RAJENDER SINGH & ANR.versusSTATE OF HARYANA

                          [2009] 1 S.C.R. 108


A                   RAJENDER SINGH & ANR.
                                v.
                       STATE OF HARYANA
             (Criminal Appeal No. 1662-1663 of 2005)
                         JANUARY 9, 2009
B
     [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA AND B. SUDERSHAN
                    REDDY, JJ.]
                                                                       ~




        Penal Code, 1860 - s. 3021342 read with s. 34 - Murder
c and wrongful confinement - Accused persons wrongfully
  confined deceased and beat him resulting in fatal injuries -
  Conviction under, of accused persons except one - High
  Cqurt upheld conviction of A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4, however,
  acquitted A-5 and A-7 - Interference with - Held: Not called
D for- Evidence of prosecution witnesses was satisfactory and
  reliable - Even though they were related to deceased, their          •
  evidence could not be discarded - Opinion of doctor that
  injuries were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of            "''
  nature - There was motive for accused to commit murder of
  deceased - There was no reliable and clinching evidence
E
  against A-5, A-6 and A-7 - All other accused constructively
  liable uls. 302 rlw. s. 34 though fatal injury was inflicted by A-
  1 only, as other accused participated in giving beatings to
  deceased.

F      Prosecution case was that on the fateful day the
  accused persons murdered D. They wrongfully confined
  D in the house of appellant-A-1. A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-
  7 and A-6 tied the hands and legs of D with a rope and
  inserted a wooden stick in the anus of D resulting in fatal
G injuries. PW-9-jeep driver had informed PW-10-brother of
  D's grand father that accused persons had confined D.
  PW-1 father of D, PW-11-grandfather of D and PW-10
  rushed to the house of A-1. They all heard the shrieks of
  D and witnessed the incident in the electric bulb light. It
H                             108
          RAJENDER SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA          109


       was within their sight. When PW-1, PW-11 and PW-10           A
       raised an alarm appellants fled away and took stick and
       piece of rope with them. Motive behind the alleged
       occurrence was that a year ago, A-1 had registered a
       case against D u/s. 376 IPC in which D was acquitted. FIR
       was registered. Investigation was carried out. Post          B
       mortem examination of body of D was carried out. The
       doctor-PW-8 opined that stick could cause fatal injury to
.,_    the deceased. Witnesses were examined. A-1, A-2, A-3, and
       A-4 were arrested. On their disclosure statement the stick
       and the rope were recovered. Trial court held A-1, A-2, A-   c
       3, A-4, A-5 and A-7 guilty of the charges and convicted
       and sentenced them u/s. 302/342 read with s. 34 IPC,
       however, acquitted A-6. High Court dismissed the appeals
       of A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4, however, allowed the appeals of
       A-5 and A-7 and acquitted them. Hence the present            D
~
       appeals.
           Dismissing the appeals, the Court
             HELD: 1.1 In the teeth of the evidence of eye-
        witnesses PW-1-father of the deceased and PW-11-
                                                                   E
        grandfather of the deceased, corroborated by the
      ·testimony of PW-9-jeep driver and PW-10-uncle of
        deceased's father, it is established beyond any doubt that
        in fact the occurrence had taken place at the given time
"."    in the house of A-1 where the dead body of D was found
       lying by the police which was sent to the doctor for post F
       mortem examination. PW-1 immediately lodged complaint
       of the incident to PW-14-ASI who met him on the way
       leading to the police station. The names of all the
       accused were specifically mentioned in the said
       complaint. The accused persons were not found present G
       in the village when the Investigating Officer visited the
       place of occurrence. A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 were produced
       before PW-12-S.I. by resident of the same village.
       Recovery of two pieces of 'danda' and 'rope', taken into
       possession by PW-12 pursuant to the disclosure H
    110       SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2009] 1 S. C.R.


A statement made by A-1 during the course of interrogation
  was proved which were used by the appellants in the             "'
  commission of the offence. The ocular version of PW-1
  and PW-11 was further corroborated by the doctor, who
  found as many as 12 injuries on the dead body of D. [Para
B 21] [120-F-H; 121-A-C]
         1.2. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death    _,
    of D was shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries
    to the vital organs which were ante-mortem in nature and
    sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
c   [Para 22] [123-B-C]

        1.3. On reappraisal and scrutiny of the evidence no
  parUcular reason could be found as to why the two
  eyewitnesses PW-1 and PW-11 should falsely depose
D against the appellants. It is difficult to believe that the      )-
  relatives of deceased D would spare his real assailants
  and falsely involve other persons responsible for
  committing the offence. If the witness is related to the
  deceased, his evidence has to be accepted if found to be
E reliable and believable because he would inter alia be
  interested in ensuring that real culprits are punished. The
  trial court as well as the High Court have rightly held that
  there was a motive for the accused to commit murder of
  D as per the prosecution evidence. A-1 was nursing a
F grudge against the deceased because he allegedly
  sexually assaulted his daughter, for which offence D was
  acquitted by the trial court on 18.03.2002 whereas the
  prosecutrix was later on married to DW-3 on 26.05.2002.
  D was murdered on the intervening night of 29/30.05.2002
  in the house of A-1 in the village. The evidence of PWs 1
G
  and 11 has been found to be satisfactory, reliable,
  consistent and creditable by the trial court as well as by
  the High Court. Both the witnesses have been cross-
  examined at length by the defence, but nothing tangible
  has been extracted from the evidence to create any
H
  RAJENDER SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA              111


shadow of doubt that they are not truthful witnesses. A
They have given reliable and consistent version of the
crime and their evidence inspires confidence. On the
examination of the judgment given by trial court and
confirmed by High Court, it is found that both the Courts
have properly and rightly appreciated and re-appreciated B
the entire evidence on record and there is no infirmity or
perversity in the findings recorded by the Courts below
to interfere with the well-reasoned judgments. [Para 23]
[123-C-H; 124-A-B]

     1.4. In the instant case, no reliable and clinching C
evidence was found by the trial court and by the High
Court against A-5, A-6 and A-7 who also participated in
the commission of the offence. Therefore, they were
rightly acquitted by the Courts. The submission that the
appellants would be entitled to the benefit of doubt in the D
same manner as A-5, A-6 and A-7 have been acquitted
cannot be accepted. The occurrence as spoken by the
eyewitnesses is fully established, therefore, all the
appellants will be constructively liable under Section 302
read with Section 34 IPC for the commission of the crime, E
though the fatal injury was inflicted by A-1 only, as the
other appellants participated in giving beatings to the
deceased which caused injuries on other part of his body.
[Para 24] {124-C-F]
                                                            F
     Prem Singh vs State of Punjab AIR 1977 SC 673,
referred to.
                     Case Law Reference:
    AIR 1977 SC 673          Referred to          Para 24       G
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1662-1663 of 2005.

    From the Judgment and final Order dated 16.8.2005 of the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. A Nos.   H
    112        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2009) 1 S.C.R.


A    194-DB/2003 and 2007-DB/2003.

                                 WITH

          Crl. Appeal No. 355 of 2006 and 615 of 2008.

B       Garima Prashad, Suchita Sharma, Sandeep Chaturvedi,
    Devesh Kr. Tripathi and Amit Pawan for the Appellants.

        Rajeev Gaur 'Naseem' and T.V. George for the
    Respondent.

C         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J. 1. Seven accused,
    namely, Suraj Bhan (A-1 ), Balraj (A-2), Ram Niwas (A-3),
    Rajender Singh (A-4), Dharambir (A-5), Sube Singh (A-6) and
o   Sajjan Singh (A-7) were tried by Learned Additional Sessions
    Judge, Rohtak, in Sessions Case No. 119 of 2002 for
    committing the murder of Dinesh aged about 20 years.

        2. By judgment and order dated 06.02.2003, the Learned
  Trial Judge convicted (A-1), (A-2), (A-3), (A-4), (A-5) and (A-7)
E under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
  Code and Section 342 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
  Code (for short 'IPC') and sentenced each to undergo
  imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/ - each and in
  default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment
F for three years and under Section 342/34 IPC, they were
  sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six
  months with a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - each and in default of
  payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one
  month. Ali the sentences were, however, ordered to run
G concurrently. Out of fine if realized, 90 per cent thereof was
  ordered to be paid to the legal representatives of the deceased
  Dinesh. The Learned Trial Judge acquitted (A-6).

        3. The accused filed three sets of appeals before the High
H   Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. (A-1 ), (A-4) and (A-
          RAJENDER SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA                  113
                 [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]

       5) filed Criminal Appeal No. 194-DB of 2003 whereas Criminal        A
       Appeal No. 207-DB of 2003 was filed by (A-2) and Criminal
       Appeal No. 224-DB of 2003 was filed by (A-3) and (A-7). The
       High Court by a common judgment and order dated August 16,
       2005 modified the judgment of the Trial Court. It upheld the
       conviction and sentence of (A-1 ), (A-2), (A-3) and (A-4). It,       B
       however, acquitted (A-5) and (A-7) .
..,.
           4. (A-1), (A-2), (A-3) and (A-4) have now approached this
       Court in these appeals. These appeals were heard together
       and shall stand disposed of by this common judgment.
                                                                           c
            5. The incident leading to the prosecution of the appellants
       occurred on 29.05.2002. Dinesh, son of Dhararnbir (PW-1)
       complainant, had gone to Delhi for ascertaining the date of his
       interview for recruitment to the Police Force of Delhi
       Government, but till late night he did not return to his village D
       Sundana, Tehsil Kalanaur, District Rohtak. On the following day,
       i.e. 30.05.2002, at about 4.00 a.rn. Randhir Singh (PW-10)
       elder brother of PW-11 told PW-1 that Dinesh was wrongfully
       confined in the house of appellant-Suraj Bhan (A-1). It was
       Jagbir (PW-9), a jeep driver, who disclosed this fact to PW- E
       10. On corning to know the fact of confinement of his son by
       A-1, PW-1 alongwith his father Sube Singh (PW-11) and uncle
       Raghbir Singh rushed to the house of A-1, where they found
 'f    the outer door of the house bolted from inside. They all heard
       the shrieks of Dinesh "maardiya, maardiya". Thereupon, they F
       peeped through the window and saw that all the appellants
       including A-6 (since acquitted) had made Dinesh to lie down
       on the floor of the room, his hands and legs were tied with a
       rope. In the electric bulb light and within their sight, A-1 inserted
       a "danda" (wooden stick) in the anus of Dinesh, who cried
                                                                             G
       loudly in pain. On seeing the occurrence, PW-1, PW-11 and
       Raghbir Singh raised an alarm and forcibly broke open the door
       of the room. On seeing them, the appellants fled away and took
       "danda" and piece of rope with them. They attended Oinesh,
       but he succumbed to his injuries at the spot.
                                                                             H
    114        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2009] 1 S.C.R.


A       6. Motive behind the alleged occurrence was that about a
    year prior to the incident in question, i.e. 28.04.2001, A-1 got
    a case registered against Dinesh under Section 376 IPC for
    committing sexual intercourse with his daughter. In the said
    case, Dinesh was acquitted by the trial court on 18.03.2002.
B
          7. PW-1 requested his father Sube Singh (PW-11) and
    uncle Raghbir Singh to safe guard the dead body of Dinesh at
    the place of occurrence and himself rushed to the Police Station    ,._
    for lodging a report. On the way, Om Parkash, ASI (PW-14) met
    PW-1 at the curve of Beri Road, where, he made statement
c   (Ex.PA) at 9.00 a.m. narrating the entire incident. PW-14 then
    made his endorsement (Ex.PA-2) on the said report and sent
    the same to the Police Station through Constable Krishan
    Kumar, on the basis of which formal FIR (Ex. PJ) was recorded
    by MHC Mohinder Singh (PW-6) at 11.00 a.m. on the same
D   day. The Special Report thereof was sent to the lllaqa Judicial
    Magistrate through Constable Udham Singh (PW-4), which was
    received at his residence at 2.35 p.m. at Rohtak. Thereafter,
    PW-14 alongwith PW-1 rushed to the place of occurrence and
    got the dead body photographed from Gobind Ram,
E   Photographer (PW-7). PW-14 prepared the inquest report (Ex.
    PM) and then sent the dead body for post mortem examination.
    From the spot, PW-14 lifted blood stained earth, pair of sport
    shoes (Exs. P11 and P12) and jute rope (Ex.P13). They were
    taken into possession vide recovery memos (Ex. PB to Ex. PD)
F   and sealed in separate parcels. At the spot, rough site plan
    (Ex.PR) of the place of occurrence was also prepared by the
    Investigating Officer. On the same day, investigation of the case
    was taken over by Sub-Inspector Rohtas Singh (PW-12). He
    recorded the statements of PW-1, Randhir, Zile Singh, Jagbir
G   (PW-9), a jeep driver, and other witnesses. Thereafter, PW-12
    searched for the accused in the village but they were found
    missing. The Deputy Superintendent of Police had also visited       t
    the place of occurrence and verified the investigation of the
    case. Naresh Kumar, Constable (PW-3), took the dead body
H   of deceased Dinesh to the Hospital for post mortem
           RAJENDER SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA                 115
                  [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
        examination.                                                        A

              8. On 01.06.2002, A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 were produced
        before PW-12 by Zile Singh. After their arrest by the
        Investigating Officer, A-1 during interrogation made disclosure
        statement (Ex.PQ) to the effect that he had kept concealed          B
        "danda" and "rope" under an iron box in his house and in
        pursuance thereof, he got recovered "danda" (Ex. P-18) (broken
        into two pieces) and "rope" (Ex. P-19), which were taken into
...,.
        possession vide recovery memo (Ex.PQ/4). The entire
        recovered articles were sealed and deposited with MHC of
        Police Station, Kalanaur.
                                                                            c
             9. On 12.06.2003, Ajit Singh ASI (PW-13) made an
        application (Ex.PN) to Dr. Paramjeet (PW-8) for obtaining his
        opinion whether recovered "danda" could cause fatal injury to
        the deceased or not, and Doctor opined in the affirmative. After    D
        taking his opinion Ex.PO, pieces of "danda" were resealed.
        After completion of the investigation and receipt of the poE>t
        mortem report and other material on record, charge sheet came
        to be filed against the accused. At the initial stage, A-1, A-2,
        A-3 and A-4 were challaned for commission of offences               E
        punishable under Sections 342/302/34 IPC. Later on, vide
        order dated 30.09.2002, A-5, A-6 and A-7 were also
        summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. All the accused persons
        pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried.
y
              10. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case,       F
        examined as many as 14 witnesses, namely, Dharmabir (PW-
        1), who lodged the complaint (Ex.PA); Sumit Kumar, Draftsman
        (PW-2), prepared the scaled site plan (Ex.PE) of the place of
        occurrence; Naresh Kumar, Constable (PW-3) placed his
        affidavit (Ex.-PF) on record regarding taking the dead body for     G
        post mortem examination; Udam Singh, Constable (PW-4) filed
        his affidavit (Ex.-PG) regarding taking the Special Report to the
        lllaqa Judicial Magistrate; Jagbir Singh Constahle (PW-5), took
        the case property to Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban;
        Mohinder Singh, Head Constable (PW-6), recorded the formal          H
    116       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2009] 1 S.C.R.


A FIR (Ex.-PJ); Gobind Ram, Photographer (PW-7), proved on
  record photographs (Exs. P-1 to P-5) and negatives thereof
  (Exs.P-6 to P-1 O); Dr. Paramjit (PW-8), conducted the post
  mortem and proved on record the post mortem report (Ex.PK);
  Jagbir Singh (PW-9) a Jeep Driver; Randhir Singh (PW-10),
B who after being informed by PW-9 regarding the fact of
  confinement of Dinesh at the house of Su raj Bhan (A-1) had
  disclosed the said fact to PW-1; Sube Singh (PW-11 ), an eye
  witness of the occurrence; Rohtas Singh SI (PW-12), the
  Investigating Officer of this case; Ajit Singh ASI (PW-13) and
c Om Parkash ASI (PW-14), who had also completed the formal
  investigation of the case.

       11. The accused in their statements recorded under
  Section 313 Cr.P.C denied the incriminating evidence
  appearing against them. They pleaded that they have been
D implicated in a false case and they claimed to be innocent. They
  examined three defence witnesses, namely, Suraj Mal (DW-1),
  who deposed regarding disconnection of the electric
  connection at the house of A-1; Rajinder Singh, DSP (DW-2),
  on whose verification three persons, namely, Sajjan, Dharambir
E and Sube Singh were found innocent in this case and Jagbir
  (DW-3) who was married to Poonam, daughter of Suraj Bhan
  (A-1) on 26.05.2002. DW-3 stated that on the evening of
  25.09.2002 Dinesh had misbehaved with his wife at his Village
  Koh la.
F
       12. The trial court, on appraisal of the entire evidence on
  record, held A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5 and A-7 guilty of the
  charges and convicted them under Section 302/342 read with
  Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. However, learned trial judge
G acquitted A-6.

       13. Being aggrieved, the accused filed three sets of
  separate appeals before the High Court. The High Court
  dismissed the appeals of A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4.Jt, however,
  allowed the appeals of A-5 and A-7 and accordingly acquitted
H them.
  RAJENDER SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA               117
         [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.)

      14. Feeling aggrieved thereby and dissatisfied with the   A
judgment of the High Court, the above-said appeals have been
filed in this Court.

     15. Ms. Garima Prashad, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellants, contended that the evidence produced 8
in this case is not sufficient and convincing to warrant the
conviction of the appellants. She contended that the evidence
of PW-1 and PW-11 could not be accepted as they are both
interested witnesses related to the deceased. She next
contended that PW-1, PW-9 and PW-10 in their deposition C
have given a concocted version which casts severe doubts
about truthfulness of the prosecution case. The learned counsel
also contended that the evidence appearing on record against
the appellants is verbatim version which was taken into
consideration by the trial court with regard to the acquittal of
A-5, A-6 and A-7 and, therefore, the case of the appellants D
cannot be decided on any other scale and should have been
treated at par for giving benefits of doubt to the appellants as
it was considered for the acquittal of A-5, A-6 and A-7. The
learned counsel then contended that as per the post mortem
report (Ex. PK), as many as 12 injuries were found on the dead E
body of Dinesh which would support the defence version of
DW-3 that the deceased was given beatings by the village
people of his village Kohla, when Dinesh misbehaved with his
wife at their residence on 29.05.2002. It was also argued that
there is no reliable evidence brought on record to prove that F
the appellants also shared common intention to murder Dinesh
and in the absence of such evidence, the appellants could not
be convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 read
with Section 34 IPC.
                                                                G
    16. Mr. Sandeep Chaturvedi, Advocate, appearing on
behalf of the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 615/2008, has
adopted and supported the arguments made by Ms. Garima
Prashad, Advocate. As against that, Mr. Rajiv Gaur Naseem,
Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, has canvassed for    H
    118        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2009] 1 S.C.R.


A the correctness of the view taken by the trial judge which was
  confirmed by the High Court.

       17. In order to appreciate the aforesaid rival contentions
  of the learned counsel for the parties, we have independently
B scrutinized the oral and documentary evidence appearing on
  record.

        18. PW-1, father of the deceased Dinesh, at the relevant
   time was serving in the Police Department. On 29.05.2002 he
  was on leave for a period of one month. He stated that his son
c Dinesh had applied for recruitment in the Police of Delhi
  Government. On 29.05.2002 Dinesh had gone to Delhi to
  confirm about the date of interview to be held for the post. He
  did not return to his house till late in the night. On 30.05.2002
  at about 4.00 a.m., Randhir Singh, elder brother of his father
D Su be Singh (PW-11 ), came to his house and disclosed that
  Dinesh was wrongfully confined by A-1 in his house. This            ...
  information was given to Randhir Singh by Jagbir (PW-9), a
  jeep driver. On receipt of this information, he alongwith his
  father (PW-11) and uncle Rar.dhir Singh went to the house of
E A-1. The outer door of the house of A-1 was found bolted from
  inside. They peeped through the window and noticed that
  Dinesh was made to lie facing his face towards the floor of the
  room. At that time, an electric bulb was burning inside the room.
  A-1 inserted "danda" in the anus of Dinesh in their presence
F and his hands and both legs were tied by a piece of rope.
  Dinesh was crying in pain. They raised cry and in the process
  they broke open the door and entered the room. All the accused
  ran away carrying "danda" and "rope" with them. As per his
  version, in spite of their best efforts, Dinesh could not be
  survived. He also stated that about one year prior to the present
G
  incident, A-1 got a false case registered against Dinesh under
  Section 376 IPC in which his son was acquitted by the Court
  and as a result thereof, A-1 was nursing a grudge against his       y'

  son. He testified the contents of the repot (Ex.PA) ~odged to
  the Police, on the basis of which FIR (Ex. PJ) came to be
H
               RAJENDER SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA                    119
                      [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
            registered by PW-6 at the Police Station. This witness has              A
      k
            corroborated the version of PW-12, the Investigating Officer, in
            regard to taking into possession blood stained earth, a pair of
            sports shoes belonging to deceased Dinesh and preparation
            of the parcels containing the seized articles affixed with seals.
            He showed his knowledge of ignorance about the marriage of              B
            the daughterof A-1 with Jagbir (DW-3) son of Om Prakash,
,..         resident of village Kohlapur, District Sonipat. A suggestion that.
      +     on 29.05.2002 Dinesh had gone to village Kohlapur and there
            he misbehaved with Poonam, as a result thereof he was given
            beatings by the village people, has been emphatically denied            c
            by him. He has identified two pieces of "danda" (Exs.P-18 and
            P-19), which were.used by A-1 in the commission of the crime.
            He categorically stated that there was sufficient electric bulb light
            inside the room when they saw accused persons giving
            beatings to Dinesh. A suggestion of the defence that on                 D
            receiving telephonic information from Jagbir (DW-3) son-in-law
            of A-1, he alongwith his father PW-11 and A-1 went to village
            Kohla in a hired jeep and brought his injured son in the said
            jeep and then they threshed Dinesh at bus stand of village
            Sundana and as a result whereof Dinesh died on 30.05.2002
                                                                                    E
            at about 8.00 p.m., has been denied by him.

                 19. PW-11, the second eyewitness of the incident, has
            corroborated the entire testimony of PW-1. He was cross-
            examined at length but nothing could be elicited from his
            statement which casts any doubt about the truthfulness of his           F
            testimony. Jagbir PW-9, the jeep driver, deposed that on
            29.05.2002 at about 8.30 a.m. Ballu (A-2) alongwith four other
            persons, who were identified in the Court, came to his house
            and asked him to take them to village Kohla. They hired his jeep
            and he took them to village Kohla. They left him with his jeep          G
            on the village street. On hearing alarm, he rushed to the place
            where he found son of PW-1 present. All the five accused
      -i-
            persons then asked him to take the son of PW-1 to village
            Sundana, but initially he refused to oblige them as he
            apprehended danger to the life of the son of PW-1, but later            H
    120        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2009] 1 S.C.R.


A on from the village Kohla he took the son of PW-1 alongwith
   A-1 and six more persons in the jeep and left them except Sube
                                                                        "
   Singh (A-6) at bus stand of village Sudana. He disclosed this
   incident to Randhir Singh Subedar uncle of PW-1 on the same
   night. This witness in the cross-examination has stated that
B village Kohla is at a distance of 15-16 KMs from Gohana and
   Gohana is at a distance of about 25-30 KMs from Rohtak,
   whereas village Kohla is at a distance of about 60 KMs from
                                                                        ~
   village Sundana. He stated that A-1 and son (Deceased) of
   PW-1 had met him at the house of the daughter of A-1 in village
c  Kohla.   He admitted that A-1 told him that prior to this incident
   Dinesh had teased his daughter and on the day of incident
   Diriesh had gone to the house of DW-3, son-in-law of A-1. A
  suggestion of the defence that Dinesh was assaulted by the
  people of village Kohla and as a result thereof, he could not
  walk properly has been denied by him. He also denied the
D
  suggestion that he had brought injured Dinesh in his jeep and
  left him at Sundana Bus Stand. A further suggestion that PW-
  1 and PW-11 grandfather of Dinesh, had accompanied him in
  the jeep while going to village S•Jndana, has been denied by
  him.
E
        20. Randhir Singh (PW-10) deposed that on 30.05.2002
  at about 2.30 a.m. while he was sleeping in his house, Jagbir
  (PW-9) came there and disclosed that A-1 had confined Dinesh
  in his house. He immediately rushed to the house of PW-1,
F woke    him up and thereafter passed on the said information to
  PW-1. He stated that on the next morning, he came to know
  about the murder of Dinesh in the house of A-1.

        21. In the teeth of the evidence of eyewitnesses PWs 1
  and 11, corroborated by the testimony of PW-9 and PW-10
G
  discussed above, it is established beyond any shadow of doubt
  that in fact the occurrence had taken place at the given time in
  the house of A-1 where the dead body of Dinesh was found
  lying by the Police which was sent to the Doctor for post
  mortem examination. PW-1 immediately lodged complaint (Ex.
H
          RAJENDER SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA                   121
                 [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
        PJ) of the incident to Om Prakash, ASI (PW-14) who met him A
 '·     on the way leading to the Police· Station. The names of all the
        accused were specifically mentioned in the said complaint. The
       accused persons were not found present in the village when
       the Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence. A-1,
       A-2, A-3 and A-4 were produced before Rohtas Singh S.I. (PW- B
        12) by Zile Singh, who is the resident of the same village.
       Recovery of two pieces of "danda" (Exs.P-18 and P-19) and
  -+
        "rope" (Ex. PQ/3) taken into possession by PW-12 pursuant
       to the disclosure statement (Ex.PO) made by A-1 during the
       course of interrogation, has been proved which were used by c
       the appellants in the commission of the offence. The ocular
       version of PW-1 and PW-11, the eyewitnesses, has been further
       corroborated by Dr. Paramjit, who found as many as 12 injuriet
       on the dead body of Dinesh. Dr. Paramjit in his post mortem
       report (Ex.PK) had noticed the following injuries:               D
-4.          i.     There was bruise contusion about 6 x 2 cm present
                    in left supra scapular area with blurred margins;

             ii.    There was contusion 2 x 1 cm on right shoulder with
                    blurred margins. On dissection, extra vestation of       E
                    blood into true skin and subcutaneous tissues with
                    infiltration was present;

            iii..   There was bruise 2 x 2 cm on right elbow with
                    discoloration of skin with blurred margins;
                                                                             F
            iv.     Multiple bruises 5 x 5 cm present on both hands on
                    dorsal aspect.

                    Margin blurred with discoloration of skin present. On
                    dissection, extra vestation of blood into skin and      ,....
                                                                            IJ
                    subcutaneous with infilteration.
-;          V.      There was bruise 2 x 1 cm on left lower arm with
                    margins blurred;
           vi.      Another bruise 1 x 1 cm on the left wrist joint below   H
    122           SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2009] 1 S.C.R.


                  the above mentioned wound;

          vii.    A bruise 5 x 1 cm on the left side on interior
                  abdominal wall with margin blurred and
                  discoloration of skin;
B         viii.   Bruise 3 x 2 cm on the left thigh with blurred
                  margins;

          ix.     An lacerated wound 2 x 1 cm on the left leg with
                  margins blurred and extra vestation blood into skin
C                 discoloration;

          x.      A lacerated would 5 cm below the above
                  mentioned wound;

          xi.     Bruise sweliing on ankle joint (right) 2 x 2 cm with
D                 discoloration of skin;
          xii. There was lacerations present around the anal
                opening at 3rd, 7th and 10th o clock position of size
                2 cm, 1 cm, 3 cm respectively. Blood was coming
                out from anus. Anal opening was distorted and
E
                dilated. On dissection, blood was present in anal
                canal and rectum with rupture (through and through)
                of posterior lateral aspect ofrectal wall with
                perforation of intestinal coils in the right side
                alongwith through and through laceration of right
F               kidney withlacerations of right lob of liver, extending
                through and through of liver. Large amount of blood
                was present in peritoneal cavity. On dissection of
                skull, large scalpel haematoma present with multiple
                laceration on brain with subdural haemotoma. Walls,
G               ribs andcartilages externally healthy. On dissection,
                blood was present in plural cavity with haemothorax
                with laceration of right lung present in lower lobe just
                above the diapharam right dome of dipharam
                ruptured in posterior half. Left lung healthy. In heart
H
          RAJENDER SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF HARYANA                   123
                 [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]

 •                 both chambers were empty. Abdominal wall as                A
                   described above. Peritorium haemoperitome
                   present. Mouth pharnix and esophagus healthy,
                   stomach and its contents was healthy. Small
                   intestines andlarge intestines and liver already
                   described. Spleen was healthy. Bladder was empty.          B
                   Organ of generation was healthy.
 -I         22. In the opinion of Dr. Paramjit, the cause of death of
       Dinesh was shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries to
       the vital organs which were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient
       to cause death in ordinary course of nature.                           c
             23. On reappraisal and scrutiny of the evidence discussed
       hereinabove, we find no particular reason as to why the two
       eyewitnesses PW-1 and PW-11 should falsely depose against
       the appellants. It is difficult to believe that the relatives of       D
       deceased Dinesh would spare his real assailants and falsely
       involve other persons responsible for committing the offence.
       It is well settled that if the witness is related to the deceased,
       his evidence has to be accepted if found to be reliable and
       believable because he would inter alia be interested in ensuring
                                                                              E
       that real culprits are punished. The trial court as well as the High
       Court have rightly held that there was a motive for the accused
       to commit murder of Dinesh because as per the prosecution
   •   evidence, A-1 was nursing a grudge against the deceased
       because he allegedly sexually assaulted his daughter, for which
       offence Dinesh was acquitted by the trial court on 18.03.2002          F
       whereas the prosecutrix was later on married to DW-3 on
       26.05.2002. Dinesh was murdered on the intervening night of
       29/30.05.2002 in the house of A-1 in village Sundana. The
       evidence of PWs 1 and 11 h~s been found to be satisfactory,
       reliable, consistent and creditable by the trial court as well as      G
..,.   by the High Court. Both the witnesses have been cross-
       examined at length by the defence, but nothing tangible has
       been extracted from their evidence to create any shadow of
       doubt that they are not truthful witnesses. They have given
       reliable and consistent version of the crime and their evidence        H
    124        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2009] 1 S.C.R.


A inspires confidence. On our examination of the judgment given
  by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court, we find that
  both the Courts have properly and rightly appreciated and re-
  appreciated the entire evidence on record and there is no
  infirmity or perversity in the findings recorded by the Courts
B below to interfere with the well-reasoned judgments.
        24. The ratio of the judgment in Prem Singh v. State of
   Punjab [AIR 1977 SC 673) relied upon by the learned counsel
   is of no help to the appellants in the facts and circumstances
   of the present case. In that case, the evidence of two
C eyewitnesses who were brother of the deceased with regard
   to participation of four other accused was found unreliable and
   in the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case, the
   conviction of those accused was held illegal by the Supreme
   Court. In the present case, no reliable and clinching evidence
D was found by the trial court and by the High Court against A-5,
  A-6 and A-7 who also participated in the commission of the
  offence, therefore, they were rightly acquitted by the Courts.
  Therefore, the contention that the appellants shall be held
  entitled to the benefit of doubt in the same manner as A-5, A-
E 6 and A-7 have been acquitted cannot be accepted. The
  occurrence as spoken by the eyewitnesses is fully established,
  therefore, all the appellants will be constru~tively liable under
  Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for the commission of
  the crime, though the fatal injury was inflicted by A-1, only as
F the other appellants participated in giving beatings to the
  deceased which caused injuries on other part of his body.
         25. No other point has been raised by the appellants. We
    thus, find no merit and substance in any of the submission made
    on behalf of the appellants.
G
        26. In the result, for the afore-stated reasons, there is no
    merit in these appeals and these are, accordingly, dismissed.

    N.J.                                      Appeals dismissed.