REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 16 OF 2007

Suresh ….Appellant  

Versus

State of Haryana …Respondent  

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.        404          OF 2009 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2007 of 2008]

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted in S.L.P (Crl.) No.2007 of 2008.

2. These appeals are directed against the judgment of the learned Single

Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court upholding the conviction of

the accused-appellants and two others for offence punishable under Sections

1

326 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short

the ‘IPC’).  However,  the  sentence  of  10  years  rigorous  imprisonment  as

awarded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, was reduced to 7

years while the sentence of 3 years in respect of offence punishable under

Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC was upheld. Seven persons faced trial

before the  learned Additional  Sessions  Judge,  Rohtak,  out  of  which four

accused  were  convicted  and  remaining  three  were  acquitted.  During  the

pendency of the appeal before the High Court, accused Ram Kumar expired

on 17.4.1995 and,  therefore,  Criminal  Appeal  No.493-SB/94 was held to

have abated so far as he is concerned.

3. Out of the seven persons who faced trial, Jaibir, Ram Kumar, Suresh

and Raj Kumar were convicted while accused Jaibir, Rajmal and Surender

were acquitted.

4. Prosecution case, in a nutshell, is as follows:

On 14.10.1991 (the date of occurrence), Ram Sarup and his two sons,

namely, Nakul and Sehdav (injured in the present case) had boarded a three-

wheeler/tempo of Dharambir from Meham for going to attend a peshi in the

Court of S.D.M.  On the way, some passengers including Sanjay (PW-11)

2

boarded the said tempo from village Madina.  At about 10 A.M. by which

time the  said  tempo  covered  the  distance  of  about  2/3  kolometres  from

village  Madina,  accused  Suresh  armed  with  an  iron  chain,  Ram Kumar

armed  with  a  hockey  stick,  Jai  Dev  and  Raj  Kumar,  both  armed  with

gandasas,  emerged  on  the  road  from one  side  and  stood  in  front  of  the

tempo.  When the tempo was stopped by the driver,  all  the  four persons

started giving blows by their respective weapons to Ram Sarup, Sehdav and

Nakul.  On seeing the occurrence, the other passengers got down and ran

away to the fields.  After causing serious injuries to these three persons, the

accused  ran  away  from  the  spot  along  with  their  respective  weapons.

Thereafter, Dharambir, driver of the tempo with the help of Sanjay (PW-11),

took the  injured  to  Medical  College  and Hospital,  Rohtak,  in  a Haryana

Roadways bus.  Sanjay got down at Madina and went to village Mokhra for

giving information to the family members of the injured.  Dharambir got the

injured admitted in the Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak.  The Medical

Officer attended the injured and informed the police.  A message was sent to

the Police Station Meham.  ASI Ishwar Singh came to Medical College and

Hospital and recorded the statement (Ex. PN) of Dharambir on the basis of

which the FIR (Ex. PN/2) was registered.

3

On 14.11.1991, Dr. S.P. Chugh, Casualty Medical Officer, M.C.H.,

Rohtak  (PW-9)  conducted  the  medico-legal  examination  of  injured  Ram

Sarup, Nakul and Sehdev and found the following injuries on their person:-

The injuries pertaining to Ram Sarup, injured:

1. An incised wound 10x4x2 cm. deep over front of the neck just above

the  thyrod  cartilage.  The  trachea  was  cut  and  exposed.  Advised

E.N.T. Surgeon's opinion.  

2. An incised wound 16x2 cm X bone deep over right side of the scalp

extending from right eyebrow to the parietal region up to the mid line.

Advised Surgeon's opinion.  

3. Incised  wound 6 cm x 1 cm bone deep over  left  side of the scalp

extending from the left  eyebrow over the scalp.  Advised Surgeon's

opinion.  

4. Incised wound 4x1x1 cm deep over the left side of the forehead 1 cm

deep over the left side of the forehead 1 cm. of mild line.  

5. Incised wound 4 x 1 x 1 cm. over the anterior aspect of left shoulder.

6. Crush  injury  16  cm x  8  cm x  bone  deep  over  the  right  shoulder

underlying bone muscles were exposed.

4

As per the witness, injuries No. 1 to 5 were caused by sharp caged

weapon and injury No. 6 by blunt weapon.  

The injuries pertaining to Nakul, injured:

1. An incised would 12 cm x 6 cm deep over the dorsal aspect of left

shoulder.

2. An incised would 10 x 3 cm x bone deep over left side of the occipital

region 1 cm from mid line. Advised Surgeon's opinion.

3. Incised  would  4  cm x  2  cm x  bone  deep  over  right  side  of  the

occipital  region of  the  scalp 1 cm of injury No.2.   Advised  X-ray

skull.

4. An incised wound 6 x 4 x 1 cm over the right leg, 2 cm below the

tibial tubrosity. Advisied Ortho Surgeon's opinion.

Y

5. A crush injury over the palmer aspect of right hand. Advised Ortho

Surgeon's opinion.

6. Incised wound 6 x 4 cm x bone deep over the lower part of the right

leg.

5

7. Incised wound 3 x 2 cm x bone deep over the palmer aspect of left

hand.

8. Incised wound 6 x 3 cm x bone deep over the paler aspect of left hand.

9. Incised wound 3 x 2 cm x bone deep over the left leg.  

As per the witness injures No. 1 to 4 and 6 to 9 were caused by sharp

edged weapon and injury No. 5 by blunt weapon.

The injuries pertaining to Sehdev, injured:

1. An incised wound 4 x 1 x cm over the palmer aspect of right hand.

Bleeding was present. Advised Ortho Surgeon's opinion.

2. An incised  wound  6 x  4  x  2  cm over  the  right  side  of  the  chest.

Advised Surgeon's opinion.

3. In incised wound 3 x 1 x 1 cm over the ventral aspect of right arm just

above the elbow.

4. Multiple incised wound of verging sizes present over the right side of

the  face.  Whole  of  the  face  was  flushed  with  blood.  Advised  Surgeon's

opinion.

6

As  per  the  witness,  all the  injures  were  caused  by  sharp  edged

weapon.

Injuries No.1 to 4 of Sehdev were declared as grievous in nature vide

opinion Ex. PS/1 given by the said witness, and the injures on the person of

the injured could have been caused by sharp weapons Ex. P1 and P2.  The

injuries  of  Nakul  and  Ram Sarup  were  sufficient  cause  of  death  in  the

ordinary course of nature.  As per the opinion Ex. PR/1 given by the said

witness, there were multiple fractures and surgical emphysema was present.

So, the injures were dangerous to life.

After  investigation,  charge  sheet  was  filed  in  respect  of  offence

relatable under Sections 148, 307/149, 326/149, 324/149 and 323/149 IPC.

Since the accused persons  pleaded innocence they were put  on trial.   12

witnesses were examined including the alleged eye-witnesses PWs 5, 6, 8

and  9.  The  trial  court  directed  convictions  and  imposed  sentence  as

aforementioned.  Before the High Court, the stand taken was that no offence

under Sections 307, 326 read with Section 34 IPC has been made out and

7

prosecution has failed to prove the specific injuries  alleged to have been

caused by the accused to the injured.  On the other hand, the State supported

the  judgment.  The  High  Court  after  referring  to  the  evidence  of  the

witnesses  held  the  eye-witnesses’  version  that  the  accused  persons  were

armed  with  chain,  gandasa  and  hockey sticks  and  that  they  stopped  the

tempo and started causing injuries to the injured.  Injuries on Ram Singh

and his two sons namely Nakul and Sehdev have been clearly established.

Accordingly, the conviction was maintained. The High Court noted that the

injured  persons  were  given  large  number  of  injuries  with  sharp  edged

weapons  and  blunt  weapons  like  hockey  sticks.  They  were  mercilessly

beaten and attack was also so severe that all the other passengers sitting on

the tempo ran away from spot and none came forward to save the injured. It

was  also  noticed  that  injuries  caused  on  Nakul  and  Ram Swarup  were

definitely dangerous to life.  Therefore, the conviction was maintained, but

the sentence was reduced to 7 years.

5. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that the witnesses have not specifically indicated about what acts attracted

under Section 307, if any. The sentence in respect of Section 307 was also

characterized to be heavy.  Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the

8

other hand submitted that the injury on Ram Singh was so severe that he lost

his memory due to the injuries caused to him. The other injured witnesses

PWs 6  and  8  who  suffered  serious  injuries  were  examined.  In  view  of

cogent and credible evidence of the injured witnesses there is no scope for

interference  in  these  appeals.  Though  false  implication  was  pleaded,  the

same is  without  any foundation.  Clearly,  all  persons  who  have  suffered

injuries would not shield the actual culprit and implicate an innocent person

when false  implication  is  pleaded.  The foundation  has  to  be  laid  on the

same.  In the instant case that has not been done.   

6. The appeals are without merit and deserve dismissal which we direct.

          ………

….....................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)              

………….……….........................J.          (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

New Delhi, February 27, 2009.

9