Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tasvir @ Dhillu vs State Of Haryana on 24 April, 2024
Author: Kirti Singh
Bench: Anupinder Singh Grewal, Kirti Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055382-DB
2024:PHHC:055382-DB
CRA-D-1681-DB-2015 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.1482
CRA-D-1681-DB-2015 (O&M)
Reserved on : 21.03.2024
Pronounced on: 24.04.2024
Tasvir @ Dhillu ..... Appellant
VERSUS
State of Haryana ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present: Ms. Anju Arora, Legal Aid Counsel,
for the applicant-appellant.
Mr. Bijender Dhankhar, Addl. AG, Haryana.
*****
KIRTI SINGH, J.
This appeal has been preferred, aggrieved by the judgment
and order of sentence dated 05.10.2015 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Bhiwani whereby, the appellant was convicted for commission of
offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms
Act and sentenced as under:-
Section(s) Sentenced to Fine In default of
R.I. payment of fine
302 IPC Life Rs.10,000/- RI for 06 months
imprisonment
25 of the Arms Act 03 years Rs.5,000/- RI for 03 months
2. The trial Court has ordered both sentences to run
concurrently.
1 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055382-DB
2024:PHHC:055382-DB
Factual matrix
3. On 14.09.2013, Inspector Ramesh Kumar received a
telephonic message from the Control Room that Tasvir @ Dhillu son of
Bedharak resident of Dera Dhillu, Kakroli Hukmi had shot dead a person
named Om Parkash. On receipt of this information, he alongwith the
accompanying staff reached the spot at Dera Dhillu, where Sanjay son of
Om Parkash-deceased alongwith his mother, uncles and other family
members were found present. Dead body of Om Parkash son of Bhundu
Ram was lying on the cot with a fire arm injury on his temple and
wrapped in a quilt. Statement of Sanjay was recorded who stated that he
was a labourer. His father Om Parkash had renounced the world and had
become a Saint since 7-8 years and he used to visit their house
occasionally to stay with them for 2-3 months. His father was not
permanently attached with any Dera and was a moving Saint. About 7-8
months back, his father started residing in a temple constructed in the
fields of Tasvir @ Dhillu. About 10 days before, his father had come to
their house and stayed with them for few days and had told them that he
did not want to go to the temple as he apprehended danger to his life. He
also stated that Tasvir @ Dhillu and his wife visited their house and stated
that Maharaj Om Parkash was annoyed with them and they wanted to
clear their differences. However, on seeing them, his father had concealed
himself in a Chaupar and was traced after two hours. Tasvir @ Dhillu and
his wife then took his father alongwith them to Kakroli Hukmi. On the
very same day, they received information that his father has been shot
dead and thereafter, he alongwith his mother, uncle and other family
2 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055382-DB
2024:PHHC:055382-DB
members reached the fields of Dera Dhillu, Kakroli Hukmi and he found
his father Om Parkash lying dead on a cot in front of the house of Tasvir
@ Dhillu. He was having a bullet injury mark on the left side of his head
from which blood was oozing out profusely. He along with others
identified his father Om Parkash. He suspected that his father had been
shot dead by Tasvir @ Dhillu alongwith his wife and therefore, action be
taken against them.
Investigation
4. On the statement of the complainant-Sanjay (Ex.PD), formal
FIR (Ex.PC) was recorded. Inquest proceedings under Section 174
Cr.P.C. were conducted. The dead body was photographed. Place of
occurrence was inspected and blood stains were taken into possession.
FSL team also reached the spot and inspection of the place of occurrence
was conducted. In the meanwhile, Bijender Singh, Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Dadri also reached there and he verified the
facts of the case and during enquiry, Manoj wife of Tasvir @ Dhillu was
found innocent. During further investigation, after autopsy, the dead
body was handed over to the relatives and the statements of the witnesses
were recorded. Accused-Tasvir @ Dhillu was arrested on 15.09.2013 and
he suffered a disclosure statement and got recovered pistol .315 bore
alongwith empty cartridges used in the crime. After completion of the
usual investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed against the
accused in the Court.
5. After complying with the provisions of Section 207
Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge,
3 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055382-DB
2024:PHHC:055382-DB
Bhiwani by Sh. Naveen Kumar, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class,
Charkhi Dadri vide order dated 06.01.2014.
6. The accused was charge sheeted under Section 302 IPC and
Section 25 of the Arms Act vide order dated 18.02.2014 to which he
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Trial Proceedings
7. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined the following
witnesses:-
PW1- Krishan Singh, Reader to District Magistrate Bhiwani
PW2- Ravinder Kumar, Patwari
PW3- Constable Manish Kumar
PW4- EASI Wazir Singh
PW5- Constable Amit Kumar
PW6- Dr. Parveen Kumar
PW7- Satyapal son of Daya Nand
PW8- Raghbir son of Panni Lal
PW9- Chand Ram son of Bhundu Ram
PW10-HC Atma Ram
PW11-Sanjay, complainant
PW12-Ramesh Kumar, DSP, investigating officer
PW13- SI Des Raj
8. The accused when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded false implication in
this case due to party faction and political rivalry in the village. He
further pleaded that he did not suffer any disclosure statement before the
police nor got anything recovered. False recovery of weapon was planted
upon him. However, the accused did not lead any evidence in defence.
4 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055382-DB
2024:PHHC:055382-DB
9. After completion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge,
Bhiwani by recording a finding that the prosecution has proved the
charges vide judgment dated 05.10.2015 held the accused Tasvir @
Dhillu (appellant herein) guilty for offences under Section 302 IPC and
Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced him as under:-
Section(s) Sentenced to Fine In default of
R.I. payment of fine
302 IPC Life Rs.10,000/- RI for 06 months
imprisonment
25 of the Arms Act 03 years Rs.5,000/- RI for 03 months
10. Aggrieved by the conviction recorded and sentence imposed
by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, the appellant approached this
Court by way of the present appeal i.e. CRA-D-1681-DB-2015 which was
admitted vide order dated 21.12.2015.
11. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant
and learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Haryana.
12. Submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant
(i) The incident in question was a blind murder and the
conviction is solely based on circumstantial evidence.
(ii) PW11 Sanjay-complainant, the son of the deceased Om
Parkash and the other witnesses are the interested witnesses and the
conviction is based on the testimony of the interested witnesses.
(iii) There are material contradictions and improvements in
the statements made by the witnesses. Moreover, PW9 was declared
hostile by the prosecution.
5 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055382-DB
2024:PHHC:055382-DB
(iv) The conviction is based on the alleged recovery of
weapon at the instance of the accused Tasvir @ Dhillu and the weapon
has been planted.
(v) In the absence of any other independent evidence, the
Court below had committed error in accepting such evidence which is
with material contradiction.
(vi) The appellant-Tasvir @ Dhillu has been falsely
implicated in the instant case and has undergone incarceration for almost
07 years and it is a fit case to allow the present appeal by acquitting the
appellant from the charges leveled against him.
13. Submissions of the learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the State of Haryana
(i) The complainant, namely, Sanjay specifically named
the appellant Tasvir @ Dhillu in the FIR. He has also stated about the
motive that the accused used to indulge in illegal activities and also
wanted his father to do the same but his father refused to do so and on this
account he murdered his father.
(ii) After the arrest of the accused, in pursuance of his
disclosure statement he got recovered the pistol of .315 bore alongwith
one empty cartridge from his house.
(iii) The medical evidence clearly supports the case of the
prosecution, as Dr. Parveen Kumar, who was examined as PW-6 and who
conducted the post mortem has stated that the cause of death was Acute
Neurogenic shock which is due to injury to vital organ i.e. brain as a
6 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055382-DB
2024:PHHC:055382-DB
result of fire-arm injury which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary
course of nature.
(iv) The FSL report has clearly proved that the weapon i.e.
country made pistol marked as W/1 (Chambered for .315 cartridges)
which was recovered at the instance of the appellant and the fired bullet
marked as BC/1 (bullet which was recovered from the body of the
deceased) matched, hence the prosecution has proved its case by bringing
on record scientific evidence by way of FSL report.
Analysis & observations
14. We have considered the submissions made by learned
counsel of both sides and have perused the material on record. It is clear
in this case that there is no direct evidence as to who had committed the
crime. The case rests upon circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial
evidence is evidence of relevant facts from which, one can, by process of
intuitive reasoning, infer about the existence of facts in issue or factum
probandum. It is aptly said that "man may tell lies, but circumstances do
not" but we should not forget that circumstances can be
created/concocted/planted in order to falsely entangle a person on mere
suspicion.
15. In K.T. Palansamy versus State of Tamilnadu 2008 (2)
RCR (Criminal) 870, Hon'ble Apex Court held:
"It is now well settled that in a case where an offence is
said to have been established on circumstantial evidence
alone, indisputably all the links in the chain must be found to
be complete as has been held in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda
7 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055382-DB
2024:PHHC:055382-DB
v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1984 SC 1622] in the
following terms:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of
guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say,
they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except
that the accused is guilty.
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature
and tendency. They should exclude every possible hypothesis
except the one to be proved.
(4) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as
not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show
that in all human probability the act must have been done by
the accused.
16. In Nanhar Vs. State of Haryana, 2010 (3) RCR 548 also,
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when case is based on circumstantial
evidence, the chain of circumstances should be complete in all respects
and the pointer of guilt should continuously be on the accused only. Any
deviation of the pointer of guilt on the accused would enure doubt.
16 (i) In the case of Jaharlal Das Vs. State of Orissa, reported in
AIR 1991 SC 1388, it is held as follows:-
"The Court has to bear in mind a caution that in cases
depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is
8 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055382-DB
2024:PHHC:055382-DB
always a danger that the conjecture or suspicion may take
the place of legal proof & such suspicion however so strong
cannot be allowed to take the place of proof. The Court has
to be watchful & ensure that conjectures & suspicions do not
take the place of legal proof. The Court must satisfy itself that
the various circumstances in the chain of evidence should be
established clearly & that the completed chain must be such
as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the
accused."
16 (ii) In case of Budhuram v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in
(2013) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 727, it is held as follows:-
"The law relating to proof of a criminal charge by
means of circumstantial evidence would hardly require any
reiteration, save & except that the incriminating
circumstances against the accused, on being proved, must be
capable of pointing to only one direction & to no other,
namely, that it is the accused & nobody else who had
committed the crime. If the proved circumstances are capable
of admitting any other conclusion inconsistent with the guilt
of the accused, the accused must have the benefit of the
same."
16 (iii) In case of Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan reported in
(2014) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 413, it is held as follows:-
"Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial
evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all
9 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055382-DB
2024:PHHC:055382-DB
the incriminating facts & circumstances are found to be
incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of
any other person. The circumstances from which an interence
as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved
beyond reasonable doubt & have to be shown to be closely
connected with the principle fact sought to be inferred from
those circumstances."
17. The present case was registered on the statement of PW11
Sanjay who is the son of the deceased. A perusal of the said statement
Ex.PD makes it clear that the complainant-Sanjay recorded his statement
before the police that his father Om Parkash had renounced the world
about 7-8 years back and had become a Saint and he used to visit their
house occasionally. He further deposed that approximately 7-8 months
earlier, his father had started residing in a temple constructed in the fields
of the accused Tasvir @ Dhillu. About 10 days prior to the occurrence,
his father had come to their house and stayed with them for few days and
he told the complainant that he apprehended danger to his life and that he
would not stay in the temple any longer. About 5-6 days prior to the
occurrence, the accused Tasvir @ Dhillu along with his wife came to his
house and informed him that Maharaj Om Parkash (deceased) was
annoyed with them due to which he had left the temple and they wanted
to apologize and take him back with them. On seeing them, his father
concealed himself in a Chaupar and was traced only after two hours.
However, he accepted their apology and went with them to Kakrauli
Hukmi. On that day, he received information that Om Parkash had been
10 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055382-DB
2024:PHHC:055382-DB
shot dead. Statement Ex.PD of PW11 Sanjay was recorded on
14.09.2013 at 05:15 p.m. on the day of occurrence itself. FIR Ex.PC was
registered on the same day at about 06:15 p.m meaning thereby that there
was no delay in lodging the FIR with the police and thus, it cannot be said
that the version of the complainant-Sanjay was an after-thought. The
statement of PW11 Sanjay had also been supported and corroborated by
PW8 Raghbir son of Panni Lal who in his cross-examination stated that
about 10 days prior to his death, Om Parkash met him and told him that
Tasvir @ Dhillu was involved in smuggling of intoxicants, he do not want
to indulge in such practices and he apprehended danger to his life from
Tasvir @ Dhillu. PW9 Chand Ram, brother of the deceased supported the
prosecution version by deposing that on 04.09.2013, Om Parkash (since
deceased) had come to him and told that he would not return to Kakroli
Hukmi as he apprehended danger to his life at the hands of accused Tasvir
@ Dhillu because he tried to persuade him to indulge in illegal activities
of supply of opium etc. and he was not interested in doing such activities.
18. PW12 Ramesh Kumar, DSP the then Inspector/SHO deposed
before the court that on 14.09.2013, on receiving an information from the
Control Room that Tasvir @ Dhillu had murdered Om Parkash by firing
shots at village Kakroli Hukmi in his Dera, he alongwith other officials
reached the spot. He inspected the spot and prepared rough site plan
Ex.PU besides recording statement Ex.PD of Sanjay complainant. He
conducted inquest proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C vide inquest
report Ex.PJ and sent the dead body to General Hospital, Charkhi Dadri
for post mortem examination vide application Ex.PG. He further deposed
11 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055382-DB
2024:PHHC:055382-DB
that on the next day, after conducting post mortem examination, the
doctor handed over the sealed parcels containing a lead taken out from the
dead body of the deceased to Head Constable Atma Ram who produced
the same before him and he took the same into possession vide memo
Ex.PK in presence of PW8 Raghbir Singh and PW10 Head Constable
Atma Ram.
Recovery and seizures
19. Another important fact which links the accused to the
commission of the offence is the subsequent recovery in pursuance to the
disclosure statement which is reproduced as below:-
Disclosure statement of accused
In the presence of the following witnesses accused Tavir
@ Dhillu son of Bedharak, caste Jat, resident of Kakdoli Hukmi
in police custody at his own without any pressure on
interrogation suffered disclosure statement that in the night of
13/14-9-13 at about 4.00 AM, I made a shot fire with .315 bore
pistol upon Om Parkash @ Jangli Baba son of Dhundu Ram,
caste chamar, resident of Kharak Kalan on his head and
murdered him. After the murder, that pistol and the empty
cartirdge wrapped in a polythene and hidden the same in the
wheat which was lying in my home. No one is known about the
same except me. I can get the same recovered after due
identification. I purchased the pistol for self protection around
two and half years ago, which was used in the crime and made
the payment of Rs.3000/-. Deshi from whom the pistol was
12 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055382-DB
2024:PHHC:055382-DB
purchased was murdered. Disclosure statement was recorded
and the same was signed by the accused and the witnesses.
Accused
Tasvir @ Dhillu son of
Bedharak, caste Jat, resident of
Kakdoli Hukmi, Sd/- in Hindi.
Witnesses
I) Sanjay son of Om Parkash, caste chamar,
R/o Kharak Kalan. Sd/- in Hindi.
2) Chand nam son of Bhundu Ram, caste chamar, R/o Kharak Kalan,
Sd/- in English.
3) HC Atma Ram 438, PS Badhera, Sd/-in English.
Sd/-in English
SHO PS Badhra, Dt.15.9.13.
Thereafter, in pursuance of his disclosure statement, accused
got recovered .315 bore pistol and empty cartridge from the disclosed place.
Sketch Ex.PL of the pistol was prepared and both the pistol and empty
cartridge were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PS. The
recovery memo Ex.PS and sketch Ex.PL were attested by all the aforesaid
witnesses. Thus, evidentiary vigor is to be assigned to the above memo as he
was not able to bring-forth any tangible evidence to suggest that the
recovery was either contrived or invented.
20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Perumal Raja @ Perumal
Vs. State, Represented by Inspector of Police, 2024 SCC Online SC 12
held as follows:-
"19. The prosecution's case, in the absence of eye
witnesses, is based upon circumstantial evidence. As per
Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short 'the
Evidence Act'), a confession made to a police officer is
13 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055382-DB
2024:PHHC:055382-DB
prohibited and cannot be admitted in evidence. Section 26 of
the Evidence Act provides that no confession made by any
person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer shall be
proved against such person, unless it is made in the
immediate presence of a Magistrate. Section 27 of the
Evidence Act is an exception to Sections 25 and 26 of the
Evidence Act. It makes that part of the statement which
distinctly leads to discovery of a fact in consequence of the
information received from a person accused of an offence, to
the extent it distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered,
admissible in evidence against the accused. The fact which is
discovered as a consequence of the information given is
admissible in evidence. Further, the fact discovered must
lead to recovery of a physical object and only that
information which distinctly relates to that discovery can be
proved. Section 27 of the Evidence Act is based on the
doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events- a fact is
actually discovered in consequence of the information given,
which results in recovery of a physical object. The facts
discovered and the recovery is an assurance that the
information given by a person accused of the offence can be
relied.
20. In Pulukuri Kottaya Vs. King Emperor AIR
1947 PC 67, the Privy Council held that the fact discovered
embraces the place from which the physical object is
14 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055382-DB
2024:PHHC:055382-DB
produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the
information given, must distinctly relates to this fact.
21. In State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu @
Afsan Guru (2005) 11 SCC 600, this Court affirmed that the
fact discovered within the meaning of Section 27 of the
Evidence Act must be some concrete fact to which the
information directly relates. Further, the fact discovered
should refer to a material/physical object and not to a pure
mental fact relating to a physical object disassociated from
the recovery of the physical object."
Post mortem report
21. PW6 Dr. Parveen Kumar tendered in evidence his affidavit
Ex.PW6/A. By way of his affidavit Exhibit PW6/A, he deposed that on
15.09.2013, on police request, he conducted post mortem examination on
the body of Om Parkash son of Bhundu Ram, male, r/o Kharak Kalan
(Bhiwani) and found the following injuries:-
"1. A lacerated wound present on left temporal region
on skull, 1 cm diameter, spherical shape with blackening
around it. On dissection guttar shaped cavity present traced
upto right mid brain with damaged intervening bones and
brain matter and ecchymosis present.
2. A metallic foreign body recovered from brain cavity
and preserved.
In his opinion the cause of death was acute neurogenic shock
which was due to injury to vital organ i.e. brain, as a result of firearm
15 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055382-DB
2024:PHHC:055382-DB
weapon which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
All findings were ante mortem in nature."
22. PW6 Dr. Parveen Kumar, has deposed that the cause of death
in this case was Acute Neurogenic shock which was due to injury to vital
organ i.e. Brain as a result of firearm weapon which was sufficient to
cause death in ordinary course of nature and all the injuries were ante
mortem in nature. He also took out a piece of lead from the dead body of
the deceased Om Parkash which was taken into possession by the police
vide memo Ex.PK. It has also come on record that .315 bore pistol and
one empty cartridge were got recovered by the accused Tasvir @ Dhillu
and thereafter, the recovered pistol, empty cartridge and the Lead were
sent to FSL Madhuban. As per report of FSL Madhuban, Ex.PT, the Lead
taken out of the dead body has been fired from the .315 bore pistol which
got recovered from accused Tasvir @ Dhillu.
FSL Report
23. Ex. PT is the report of R.S. Sangwan, Senior Scientific
officer, Ballistic, FSL Madhuban which speaks that the seals on the
parcels received in the office of DFSL Madhuban relating to this case
were found intact and tallied with the specimen seal as per forwarding
authority. On examination, the country made pistol marked as W/1
(Chambered for .315 bore cartridges) is a firearm as defined in Arms Act,
54 of 1959. Its firing mechanism was found in working order. The .315
bore fired çartridge case marked as C/1 and .315 fired bullet marked as
BC/1 have been fired from country made pistol marked as W/1
(recovered from accused Tasvir @ Dhillu) as per FSL report. This is
16 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055382-DB
2024:PHHC:055382-DB
significant as every firearm has got its own individual characteristic
marks. This report was not challenged by the defence. No application was
moved by the defence for examination of the expert who had given the
said report and there is no reason to disbelieve the report which, has been
given by an independent agency and prepared by a government servant
while discharging his official duties.
24. Further, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant that PW11 and PW8 are family members/close relatives of the
deceased-Om Parkash and as such, their testimony is to be discarded.
However, this contention cannot be accepted as merely because PW11
and PW8 are related to the deceased, this is itself not a ground to reject
their testimony. Further, merely because a natural witness is a close
relative of the deceased this does not ipso facto make him an interested
witness. It is well settled proposition of law that the evidence of
interested witness can also be considered provided such evidence is
corroborated by other evidence on record. At this stage, it is apposite to
refer to a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Kanhaiya Lal and
others etc. Vs. State of Rajashtan (2013) 5 SCC 655. Paragraphs 24
and 25 of the said judgment read as under:-
"24. In Hari Obula Reddy Vs. State of A.P. (1981) 3
SCC 675, a three-Judge Bench has opined that it cannot be
laid down as
"an invariable rule that interested
evidence can never form the basis of conviction unless
corroborated to a material extent in material
17 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055382-DB
2024:PHHC:055382-DB
particulars by independent evidence. All that is
necessary is that the evidence of the interested
witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and
accepted with caution. If on such scrutiny, the
interested testimony is found to be intrinsically reliable
or inherently probable, it may, by itself, be sufficient, in
the circumstances of the particular case, to base a
conviction thereon." (SCC pp.683-84, para 13).
25. In Kartik Malhar Vs. State of Bihar (1996) 1 SCC
614, this Court has stated (SCC p.621, para 15) that a close
relative who is natural witness cannot be regarded as an
interested witness, for the term "interested" postulates that
the witness must have some interest in having the accused,
somehow or the other, convicted for some animus or for some
other reasons."
25. While rejecting the plea that the witnesses were in close
relation to the deceased, in the case of Ram Chander and ors. Vs. State
of Haryana, (2017) 2 SCC 321 this Court has held as under:-
"33. The submission of the learned counsel for the
appellants that since Guddi (PW9) was in close relation with
the deceased persons, she should not be believed for want of
evidence of any independent witness, deserves to be rejected
in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Dalbir Kaur
Vs. State of Punjab (1976) 4 SCC 158 and Harbans Kaur
Vs. State of Haryana (2005) 9 SCC 195, which lays down the
following proposition (Harbans Kaur case, SCC p.198, para
7)
18 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055382-DB
2024:PHHC:055382-DB
"There is no proposition in law that relatives are to be
treated as untruthful witnesses. On the contrary, reason has
to be shown when a plea of partiality is raised to show that
the witnesses had reason to shield the actual culprit and
falsely implicate the accused."
26. After carefully scrutinizing the oral as well as documentary
evidence, we are of the considered view that there is a complete chain of
evidence which would lead to the irresistible conclusion that the appellant
Tasvir @ Dhillu had committed the murder of the deceased. Even the
recoveries are sufficiently proved with cogent evidence. From the
testimony of PW8, PW9 and PW11, the motive is also established that
the appellant wanted to involve the deceased in the smuggling of
intoxicant substances and the deceased apprehended a threat to his life
from the hands of the appellant. The disclosure statement of the appellant
led to the recovery of .315 pistol. The FSL report, which has been duly
proved, shows that the bullet extracted from the person of the deceased
was fired from the pistol recovered at the instance of the appellant. The
post mortem report proves that the death was a result of a firearm injury.
From the evidence on the record, we are of the considered view that the
prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt
by leading cogent evidence.
Conclusion
27. After hearing the submissions made by both the counsels and
on complete examination of the record, this Court is of the considered
view that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence
19 of 20
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055382-DB
2024:PHHC:055382-DB
dated 05.10.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani is based on
correct appreciation of evidence and material available on record.
Furthermore, it can be easily concluded that the prosecution has
successfully proved the complete chain of circumstances beyond a
shadow of doubt. Resultantly, the impugned judgment and order of
sentence dated 05.10.2015 are upheld and the instant appeal stands
dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
(KIRTI SINGH) (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
24.04.2024
Ramandeep Singh
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable Yes
20 of 20
