SUKHCHAIN @ BHURA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these three appeals the findings and the conviction handed down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in the judgment dated 04.08.2011 in SC No.136/2010 have been challenged. The appellants and the co-accused Anil Kumar were held guilty of offence punishable under Section 302/307/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life besides other sentences including fine. All substantive sentences were directed to operate concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution alleged that in an incident which took place during the night intervening 14/15.05.2007, the appellants severely beat up Parvez, PW-4 and others i.e. Najim and Karan Singh @ Billu. It was alleged that PW-4 used to work in truck No. HR-46C-6332 and that Billu and Najim (the deceased) were drivers on duty. That truck as well as another truck, (HR-46B-6332) were used to ferry goods to specific destinations. One of the appellants Sukhchain @ Bhura was the driver of the second vehicle HR-46B-6332 and the other driver was Gandhi i.e. the appellant Anand. All of them allegedly worked for Vijender Singh @ Fauji. It is alleged that the goods had been unloaded at some place in Andhra Pradesh, a few days before the incident. PW-4 stated that some money received after unloading the goods had been stolen. The accused Sukhchain and Anand suspected PW-4 and the deceased as those who had committed theft. It was alleged that all of them threatened PW-4 and the deceased. After the trucks returned to Delhi, Vijender Singh @ Fauji called PW-4 and Billu inside the office on the first floor. The other three accused were also present at that time. Fauji apparently enquired whether PW-4 had committed theft which he denied. It was alleged that similarly Billu and Najim were also questioned. PW-4 stated that all of them were "taken to task" and subsequently severely beaten with dandas in the office itself by the accused. Najim succumbed to the beating in the office; Billu was however alive but badly injured. PW-4 too was injured. The police was informed and the injured as well as the deceased were taken to the hospital. The next morning statement of complainant Billu as well as that of PW-4 and others were recorded by P.S. Samaipur Badli; this led to lodging of an FIR (No.417/2007 at 9.00 AM). The appellants and Anil Kumar were arrested during the investigation on 15-05-2007 and they were subsequently charged with committing the offences. They denied guilt and claimed trial.

(3.) COUNSEL for the appellants urged that the Trial Court fell into error in concluding that the appellants were guilty. It was argued that the star witness i.e. PW-4 did not support the prosecution. Though in his initial examination-in-chief this witness mentioned about the attack upon the deceased and upon him by the accused, his story collapsed during the cross examination. Learned counsel highlighted that the witness resiled from his earlier testimony and he clearly deposed that his statement was recorded by the Police three or four times and also denied having signed on any statement. It was urged that PW-4 confirmed to the previous story to the extent that all the injured and the accused had gone with loaded trucks and returned from Andra Pradesh on the day of incident and had parked the trucks somewhere at Azadpur Mandi. He deposed that Najim and Billu had consumed liquor in the truck in his presence after which they went towards nearby jhuggis. He saw 10-15 minutes later that there was some quarrel near the jhuggis and residents were armed with lathis and were beating drivers and conductors who came their way. Counsel highlighted that PW-4 clearly stated that the mob was beating Najim and Billu and when PW-4 tried to save them he too was beaten. It was argued that Najim and Billu went to the office building in order to save themselves from the attackers. Having regard to these facts and that the witness contradicted himself during the deposition it was unsafe for the Trial Court to base its findings on the testimony of this witness.