GULAB SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment dated 15.3.2001 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hisar, whereby he convicted Gulab Singh son of Kanshi Ram under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. He was directed to pay a fine of Rs.2, 000/-, in default to further undergo R.I. for one year. Gulab Singh was also convicted under Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced to undergo one year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to further undergo R.I. for six months. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement Ex.PH of Pirthi Singh, given to Roshan Lal ASI in General Hospital, Fatimabad. Pirthi Singh stated, that at about 6.00 p.m. on 25.9.98, he came down from a jeep at the bus stand and started walking towards his house. When he reached near the flour grinding machine of Bhal Singh, Gulab Singh son of Kanshi Ram was standing there.

(2.) On seeing Chhottu Ram, Gulab Singh started abusing him in the name of his mother and sister.Chhotu Ram also retaliated in the same way. A scuffle ensued. Pirthi Ram tried to separate them. In the meantime, Inder Singh son of Har Chand also reached at the spot. He also tried to separate them. Gulab Singh, when the scuffle was going on, took out a knife and gave a blow on the lower portion of left flank of Chhotu Ram. Thereafter he fled from the spot with the knife. On the way to the hospital, Chhotu Ram succumbed to the injuries. Some altercation had taken place 4/5 days earlier to the occurrence. On the basis of this statement, FIR Ex.PH/2 was registered on26.9.98 at 12.30 a.m. at Police Station Agroha and the special report reached J.M.I.C. Hisar, on the same day at 10.15 a.m.The prosecution to prove its case brought into the witness box, Jai Bhagwan HC PW1, Sadhu Ram Patwari PW2, C. Kashmir Singh PW3, Dr. Avtar Lal Bajaj PW4, Maya Devi PW5, C.Ranjit Singh PW6, HC Hans Raj PW7, Prithwi Singh PW8, Inder Singh PW9, ASI Roshan Lal PW10 and SI Hans Raj PW11. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused pleaded false implication on suspicion.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has argued, that there is an unexplained delay of 16 hours between the time the occurrence had taken place and the special report reached the J.M.I.C, Hisar. Occurrence had taken place on 25.9.98 at 6.00 p.m. and the special report reached the J.M.I.C, Hisar on 26.9.98 at 10.15 a.m. This delay was being utilized to falsely implicate the appellant. It was a case of blind murder. No one knew as to who had committed the murder of Chhotu Ram and the complainant party in connivance with the Investigating Officer falsely implicated theappellant.The motive for the commission of the offence is that 4/5 days before the occurrence, appellant allegedly went to the house of Maya Devi PW5 wife of Surjit Singh, who was married to the brother of Chhotu Ram deceased. He went there to molest her is not substantiated. It had been stated, by Maya Devi PW5, that appellant jumped over a 10 feet high wall and when she made a hue and cry, he ran away. Nothing has come on record as to how he scaled this 10 feet high wall. Appellant would have not tried to molest Maya Devi PW5 in the evening, when the family members were at home.