness account given by the witnesses and relied upon the defence version so as to order acquittal of the accused after setting aside the order made by the Sessions Court. The State is in appeal before us.

(3.) We have been taken through the oral evidence and the judgments of the trial Court and the High Court. The evidence tendered before the trial Court gave no room for doubt that the deceased met with his end at the hands of the accused in their house. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by him the inference is irresistible that he met with a homicidal death. The question that arises for consideration, therefore, is whether the version putforth by the eye witnesses are acceptable in preference to that of the defence version.