[REPORTABLE]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 115 OF 2007

Ram Niwas  …..Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana …..Respondent

J U D G M E N T

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 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  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

Crl. Appeal No.115 of 2007

asleep  in  the  house. While  on  the  way,  Chanda  

observed  Pawan  Kumar  and  Ram  Niwas  armed  with  

Pharsas  coming  towards  him.   Chanda  ran  into  the  

school but was followed by Pawan 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 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 basis 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  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,  

2

Crl. Appeal No.115 of 2007

two  Pharsas  were  duly recovered.  On the completion  

of the investigation, the accused were charge-sheeted for  

offences  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.

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 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  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.   

3

Crl. Appeal No.115 of 2007

4. The matter was thereafter taken in appeal by the solitary  

appellant,  Ram  Niwas.   The  High  Court  on  a  

consideration  of  the  arguments  observed  that  merely  

because the statement of Brahmi PW7 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 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 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. Sarvesh Bisari, the learned counsel for the appellant  

has argued that having disbelieved the prosecution story  

as given by PW7 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 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  

4

Crl. Appeal No.115 of 2007

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 looked at with suspicion.

6. The State counsel has, however, supported the judgment  

of the trial court and the High Court.   

7. We have  gone through the  judgment  of  the  trial  court  

with respect to the acquittal of Raj Singh and Yog Raj.  

We 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 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  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.

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  

5

Crl. Appeal No.115 of 2007

house, the prosecution has  failed  to  lead  any other evidence of prior 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.”

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 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 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 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  

6

Crl. Appeal No.115 of 2007

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  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 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.

……………………………..J. (Harjit Singh Bedi)

……………………………J. (C.K. Prasad)

New Delhi, Dated:  July 28, 2010

7