RAJESH @ SARKARI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
LAWS(SC)-2020-11-3
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on November 03,2020

Rajesh @ Sarkari Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

KESHAVA @ CHONI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-5-12] [REFERRED TO]
SAFDAR VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2022-5-61] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

DR.DHANANJAYA Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. - (1.)The appellants Rajesh alias Sarkari and Ajay Hooda have been convicted, together with a co-accused[1] for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the India Penal Code[2] and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life.
[1] Pehlad Singh alias Harpal

[2] IPC

(2.)On 26 December 2006, a ruqqa[3] was received at the Police Post, PGIMS from PGIMS, Rohtak about Sandeep Hooda, son of Azad Singh Hooda, having been brought dead there. ASI, Meha Singh met Azad Singh, the complainant, at the emergency ward in PGIMS, Rohtak. Azad Singh made a statement which was reduced into writing upon which a First Information Report[4] being FIR No. 781 was registered under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code[5] at Police Station Sadar, Rohtak. The complainant stated that his elder son Sandeep was studying in the final year of the LLB degree course in Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak[6]. On 26 December 2006, Sandeep had gone to the law department in the University to prepare for the exams. The complainant's son-in-law had come to their house and was in a hurry to leave after meeting Sandeep. They tried to contact Sandeep on his cell phone but were unable to get through. The complainant and his younger son, Sunil, then proceeded on their motor-cycle to the University. At about 2:30pm when they reached the parking in proximity to the law department, they saw that 6 men standing under the tin sheds started firing shots at Sandeep who was standing there. Sandeep was alleged to have fallen down upon which the complainant and his son, Sunil, rushed towards the spot. The three young men fled towards the Delhi road on a silver coloured Pulsar make motor-cycle. The complainant stated that he had not noted the registration number of the motor-cycle but could identify the assailants, if they were brought before him. The complainant alleged that blood was oozing out from the right foot, abdomen, arm, left temple and thigh of Sandeep. The complainant also stated that Sandeep was taken to PGIMS, Rohtak by Parveen, son of Zile Singh Hooda, and "another person" in a Santro car belonging to Sandeep. However, he succumbed to the fire arm injuries before reaching the hospital. The complainant, Azad Singh, stated that his son had strained relations with some persons and those persons had killed him.
[3] written intimation

[4] FIR

[5] CrPC

[6] University

(3.)As a result of the investigation, initially, accused Rajesh alias Sarkari and Ajay Hooda were apprehended and arraigned. Subsequently, accused Pehlad, was also arraigned to face trial. The offence under Section 302 being triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the two appellants were committed for trial to the Sessions Judge, Rohtak by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, pursuant to an order dated 25 September 2007. Subsequently, on the basis of the supplementary charge-sheet presented against accused Pehlad, he was also committed to the Court of Sessions Judge by the JMFC on 31 March 2008. The trials against all the three accused were consolidated by an order dated 12 April 2008. Charges were framed on 8 May 2008. All the accused pleaded that they were not guilty. The prosecution examined 24 witnesses at the trial, as noted by the judgment of the Sessions Court:
"9. The prosecution ... examined as many as twenty four witnesses namely HC Karan Singh as PW1, Ram Singh as PW2, Ajit Singh as PW3, Azad Singh as PW4, Sunil as PW5, SI Wazir Singh as PW6, SI Jagram as PW7, HC Sat Narain as PW8, Constable Sumit Kumar as PW9, SI Mahender Singh as PW10, ASI Dharambir as PW11, Constable Rajiv Godara as PW12, HC Vijay Pal as PW13, Dr. Sushma jain as PW14, retired Inspector Ram Mehar Singh as PW15, Ex. Head Constable Ranbir Singh as PW16, Constable Jitender Kumar as PW17, Inspector/SHO Rajender Singh as PW18, SI Ram Kishan as PW19, HC Jai Kishan as PW20, retired SI Maha Singh as PW21, retired ASI Balwan Singh as PW22, SIBanarsi Dass as PW23 and EHC Ram Chander as PW24. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State also tendered reports of FSL Exhibits PD to PF in evidence. Thereafter, he closed the evidence of the prosecution."

The reports of the Forensic Science Laboratory were marked as Exhibit PD-PF in evidence. The accused were examined after the conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution under Section 313 of the CrPC to explain the circumstances which appeared against them in the evidence of the prosecution. They claimed innocence and stated that they have been falsely implicated. One of the appellants, Rajesh alias Sarkari, stated that the victim was implicated with him as a co-accused in another case; that there was no dispute between them and that his photographs have been published in the newspaper. The accused examined 5 witnesses in support of their defence as noted by the judgment of the Sessions Court:

"11. ...the accused have examined as many as five witnesses namely Jiley Singh as DW1, Rajesh Jogpal, Record Keeper as DW2, Shamsher Singh as DW3, Parveen as DW4 and Sikanderas DW5, in their defence evidence."

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.