RAMESH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present judgment shall dispose of two appeals i.e. CRA-D- 1004-DB-2016 (O and M) and CRA-D-1153-DB-2016, which are directed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar dtd. 12/10/2016 in FIR No. 26 dtd. 30/1/2012 lodged under Ss. 302/449/34 IPC and under Sec. 25 of the Arms Act lodged at P.S. Adampur, in which conviction has been recorded of both the appellants Suresh and Ramesh for the abovesaid offences under IPC whereas, Suresh has also been held guilty for commission of the abovesaid offences under Sec. 25 of the Arms Act. Resultantly, they were convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.10,000.00 each. They are stated to have undergone actual period of 9 years, 6 months and 27 days in the case of Suresh as on 16/2/2023 whereas Ramesh has undergone actual period of 5 years, 10 months and 25 days way back on 31/8/2018 as per the custody certificates which are on record.

(2.) The reasoning given by the trial Court to accept the prosecution version is that the recovery of the pistol was from Suresh because he was apprehended immediately after the incident and the pistol had dropped from his hand. Since he was apprehended at the spot, the pistol had been collected by the police and the report of the ballistic expert spoke against Suresh. The presence of Ramesh and the intention was held to be clear that he had exhorted Suresh to kill the deceased Mewa Singh, who was a Chowkidar and was not giving the gas cylinders on demand. It was held that in the FIR, it had been mentioned that the accused had entered the godown and fired two shots outside the room and thereafter the deceased had been shot who was yet to get up from his sleep and, therefore, it was held that there was a motive as such also. The eye witness account was held to be truthful and the apprehension of Suresh at the spot by the complainant Surinder and Pardeep, which the Court found no reason to disbelieve and the fact that there was a recovery memo which was prepared on 30/1/2012 itself (Ex.P-14) wherein, even a cotton swab had been taken from the right hand grip of Suresh in order to ascertain whether there was gun powder residue present on his right hand or not and which had showed up positive in the report of the FSL. Resultantly, finding had been recorded that Suresh had handled the weapon and fired the shots and since webbing of the residue has been done on 30/1/2012, there was no question of any after thought version or result of padding by the police.

(3.) The argument that Suresh was not present at the spot and had not committed any offence was accordingly rejected while placing reliance upon the inquest report (Ex.P-29) wherein also, his name was mentioned and that serious injuries were noticed on his body and the button of the shirt was also broken. It was held that the act of the complainant and Pardeep was also natural because they gripped the person who was the main accused in killing the deceased and their energies had been directed towards him and thus, the co-accused Ramesh had succeeded in running away. The said button (Ex.P-18) was also recovered which had matched with the shirt of Suresh (Ex.P-39). The fact that the FIR was registered at 11.35 p.m. during a short span of time of the shooting made the prosecution version truthful and ruled out the chances of false implication of Suresh by the police. The contention of the defence counsel that the prosecution had failed to produce the medico-legal report of Suresh was rejected on the ground that there was no requirement to produce the same as he had not received any injuries in the crime but rather received injuries after committing the crime when he was apprehended. It had accordingly been held that merely because the Investigating Officer had chosen to investigate the matter in a particular manner, the complainant should not suffer for that. Resultantly, it was held that both the accused had committed house tresspass by entering the godown of Sham Gas Agency and in order to commit the murder of Mewa Singh and, thus, were held guilty under Sec. 449 IPC and the recovery of .315 bore country made pistol alongwith the possession of three cartridges and one live cartridge which had misfired also made Suresh liable to be convicted under the Arms Act.