Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1662-1663 OF 2005 Rajender  Singh  & Anr.                                 ..... Appellants

Versus State of Haryana                        .....       Respondent

WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 355 OF 2006

Suraj Bhan                                       ..... Appellant

Versus State of Haryana                                 ..... Respondent

WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 615 OF 2008

Ram Niwas                                       ..... Appellant

Versus State of Haryana                                 ..... Respondent

J U D G M E N T

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 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)

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 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.   All  the

sentences were, however, ordered to run 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 Court

of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.  (A-1), (A-4) and (A-5) filed

Criminal Appeal No. 194-DB of 2003 whereas Criminal Appeal

2

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, 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.

5.    The incident leading to the prosecution of the appellants

occurred on 29.05.2002. Dinesh,  son  of  Dharambir  (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

Sundana,  Tehsil  Kalanaur,  District  Rohtak.   On the  following

day, i.e. 30.05.2002, at about 4.00 a.m.  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-10.

On coming to know the fact of confinement of his son by A-1,

3

PW-1  alongwith  his  father  Sube  Singh  (PW-11)  and  uncle

Raghbir Singh rushed to the house of A-1, where they found the

outer door of the house bolted from inside.  They all heard the

shrieks  of  Dinesh  “maar diya,  maar diya”.   Thereupon,  they

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 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 Dinesh, but

he succumbed to his injuries at the spot.

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.

4

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

(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 day.   The

Special Report thereof was sent to the Illaqa 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,  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) and sealed in

5

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 (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 the place of occurrence

and  verified  the  investigation  of  the  case.  Naresh  Kumar,

Constable (PW-3), took the dead body of deceased Dinesh to the

Hospital for post mortem examination.

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

“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

6

articles were sealed and deposited with MHC of Police Station,

Kalanaur.

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

taking his opinion Ex.PO, pieces of “danda” were resealed. After

completion of the investigation and receipt of the  post 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 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.   

10. The  prosecution,  in  order  to  substantiate  its  case,

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

7

affidavit  (Ex.-PF) on record regarding taking the dead body for

post mortem  examination;  Udam Singh,  Constable  (PW-4) filed

his affidavit (Ex.-PG) regarding taking the Special Report to the

Illaqa Judicial Magistrate; Jagbir Singh Constable (PW-5), took

the  case  property  to Forensic  Science  Laboratory,  Madhuban;

Mohinder Singh, Head Constable (PW-6),  recorded the formal

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-10);  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), who

after being informed by PW-9 regarding the fact of confinement

of Dinesh at the house of Suraj 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 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 implicated in a false

8

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 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 Kohla.

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 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.   It,  however,  allowed  the

appeals of A-5 and A-7 and accordingly acquitted them.

9

14. Feeling  aggrieved  thereby  and  dissatisfied  with  the

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  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  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 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

10

as 12 injuries  were  found on the  dead 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  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.

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  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

scrutinized  the  oral  and  documentary  evidence  appearing  on

record.  

11

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

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  Sube  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  Randhir  Singh

went to the house of 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 and his hands and both

legs were tied by a piece of rope.  Dinesh was crying in pain.

12

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 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 son.  He

testified the contents of the repot (Ex.PA) lodged to the Police,

on the basis of which FIR (Ex. PJ) came to be registered by

PW-6 at the Police Station. This witness has 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 the

daughter  of  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

13

given beatings by the village people, has been emphatically

denied  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 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 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 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

14

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 on the village street. On hearing alarm, he

rushed to the place where he found son of PW-1 present.  All

the five accused 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 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 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 Kohla. He admitted

that  A-1  told  him  that  prior  to  this  incident  Dinesh  had

teased his daughter and on the day of incident Dinesh had

15

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

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 Sundana,

has been denied by him.

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,

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 discussed

above, it is established beyond any shadow of doubt that in

fact the occurrence had taken place at the given time in the

16

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. PJ) of

the incident to                    Om Prakash, ASI (PW-14) 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 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-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.PQ) made by

A-1  during  the  course  of  interrogation,  has  been  proved

which were used by 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  injuries  on  the  dead  body  of

Dinesh.  Dr. Paramjit in his  post mortem report (Ex.PK) had

noticed the following injuries:

17

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 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;

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  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 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;

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 discoloration;  

18

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

xi. Bruise swelling on ankle joint (right) 2   x 2 cm with discoloration of skin;  

19

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 dilated. On dissection,  blood was present in anal canal and  rectum  with  rupture  (through  and   through) of posterior lateral aspect of  rectal wall with perforation of  

intestinal coils in the right side alongwith through and through laceration  of right kidney with lacerations  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 haemotoma  present  with multiple laceration  on  brain  with subdural haemotoma.  Walls,  ribs  and   

cartilages  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  both chambers  were  empty.    Abdominal wall as described above.   Peritorium haemoperitome  present.   Mouth pharnix and esophagus  

healthy, stomach and its contents was healthy. Small intestines and large intestines and liver already described. Spleen was healthy. Bladder  was  empty. Organ of generation was healthy.

20

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.

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

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 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

21

trial court on 18.03.2002 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 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 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 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

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

22

the  present  case.  In  that  case,  the  evidence  of  two

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

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-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, 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.

23

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.

26.In the result, for the afore-stated reasons, there is no merit

in these appeals and these are, accordingly, dismissed.

........................................J.                                                    (Lokeshwar Singh Panta)

........................................J.                                                    (B. Sudershan Reddy)

New Delhi, January 09, 2009.

24