DEEPA @ DEEP CHAND & ANR. Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Crl.), 1265 of 2009, Judgment Date: Mar 23, 2015
Non-reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLAE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1265 OF 2009
Deepa @ Deep Chand & Anr. ... Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
This appeal challenges the judgment and final order dated 09.05.2008
passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal
Appeal No.559-DB of 2000 affirming the judgment of conviction recorded by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, in Sessions Case No.54 of
1999.
2. According to the prosecution, one Amar Singh had two brothers,
namely, Data Ram and Sheo Chand. Amar Singh had four sons, viz., Mauji
Ram, Roop Chand @ Roopa, Ram Singh and Deepa Chand @ Deepa. Deep Chand @
Deepa and Sukhbir Singh, son of Mauji Ram, are the present appellants, who
were tried and stand convicted for the offence of murder of Roop Chand @
Roopa. Said Roop Chand @ Roopa was unmarried and aged about 80 years on
the date of incident and was residing with Randhir Singh, grandson of the
above-named Sheo Chand. It is alleged that Roop Chand owned agricultural
land which was being cultivated by said Randhir Singh, which fact was not
to the liking of his brother Deep Chand @ Deepa and the immediate family.
3. It is alleged that on 04.12.1998 at about 7.00 a.m., Roop Chand had
gone to irrigate his land and was followed by Randhir Singh and his son
Surender Singh at 8.00 a.m. with his meal. While they were approximately
an acre and a half length away from the kotha in their field, they saw Roop
Chand @ Roopa being attacked by Deep Chand @ Deepa with an axe, by Sukhbir
Singh with a jaili and Basti Ram, son of Sukhbir with a gandasa. These
three assailants noted the presence of Randhir Singh and his son
Surender Singh and escaped with their weapons. Randhir Singh and Surender
Singh immediately put the injured Roop Chand on their tractor and shifted
him to Aggarwal Hospital, Gannaur, for medical treatment. According to the
Medico-legal Report (Ext. PN), Roop Chand was brought to the hospital at
about 9.20 a.m. and was examined by Dr. G.P. Aggarwal. Dr. Aggarwal sent
intimation or ruqa (PN/1) to the Police Station at 10.00 a.m., whereupon
the Police reached the hospital. Roop Chand was not in a position to make
any statement and succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. The Police
recorded the statement of Randhir Singh at about 11.50 a.m., pursuant to
which FIR No.444 was registered with Police Station, Gannaur.
4. Accused Deep Chand and Sukhbir Singh were arrested on
07.12.1998 and pursuant to their disclosure statements, an axe and a jaili
were recovered. Basti Ram was arrested on 08.12.1998. During the
investigation, it was found that Basti Ram was juvenile and as such his
case was separated and he was later tried by the Juvenile Justice Court.
As regards Deep Chand @ Deepa and Sukhbir Singh, challan was filed after
completion of the investigation and the case was later committed to be
tried by the Sessions Court, Sonepat. In order to substantiate the charge
of murder, the prosecution examined fourteen witnesses and tendered some
documents. Randhir Singh and Surender Singh, eye-witnesses to the
occurrence, were examined as PW-5 and PW-6 respectively, while Dr. G.P.
Aggarwal was examined as PW-12. Dr. Arun Garg, who conducted the post
mortem on the dead body of Roop Chand at about 3.00 p.m. on 04.12.1998,
found the following ante mortem injuries on the person of the deceased:
"1. A stab wound with clean cut margins 2.5 x 1 cms on the left side of
face, 3 cm lateral to the left angle of mouth with bleeding. Fragments of
bone were visible.
2. A stab wound with clean cut margins 4 x 1 cms on the left side of face
with bleeding and exposed bone fragments.
3. Incised wound 7 x 1.5 cms on the left side of face crossing the left
ear. The left ear was cut deeply with bones exposed, bleeding was present.
4. There was a swelling 5 x 3 cms over the right side of face with
crepitus felt.
5. There was swelling and deformity of nose 2 x 1 cms with crepitus
present.
6. A lacerated wound 2.5 x 1 cms on the scalp in the left parietal region
near the midline with bone exposed and fragments felt. Bleeding was
present.
7. The left eye was black with subconjectival hemorrhage on the left eye.
8. An incised wound 6 x 2 cms on the posterior lateral side of the forearm
with bleeding. Bones and muscles were exposed. There was fracture of both
bones of forearms with haematoma.
9. Incised wound 4 x 2 cms on the left forearm, 3 cms above injury No.8
with bleeding and bones exposed.
10. A bruise reddish in colour 8 x 2 cms in the form of a lathi mark on the
lateral side of the upper part of upper thigh with infiltration of blood.
On dissection of scalp and face there were multiple fractures of left
maxilla, zygomatic multiple fractures of mandible and right maxilla. There
was infiltration of blood all over. There was fracture of nasal bone with
infiltration of blood around.
On dissection of scalp there was haematoma over the scalp with fracture of
the parietal bone. On removing the vault, there was subdural as well as
extra dural haematoma in this region. On removing the brain there was
blood in the anterior and middle crenal foesae. The membrance and brain
were lacerated in the left parietal area.
Cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage and injuries were found to
be anti mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary
course of nature. Probable time that elapsed between injuries and death
was within one to two hours."
5. The defence version of the accused was that Randhir Singh wanted to
grab the property of the deceased, that he was compelling the deceased to
transfer the same in the name of prosecution witnesses for the last two to
three months and that said Randhir Singh had filed a suit for transfer of
the land of the deceased in his name.
6. The Trial Court after considering the evidence on record, found
the eye-witness account through the testimonies of PW-5 Randhir Singh and
PW-6 Surender Singh to be cogent and reliable. It was further found that
the FIR in question was registered soon after the incident. The injured
Roop Chand was brought to Aggarwal Hospital by Randhir Singh soon after the
incident and it was Dr. Aggarwal (PW-12) who had, in fact, sent the
intimation or ruqa to the Police. Accepting the case of the prosecution,
the Trial Court on 20.10.2010 convicted Deep Chand @ Deepa and Sukhbir
Singh for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer life imprisonment. The
decision of the Trial Court was affirmed by the High Court by dismissing
the appeal preferred by the Accused-Appellants. This Court, after granting
special leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, was later
pleased to release both the appellants on bail vide order dated 11.04.2011.
7. Mr. Rishi Malhotra, learned Advocate appearing for the
appellants, submitted that the appellants had been falsely implicated to
grab the property of the deceased. It was submitted that PW-5 Randhir
Singh and PW-6 Surender Singh had done nothing to apprehend the assaulting
accused and that their presence was doubtful. It was further submitted
that the trial of Basti Ram which stood segregated and was conducted by the
Juvenile Justice Court, had resulted in clean acquittal of Basti Ram, which
would also reflect on the falsity in the case of the prosecution. Mrs.
Vivekta Singh, learned Advocate appearing for the State, supported the view
which weighed with both the courts below and submitted that the eye-witness
account was completely truthful and reliable.
8. We have gone through the record and considered the submissions
of the counsel. It must be noted that the judgment of the Trial Court in
the instant case was passed on 20.10.2000, while the judgment acquitting
juvenile Basti Ram was passed on 23.04.2004. The acquittal was based on
the assertion by Randhir Singh, who was examined as PW-1 in that trial that
Basti Ram was not involved and that the deceased was assaulted by Deep
Chand @ Deepa and Sukhbir Singh. Thus, the judgment in the case of Basti
Ram would be of no avail to the appellants herein. The eye-witness account
in the present case is truthful and has been accepted by both the courts
below. In the circumstances, we do not find anything on record to take a
view different from the one which weighed with the courts below. We,
therefore, affirm the judgment and order of conviction and sentence as
recorded against the present appellants and dismiss the instant appeal.
9. The appellants, who were released on bail pursuant to this
Court's order dated 11.04.2011, shall serve out the sentence awarded to
them. Their bail bonds stand cancelled and they be taken into custody
forthwith.
..............................J.
(Dipak Misra)
..............................J.
(Uday Umesh Lalit)
New Delhi,
March 23, 2015.
ITEM NO.1F COURT NO.12 SECTION IIB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 1265/2009
DEEPA @ DEEP CHAND & ANR. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA Respondent(s)
Date : 23/03/2015 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of
judgment today.
For Appellant(s) Mr. Rishi Malhotra, Adv.
Mr. B. Veeraswamy Raju, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mrs. Vivekta Singh, Adv.
Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, Adv.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit pronounced the non-reportable
judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra and His
Lordship.
The appeal is dismissed. The appellants, who were released on bail
pursuant to this Court's order dated 11.04.2011, shall serve out the
sentence awarded to them. Their bail bonds stand cancelled and they be
taken into custody forthwith in terms of the signed non-reportable
judgment.
(R.NATARAJAN) (SNEH LATA SHARMA)
Court Master Court Master
(Signed non-reportable judgment is placed on the file)
For the Latest Updates
Join Now