CRL.A. NO. 1670 of 2005 1

   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1670 OF 2005

VEDPAL & ORS. ..... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

We  have  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

parties at length.

The  learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  has  

raised several issues before us, more particularly, (i)  

that some of the accused who were similarly placed had  

been  acquitted  by  the  trial  court;  (ii)that  the  

evidence  of  the  injured  eye-witnesses  could  not  be  

entirely believed; and (iii) that the statements of the  

eye-witnesses made in Court vis-á-vis their statements  

under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had  

clear  improvements  which  cast  a  doubt  on  the  

prosecution story; (iv) that the recording of the FIR  

had been inordinately delayed and the time so taken had  

been utilised to concoct a false story; and (v) that  

the non-examination of the Investigating Officer  had  

1

CRL.A. NO. 1670 of 2005 2

caused prejudice to the accused as it had not been  

possible for them to ascertain from his statement as to  

why only an empty cartridge case of 12 bore had been  

recovered from the place of the incident and as to why  

no efforts had been made to effect recoveries of the  

weapons used in the incident.   

We find that each of these issues has been dealt  

with by the trial court as well as by the High Court  

and cogent reasons have been given by both courts as to  

why the case of the appellants before us and those of  

the accused who have been acquitted by the trial court  

were different in their circumstances.  We cannot lose  

sight of the fact that it is the admitted case on all  

sides that the incident had happened in the residential  

house  of  the  complainant  party  and  had  been  

precipitated  on  account  of  the  incident  two  days  

earlier wherein  P.W. - Rai Singh had been  beleagured  

as he had misbehaved at the complainant's home after  

taking  excessive  drink.  The  nature  of  the  injuries  

clearly show that they had been caused by fire arms.   

Mr.  Sadique,  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

appellants has, however, argued that the katta which  

was allegedly in the hands of two of the appellants  

would ordinarily use a bullet and not a cartridge and  

as no bullet wound had been detected or any bullet  

2

CRL.A. NO. 1670 of 2005 3

recovered from the body, the entire prosecution story  

stood falsified.  We find absolutely no merit in this  

submission for the simple reason  that a katta can fire  

a cartridge of 12 bore as well and there is universal  

rule that a rifle catridge alone can be fired from such  

a  weapon.   The  medical  evidence  including  a  large  

number of x-rays taken from the body of the deceased  

and also the injured persons reveals the presence of  

radio  opaque  shadows  which  leads  to  the  only  

conclusion that a cartridge firing pellets had been  

used. It is also true that the Investigating Officer  

had not been examined and no cogent reason had been  

given for this omission.  We find, however, that no  

prejudice  has  been  caused  to  the  accused  on  this  

account as the necessary benefit has been given to the  

accused party as some of them have been acquitted.  The  

mere fact also that weapon used in the incident had not  

been recovered does not detract from the evidence of  

the seriously injured eye-witnesses.  In any case,the  

trial court has separated the grain from the chaff and,  

granted the benefit to those of the accused persons  

whose involvement was in doubt.

We, accordingly, dismiss this appeal.     

3

CRL.A. NO. 1670 of 2005 4

    ..................J      [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

    ..................J      [J.M. PANCHAL]

NEW DELHI NOVEMBER 04, 2009.

4

CRL.A. NO. 1670 of 2005 5

5