Challenge against the conviction of life imprisonment
1. Vide judgment and order dated 3rd May, 1999, learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and by an order of sentencing dated 10th May, 1999 awarded sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months to the appellant.
2. The appellant challenged the said judgment by filing Criminal Appeal No. 259-DB of 1999 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The Division Bench rejected the appeal vide judgment dated 21st April, 2008 and affirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.
Facts: Appellant bore suspicion in his mind that deceased has illicit relations with his wife
3. The prosecution case in nutshell is that on 5th June, 1998, at around 08:30 a.m., deceased Karambir, his brother Krishan Kumar (PW-5), Ravinder (PW-6) and Mahender (PW-7) along with two acquaintances (Mahender and Suresh) had gone to Prabhat Cinema, Bhiwani. At about 11:30 a.m., the accused appellant who was also present there, thrust a knife in the chest of Karambir causing his instantaneous death and escaped leaving the knife behind. The motive attributed to the accused appellant for committing the offence was that he bore a suspicion in his mind that deceased Karambir was involved in illicit relations with his wife.
Registration of FIR
4. Rohtas Singh (PW-11) posted as Inspector/SHO, Police Station City Bhiwani, received a telephonic message from Raj Kumar (PW-9), Manager of Prabhat Cinema, regarding the incident and acting in furtherance thereof, he along with other police personnel reached the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of first informant-Krishan Kumar (Exhibit-PF) at 01:30 p.m., which led to the registration of FIR No. 309 of 1998 at Police Station City Bhiwani for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
Charges framed under section 302 IPC
6. The accused appellant was arrested on 7th June, 1998 and chargesheet was filed against him for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC in the Court of the concerned Magistrate. The case being exclusively triable by the Sessions Court was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Bhiwani where charge was framed against the accused appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, who denied the same and claimed trial.
Extra-Judicial confession
7. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses so as to prove its case. The prosecution case was primarily based on the testimonies of Krishan Kumar (PW-5), the first informant, being the brother of the deceased and Ram Kumar (PW-8) who claimed that the accused had made an extra judicial confession before him.
Section 313 cr.p.c and one defence witness
8. The accused was questioned under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter being referred to as ‘CrPC’) and upon being confronted with the circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence, he denied the same and claimed to be innocent. One Piare Lal was examined as DW-1.
conviction
9. Vide judgment dated 3rd May, 1999, the trial Court proceeded to convict the accused appellant and sentenced him as above. The appeal preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence was rejected by Division Bench of High Court vide judgment dated 21st April, 2008, which is subject to challenge in the present appeal.
After the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and the state the Hon’ble Apex court made its judgment.
Consideration of evidence and submissions
Homicidal death not disputed
20. There is no dispute on the aspect that the death of Karambir was homicidal as proved by the Medical Jurist-Dr. Hemant Singh (PW-1) in his testimony and thus no discussion is required on this aspect of the case.
21. The core issue, which requires consideration of this Court is as to whether the testimonies of the two star prosecution witnesses, namely, Krishan Kumar (PW-5) and Ram Kumar (PW[1]8) is reliable enough so as to affirm the guilt of the accused.
Motive of the incident is doubt on illicit relationship
22. The motive for the incident as set out in the testimony of Krishan Kumar (PW-5) was that the accused who was closely related to the informant and deceased Karambir, was bearing a grudge in his mind that Karambir had developed illicit relations with his wife. As per the witness, the accused had threatened to take revenge upon Karambir, who was sent away from Bhiwani to live at Pali Gothra, Rewari, the village of his maternal uncle for further studies. Karambir returned to village Pehladgarh from his maternal uncle’s home on 4th June, 1998. On 5th June, 1998, both the brothers, i.e., deceased Karambir and Krishan Kumar (PW-5) went to see their maternal aunt who was admitted in a hospital at Bhiwani for treatment. After meeting their maternal aunt, the brothers went to see a movie in Prabhat Cinema, Bhiwani. They were accompanied by four other persons, namely Ravinder, Suresh and two by the name of Mahender.
Purchase of weapon is not proved by the prosecution
25. The prosecution tried to prove through Jai Kishan (PW-10) that the accused had purchased a knife from him. However, the said witness did not oblige the prosecution and was declared hostile. Thus, the very probability of the accused having reached Prabhat Cinema at Bhiwani simultaneously with Krishan Kumar (PW-5) and the deceased Karambir and that too after making the preparation to kill the deceased by purchasing a knife is absolutely negligible and the prosecution story does not inspire confidence.
No independent corroboration of the informant testimony
26. Out of the four persons who accompanied the deceased Karambir and the first informant-Krishan Kumar (PW-5) to 14 Prabhat Cinema, only two, i.e., Ravinder (PW-6) and Mahender (PW-7) were examined in evidence. They did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. Thus, there is no independent corroboration to the testimony of Krishan Kumar (PW-5).
Adjacent seat persons not noticing is doubtful
28. As per the first informant Krishan Kumar (PW-5), he along with other witnesses and the deceased was sitting in the first row of chairs. Thus, there was hardly any possibility that deceased Karambir after being stabbed with a knife would fall in between the seats of the first and second row. It is also highly improbable that the first informant-Krishan Kumar (PW-5) who was sitting on the seat adjacent to the one occupied by the deceased, would have failed to notice the commotion preceding the assault.
Conduct of the brother not taking the deceased to the hospital is doubtful
30. There cannot be any doubt that witness-Krishan Kumar (PW[1]5) could not have decided at the first blush that his brother had expired as a result of the knife blow. The natural reaction expected from a brother in such a situation would have been to take immediate steps for taking the victim to the hospital so as to save his life. However, Krishan Kumar (PW-5) did not make any such attempt. In this background, we are of the view that the very presence of Krishan Kumar (PW-5) at the crime scene is doubtful and his testimony is not trustworthy.
32. We, therefore, feel that it would not be safe to place reliance on the evidence of Krishan Kumar (PW-5) as he clearly falls within the category of a wholly unreliable witness.
Disproving Extra-Judicial confession through defence witness
33. Ram Kumar (PW-8) stated that he and Piare Lal (DW-1) were sitting at his house on 7th June, 1998 and at about 12:00 noon, the accused appellant approached them and confessed that he had killed his father’s elder brother’s son Karambir at Prabhat Cinema.
35. However, Piare Lal was not examined by the prosecution and rather he was examined in defence. In his testimony, Piare Lal (DW-1) emphatically denied that any extra judicial confession was made by the accused in the presence of Ram Kumar (PW-8). Thus, the evidence of Ram Kumar (PW-8) regarding the extra judicial confession made by the accused is contradicted by the evidence of Piare Lal (DW-1). Even otherwise, extra judicial confession by its very nature is a weak piece of evidence. It may be used as a corroborative piece of evidence in tandem with substantive evidence.
36. We are, therefore, convinced that both the star prosecution witnesses i.e. Krishan Kumar (PW-5) and Ram Kumar (PW-8) fall within the category of wholly unreliable witnesses and thus, in light of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Pritinder Singh Alias Lovely ((2023) 7 SCC 727), it would be unsafe to place reliance on their evidence so as to affirm the guilt of the accused appellant. No other evidence was led by the prosecution for bringing home the charge.
40. The appellant is acquitted of the charge.
Party
DHARAMBIR @ DHARMA .….Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA ….Respondent(s) – CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1858 OF 2009 – 2024 INSC 307 – April 16, 2024
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2008/64144/64144_2008_3_1502_52337_Judgement_16-Apr-2024.pdf
