RAGHUNATH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
LAWS(SC)-2002-11-76
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
November 13,2002
RAGHUNATH
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
BALAK RAM MOHD SAYEED KHAN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]VIJAYEESINGH STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
RAM SUNDER YADAV VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
NARESH VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2005-11-40] [REFERRED TO]RAM BHAROS VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2007-4-57] [REFERRED TO]
BHARATH ROY VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2023-2-38] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. BABA SURAJ NATH AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2016-5-2] [REFERRED TO]
JITENDER KUMAR VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2014-8-56] [REFERRED TO]
DHARMESWAR BORA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2019-9-128] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA BHARATBHAI RAVAL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2009-10-7] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA BHARATBHAI RAVAL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2009-10-9] [REFERRED TO]
DAVE INDRAVADAN BALDEVPRASAD VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-7-180] [REFERRED]
ISHWARDAS PUNDLIKRAO KIRKITE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2003-12-82] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY KUMAR YADAV VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2018-7-132] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. JANGVALI SINGH [LAWS(MPH)-2003-5-39] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-2-281] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH JANARDHAN GONNADE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2008-4-46] [REFERRED TO]
BRAHM SWAROOP VS. STATE OF UP [LAWS(SC)-2010-10-65] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KUNWAR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2003-5-40] [REFERRED TO]
TIJRAM S/O BATULAL VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH THROUGH P S PAMGARH, DISTT J [LAWS(CHH)-2017-8-34] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. PARDEEP KUMAR [LAWS(HPH)-2015-2-12] [REFERRED TO]
HARICHARAN VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2011-3-94] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(SC)-2011-2-67] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF H.P. VS. DEVI RAM AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2016-3-29] [REFERRED TO]
DAYA KISHAN VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2010-5-62] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. SHESH RAM [LAWS(HPH)-2015-2-13] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. KURBAN KHAN [LAWS(HPH)-2014-10-49] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. AJAY SHAKTI [LAWS(HPH)-2014-12-104] [REFERRED TO]
TRIDIBSARMA VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2004-4-34] [REFERRED TO]
BHASKAR SITARAM NARULE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHATRA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-12-88] [REFERRED TO]
MANOHARSING RAGHUVIRSINGH THAKUR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2003-4-27] [REFERRED TO]
KALI SHANKAR PAUL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2022-7-86] [REFERRED TO]
MOH SHAFIQUE VS. STATE OF MAHARSTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-10-183] [REFERRED TO]
SYED SABUJ KHAN DAKAR VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2010-2-42] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF H P VS. SANDEEP SINGH AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2013-8-72] [REFERRED]
STATE OF HP VS. RAVINDER KUMAR SON OF SH RAGHBIR DASS [LAWS(HPH)-2014-11-7] [REFERRED TO]
PREM CHAND VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2014-11-66] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF H.P. VS. BRIJ MOHAN [LAWS(HPH)-2014-9-94] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. NOMU RAM AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-5-52] [REFERRED TO]
KARAN VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2015-2-211] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. RAVI KANT AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2016-4-47] [REFERRED TO]
PACHAMUTHU VS. STATE REP BY REVENUE [LAWS(MAD)-2012-6-276] [REFERRED TO]
SITA RAM AND THREE OTHERS VS. STATE OF M P AND OTHERS, THROUGH POLICE STATION MI [LAWS(MPH)-2018-6-17] [REFERRED TO]
RABINDRA KUMAR PAL ALIAS DARA SINGH VS. REPUBLIC OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2011-1-114] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH VS. STATE [LAWS(SC)-2014-8-4] [REFERRED TO]
MOTI LAL AND ANOTHER VS. STATE [LAWS(RAJ)-2006-9-81] [REFERRED TO]
SHEKARAPPA VS. STATE [LAWS(KAR)-2022-8-629] [REFERRED TO]
PARVAT SINGH VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2020-5-188] [REFERRED TO]
VISWAS VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-3-566] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. MUSTKEEN [LAWS(HPH)-2014-12-116] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. SURINDER KUMAR [LAWS(HPH)-2014-5-147] [REFERRED TO]
RAHIMUDDIN MAZUMDAR VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2005-5-11] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. RASID ALIAS PAPODO ABDUL KADAR [LAWS(GJH)-2012-12-57] [REFERRED TO]
KANWAL VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(CHH)-2007-11-12] [REFERRED TO]
GAGAN VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2014-9-160] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. ATUL SHARMA [LAWS(HPH)-2015-2-11] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. MEHBOOB KHAN [LAWS(HPH)-2015-3-31] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. DEVI SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2015-5-146] [REFERRED TO]
SIVARAMAN ALIAS GOPI VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2003-6-78] [REFERRED TO]
UNNI AND ORS. VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2003-6-88] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. ARJUN MUNI [LAWS(PAT)-2005-4-48] [REFERRED TO]
MD SHAHABUDDIN VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2017-7-95] [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL SINGH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2020-8-3] [REFERRED TO]
THONGAM SHARAT SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2018-3-1] [REFERRED TO]
NATHU RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2008-5-38] [REFERRED TO]
RABINDRA KUMAR PAL ALIAS DARA SINGH VS. REPUBLIC OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2010-1-11] [REFERRED TO]
BISHNA ALIAS BHISWADEB MAHATO VS. STATE OF W B [LAWS(SC)-2005-10-43] [REFERRED TO]
MADHAV VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2021-8-35] [REFERRED TO]
BODDELLA BABUL REDDY VS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF A P [LAWS(SC)-2010-1-30] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. CHANDGI RAM [LAWS(SC)-2014-9-27] [REFERRED TO]
TULSI BAI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2019-1-101] [REFERRED TO]
RUDA KHAN ALIAS LUDA KHAN VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2018-4-24] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. PANKAJ KUMAR [LAWS(HPH)-2014-5-96] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. CHANALU RAM [LAWS(HPH)-2014-9-93] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF H.P VS. HHC KASHMIR SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2014-8-41] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF H.P. VS. AMAR NATH [LAWS(HPH)-2014-8-84] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. GURPREET SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2014-8-92] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. ANIL KUMAR [LAWS(HPH)-2015-1-13] [REFERRED TO]
KANWAL AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (NOW C.G.) [LAWS(CHH)-2007-11-27] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY MALHOTRA AND ANR VS. STATE GOVT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2014-9-486] [REFERRED]
JANRAO KHUSHALRAO BHUTE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2010-3-65] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U.P. VS. IRFAN [LAWS(ALL)-2013-9-2] [REFERRED TO]
NARVATBHAI JASINGBHAI BARIA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2018-7-343] [REFERRED TO]
JASWANT VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2014-6-25] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. SARWAN KUMAR [LAWS(HPH)-2014-6-59] [REFERRED TO]
KUNISETTI APPARAO, S/O GOPAIAH VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY PUBLIFE INSURANCE [LAWS(APH)-2004-10-151] [REFERRED]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. SATISH KUMAR [LAWS(HPH)-2015-8-141] [REFERRED TO]
ARJUNBHAI RAMCHANDRA PARTE VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2013-6-258] [REFERRED TO]
MAHAVEER VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2021-4-58] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
SEMA -
(1.), J.
(2.)THESE two appeals arise out of a common judgment and order passed by the learned additional sessions judge, Gurgaon, convicting the appellants in sessions case no. 32 of 1995 and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment on the following sections of law as under:JUDGEMENT_556_JT9_2002Html1.htm
The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. By the aforesaid judgment all the nine accused have been convicted. The convictions and sentences have been confirmed by the High Court. Criminal appeal no. 73 of 2002 is preferred by accused Raghunath and criminal appeal no. 74 of 2002 is preferred by the remaining eight accused, namely, Ram Kishan s/o. Ram Pat, Anil @ Ajay Kumar s/o Ram Kishan, Manohar Lal s/o. Bohru, Desh Raj s/o. Ram Pat, Siri Chand s/o Bohru, Satish s/o. Siri Chand, Sunil s/o Ram Kishan and Jagmal s/o. Ram Pat.
The complainant parties are close relatives of deceased Kundan Lal. The accused are also inter-related (accused nos. 2 and 6 being the sons of accused no. 1 Ram Kishan, accused nos. 3 and 7 brothers of accused no. 1, accused nos. 4 and 9 inter-se brothers, accused no. 5 being the son of accused no. 4), except accused no. 8.
Before adverting to the points urged by counsel for the appellants we may, at this stage, notice that there is a rift between the two groups. While considering the evidence of witnesses, particularly of PWs 1 and 2, one could not loose sight that it is in the evidence of the prosecution that the deceased Kundan Lai had contested the election of sarpanch against accused Manohar Lai earlier. It is also in the evidence of the prosecution that just a day after the date of incident panchayat elections were to be held. The fight for the post of sarpanch was between Raj Singh and one Satbir. The complainant party was supporting Raj Singh and the accused were the supporters of Satbir. It is also in the evidence on record that both criminal and civil litigation were pending between the complainant and the accused groups. Therefore, the rift between the complainant and the accused groups was writ large prior to the date of the incident. In such a situation one should be cautious while appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
(3.)THE prosecution case, as revealed in the FIR, was set in motion on receipt of information received from Badshahpur police station through wireless that there was a fight in village Teekli and the injured were admitted in the hospital. On the basis of the said information, ASI Bhup Singh had noted the farad bayan. After recording the statement of the complainant party, a prima facie case was found and a case under sections 148, 323/302/325/452/436/427 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code was registered.
Pw-2 complainant, Sumer Singh lodged the FIR stating that on 18.12.1994, at about 9.30 p.m., his wife Smt. Indrawati, father Kundan Lal, mother Smt. Premwati, brothers Sher Singh and Sunder Lai, and Smt. Munni wife of Sher Singh were present in their house. Accused Ram Kishan, Sunil, Anil, Deshraj, Jagmal, Raghunath, Siri Chand, Satish, Manohar Lai, lass with lathis and stones entered the house of the deceased Kundan Lal by breaking the door open and on entering accused Anil Kumar inflicted a lathi blow which fell on the head of Kundan Lal (deceased) father of the plainant, as a result of which he fell on the ground. Thereafter, accused Ram Kishan, Sunil, Deshraj, Jagmal, Raghunath, Siri Chand, Satish and Manohar Lai caused injuries indiscriminately with lathis and stones to the complainant, his mother Smt. Parmeshwari, his wife Smt. Indira, his brothers Sunder Lal and Sher Singh and brother's wife Smt. Munni Bai. On hearing a noise from the members of the complainant party, Sube Singh son of Makhan Lal, Karan Singh son of Pyare Lai, Ram Khilari son of Ami Chand and Satbir Singh son of Chhatter Singh, all resident of the same village, came to the spot when the accused set on fire a heap of cow dung cakes (Bitoras) lying on the roof of the house and also the bundles of fodder lying near the chaff-cutting machine. It is further stated that accused Ram Kishan gave a lalkara exhorting that members of the complainant party be burnt alive. Karan Singh and Sube Singh when tried to intervene also sustained injuries from the accused. It is further stated that the complainant party also caused injuries to Ram Kishan in self-defence. In course of the investigation, the IO found prima facie case against the accused-appellants' under the aforesaid sections and submitted the challan. The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of two injured witnesses, Pw1 Karan Singh son of Pyare Lal and Pw-2 Sumer Singh son of deceased Kundan Lal. Injured Smt. Parmeshwari, Smt. Indira, Sunder Lal, Sher Singh and Smt. Munni Bai were not examined.
(2.)THESE two appeals arise out of a common judgment and order passed by the learned additional sessions judge, Gurgaon, convicting the appellants in sessions case no. 32 of 1995 and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment on the following sections of law as under:
The complainant parties are close relatives of deceased Kundan Lal. The accused are also inter-related (accused nos. 2 and 6 being the sons of accused no. 1 Ram Kishan, accused nos. 3 and 7 brothers of accused no. 1, accused nos. 4 and 9 inter-se brothers, accused no. 5 being the son of accused no. 4), except accused no. 8.
Before adverting to the points urged by counsel for the appellants we may, at this stage, notice that there is a rift between the two groups. While considering the evidence of witnesses, particularly of PWs 1 and 2, one could not loose sight that it is in the evidence of the prosecution that the deceased Kundan Lai had contested the election of sarpanch against accused Manohar Lai earlier. It is also in the evidence of the prosecution that just a day after the date of incident panchayat elections were to be held. The fight for the post of sarpanch was between Raj Singh and one Satbir. The complainant party was supporting Raj Singh and the accused were the supporters of Satbir. It is also in the evidence on record that both criminal and civil litigation were pending between the complainant and the accused groups. Therefore, the rift between the complainant and the accused groups was writ large prior to the date of the incident. In such a situation one should be cautious while appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
(3.)THE prosecution case, as revealed in the FIR, was set in motion on receipt of information received from Badshahpur police station through wireless that there was a fight in village Teekli and the injured were admitted in the hospital. On the basis of the said information, ASI Bhup Singh had noted the farad bayan. After recording the statement of the complainant party, a prima facie case was found and a case under sections 148, 323/302/325/452/436/427 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code was registered.
Pw-2 complainant, Sumer Singh lodged the FIR stating that on 18.12.1994, at about 9.30 p.m., his wife Smt. Indrawati, father Kundan Lal, mother Smt. Premwati, brothers Sher Singh and Sunder Lai, and Smt. Munni wife of Sher Singh were present in their house. Accused Ram Kishan, Sunil, Anil, Deshraj, Jagmal, Raghunath, Siri Chand, Satish, Manohar Lai, lass with lathis and stones entered the house of the deceased Kundan Lal by breaking the door open and on entering accused Anil Kumar inflicted a lathi blow which fell on the head of Kundan Lal (deceased) father of the plainant, as a result of which he fell on the ground. Thereafter, accused Ram Kishan, Sunil, Deshraj, Jagmal, Raghunath, Siri Chand, Satish and Manohar Lai caused injuries indiscriminately with lathis and stones to the complainant, his mother Smt. Parmeshwari, his wife Smt. Indira, his brothers Sunder Lal and Sher Singh and brother's wife Smt. Munni Bai. On hearing a noise from the members of the complainant party, Sube Singh son of Makhan Lal, Karan Singh son of Pyare Lai, Ram Khilari son of Ami Chand and Satbir Singh son of Chhatter Singh, all resident of the same village, came to the spot when the accused set on fire a heap of cow dung cakes (Bitoras) lying on the roof of the house and also the bundles of fodder lying near the chaff-cutting machine. It is further stated that accused Ram Kishan gave a lalkara exhorting that members of the complainant party be burnt alive. Karan Singh and Sube Singh when tried to intervene also sustained injuries from the accused. It is further stated that the complainant party also caused injuries to Ram Kishan in self-defence. In course of the investigation, the IO found prima facie case against the accused-appellants' under the aforesaid sections and submitted the challan. The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of two injured witnesses, Pw1 Karan Singh son of Pyare Lal and Pw-2 Sumer Singh son of deceased Kundan Lal. Injured Smt. Parmeshwari, Smt. Indira, Sunder Lal, Sher Singh and Smt. Munni Bai were not examined.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.