RAM NIWASversusSTATE OF HARYANA

                        [2010] 9 S.C.R. 112


A                           RAM NIWAS
                                 v.
                        STATE OF HARYANA
                 (Criminal Appeal No. 115 of 2007)
                           JULY 28, 2010
B
         [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND C.K. PRASAD, JJ.]

        Penal Code, 1860:

c        ss. 302 and 307 - Prosecution of five accused for murder
    and attempt to murder - Conviction of one - HELO: Courts
    below have rightly assessed the evidence and held that the
    convict and another accused who died during trial, had
    committed the offences - Courts below, being cognizant of the
    strained relations between the parties and the possibility of
0
    false implication of others, have accordingly given the benefit
    of doubt to two of the accused - No interference with the
    conviction and the sentence is thus called for - Criminal Law
    - Motive.

E        Evidence - A part of evidence of witness disbelieved -
    Effect of.

         The appellant along with his brother and three uncles
    was prosecuted for attempt to murder PW-6 and for the
F   murder of his brother 'SS'. During the trial, two of the
    accused died. The trial court convicted the appellant u/
    ss 302 and 307 IPC and acquitted the remaining two
    accused giving them benefit of doubt. The High Court
    affirmed the judgment.
G        In the appeal filed by the convict, it was contended
    for the appellant that the prosecution story given by PW-
    7, the mother of the deceased, with respect to
    involvement of two of the accused having been

H                                112
        RAM NIWAS v. STATE OF HARYANA                   113


disbelieved, there was no justification for conviction of A
the appellant for the murder; and that there being
animosity between the parties due to conviction of the
father of the complainant and the deceased in the earlier
case of murder of the uncle of the appellant, the accused
were falsely implicated in the instant case and, therefore, B
the evidence of two witnesses, namely PW-7, the mother,
and PW-8, the brother of the injured and the deceased,
could not be relied upon.

    Dismissing the appeal, the Court
                                                              c
     HELD: 1. The trial court observed that no positive act
towards the murder had been attributed to accused 'BR'
(who died during trial), 'YR' and 'RS' for the injury to PW-
6 or the murder of his brother and there was no evidence
whatsoever of a prior meeting of minds among all the D
accused so as to show their common object or common
intention. On the contrary, the trial court observed, that
the evidence of PW-6 and PW-7 with respect to the
in"~:vement of the appellant and 'PK' (who died during
trial) was categorical that it was these two, who had E
committed the murder of the brother of PW-6, and caused
injuries to him. The judgment of the High Court shows
that this aspect has been carefully examined and the
findings have been affirmed. [para 8] [117-F-H; 118-A]

     2. It is true, that the relations between the two parties F
were extremely strained on account of the earlier murder
case. While this fact could, undoubtedly, be a reason for
false implication of the accused, but on the contrary, it
could also be a motive for the commission of the crime.
However, in the light of the fact that the FIR was recorded G
within a reasonable time of the incident and the medical
evidence fully supports the ocular version and,
additionally, the trial court has given the benefit of doubt
to some of the accused, as they had no active role to play,
                                                               H
    114      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 9 S.C.R.


A   the possibility of false implication has also been examined
    and dealt with. The courts below have rightly assessed
    the evidence, and being cognizant of the strained
    relations between the parties and the possibility of false
    implication, have accordingly given the benefit of doubt
s   to two of the accused. No interference with the conviction
    and the sentence is called for. [para 9] (118-B-D]

        CRIMINAL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No. 115 of 2007.

C         From the Judgment & Order dated 18.01.2006 of the High
    Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal
    l\lo. 352-DB of 1997.

          Sarvesh Bisari and Anil Nag for the Appellant.
D         Kamal Mohan Gupta, Gaurav Teotia and Reeta Choudhary
    for the Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

E       HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J. 1. This appeal is directed
    against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
    dated 18th January 2006 whereby the appellant's appeal has
    been dismissed.

       2. As per the prosecution story Chanda PW.6 was working
F as a Chowkidar in the Nuna Girls High School, which was
  being run under the aegis of the Panchayat of the village. He
  had three brothers, namely, Subhash, Tej Ram and Sher Singh.
  Raj Singh, the father of the three brothers, had been convicted
  and sentenced for the murder of one Prem, uncle of Ram Niwas
G and Pawan Kumar accused and the brother of Jog Raj, Raj
  Singh and Beg Raj accused. On 16th January 1991 at about
  8.00 a.m., Chanda left for the school leaving Sher Singh asleep
  in the house. While on the way, Chanda observed Pawan
  Kumar and Ram Niwas armed with Pharsas coming towards
H
         RAM NIWAS v. STATE OF HARYANA                        115
             [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]
him. Chanda ran into the school but was followed by Pawan            A
Kumar and Ram Niwas who caused an injury each to him.
Chanda raised a roula which attracted Kanwal Singh and Tara
and in their presence the two caused more injuries to Chanda
and then ran away from the spot. A short while thereafter Tej
Raj PW-8, Chanda's brother and their mother Brahmi PW7               B
reached the school premises and told him that Pawan Kumar,
Ram Niwas, Jog Raj and Raj Singh had murdered Sher Singh
while he was in the house. Brahmi and Tej Raj thereafter
removed Chanda to the hospital where his statement Ex.PF
was recorded by Sub-Inspector Som Dutt PW10 and on its               c
b~sis the formal FIR was registered in Police Station Sadar,
Bahadurgarh at 1.30 p.m. the same day. The Sub-Inspector then
proceeded to the village and found Sher Singh lying dead on
the charpai. He made the necessary investigations on the spot
and also dispatched the dead body for the post-mortem                D
examination to the Civil Hospital, Bahadurgarh. He also
searched for the accused and arrested all of them on 19th
January 1991 and pursuant to disclosure statements made by
Pawan Kumar and Ram Niwas to Inspector Ashok Kumar PW9,
two Pharsas were duly recovered. On the completion of the
investigation, the accused were charge-sheeted for offences          E
punishable under Sections 148 and 452, and under Sections
302 and 307 against Pawan Kumar and Ram Niwas and under
Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian
Penal Code against Jog Raj, Beg Raj and Raj Singh.
                                                                     F
     3. To support its case, the prosecution examined, inter-alia,
Dr. N.K. Mudra PW3, Dr. M.K. Bishnoi PW5, Chanda PW6,
Brahmi PW7,Tej Ram PW8, Inspector Ashok Kumar PW9 and
Inspector Som Dutt PW10 respectively. The prosecution case
then put to the accused and they denied the allegations levelled     G
against them and some of them pleaded alibis. They also
examined certain witness in defence. Pawan Kumar and Beg
Raj died during the trial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge
on a careful consideration of the evidence acquitted Raj Singh
and Jog Raj but convicted Ram Niwas under Section 302 and            H
    116      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 9 S.C.R.


A   307 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous
    imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/· on two
    counts and in default thereof to undergo further imprisonment
    for three years on each count.

       4. The matter was thereafter taken in appeal by the solitary
8
  appellant, Ram Niwas. The High Court on a consideration of
  the arguments obseNed that merely because the statement of
  Brahmi PW? with regard to the participation of Raj Singh and
  Jog Raj had not been believed, could not mean that the case
  against the appellant was not made in the light of the fact that
C it was the case of the prosecution that only Ram Niwas and
  Pawan Kumar (since deceased) had been wielding Pharsas,
  that had been used on Sher Singh and Chanda. It was further
  stated that Chanda PW6 was an injured witness and had
  lodged the FIR of the murder on information received from
D Brahmi and that the ocular evidence was fully corroborated by
  the medical evidence as the deceased had six incised injuries
  on his person.

        5. Mr. SaNesh Bisari, the learned counsel for the appellant
E has argued that having disbelieved the prosecution story as
  given by PW? Brahmi with respect to the involvement of Yog
  Raj and Raj Singh, there was no justification whatsoever in
  relying on her evidence with respect to the murder of Sher Singh
  by the appellant. It has also been submitted that the appellant
F and his brother had been roped in on account of the admitted
  animosity between the parties inasmuch that Chanda's and
  Sher Singh's father had been convicted for the murder of Prem,
  the uncle of Ram Niwas and Pawan Kumar and brother of Jog
  Raj, Raj Singh and Beg Raj and in this view of the matter, the
  statement of the two witnesses Brahmi and Chanda was to be
G looked at with suspicion.

        6. The State counsel has, however, supported the
    judgment of the trial court and the High Court.

H         7. We have gone. through the judgment of the trial court with
         RAM NIWAS v. STATE OF HARYANA                       117
             [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]
respect to the acquittal of Raj Singh and Yog Raj. We                A
reproduce herein below the portions thereof:

    "However, as far as the other three accused, namely Yog
    Raj, Raj Singh and Beg Raj (who died during the pendency
    of trial) are concerned, they are alleged having been seen       B
    present with lathis at the house of PW7 Brahmi Devi and
    they, as PW7 deposed, had even run after her and her son
    Tej Ram. However, neither their presence is marked nor
    any role is associated to them for second part of the
    happening at the school compound where Chanda Singh              C
    received injuries. As such, the five accused get grouped
    as Ram Niwas and Pawan (who died during trial), as first
    group and the remaining three accused, namely; Jog Raj,
    Raj Singh and Beg Raj ( who died during the trial) as the
    second group.
                                                                     D
          Though charge against the accused is that all of them
    having common object for the present crime, but for the
    deposition of PW6 and PW7 Brahmi Devi that she had
    seen all the five accused together in her house, the
    prosecution has failed to lead any other evidence of prior       E
    meeting of minds or other circumstances from which it may
    be inferred that at any occasion, prior to the happening,
    they had even physically met and agreed over any such
    object."
                                                                     F
      8. The trial court further observed that no positive act
towards the murder had been attributed to these accused for
the injury to Chanda or the murder of Sher Singh and there was
no evidence whatsoever of a prior meeting of minds between
all the accused so as to show their common object or common
intention. On the contrary, the trial court observed, that the       G
evidence of Chanda and Brahmi with respect to the involvement
of Ram Niwas and Pawan Kumar (who died during trial) was
categorical that it was these two, who had committed the
murder of Sher Singh, and caused injuries to Chanda. It is in
this situation that the trial court drew a distinction between the   H
    118      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (2010] 9 S.C.R.


A two sets of accused. We find from the judgment of the High Court
  that this aspect has been carefully examined and the findings
  have been affirmed.

        9. It is true, as contended, that the relations between the
  two parties were extremely strained on account of the murder
8
  of Prem. While this fact could, undoubtedly, be a reason for
  false implication of the accused, but on the contrary, it could
  also be a motive for the commission of the crime. However, in
  the light of the fact that the FIR had been recorded within a
  reasonable time of the incident and the medical evidence fully
C supports the ocular version, and additionally, the trial court has
  given the benefit of doubt to some of the accused, as they had
  no active role to play, the possibility of false implication has also
  been examined and dealt with. The courts below have, in our
  opinion, rightly assessed the evidence and being cognizant of
D the strained relations between the parties and the possibility
  of false implication, have accordingly given the benefit of doubt
  to two of the accused. No interference is thus called for by us
  in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.

    R.P.                                         Appeal dismissed.