MAHAVIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
LAWS(SC)-2014-5-62
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on
May 23,2014
MAHAVIR SINGH
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. RAJENDRA SINGH [REFERRED TO]ARUMUGAM VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. SARAVANAN [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA PRATAP SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY ALIAS CHINEE VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
BRAHM SWAROOP VS. STATE OF UP [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR SAMBHUDAYAL GUPTA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. NARESH [REFERRED TO]
A SHANKAR VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
SUGALI DUNGAVATH LAKSHMA NAIK VS. STATE OF A.P. [LAWS(APH)-2019-6-18] [REFERRED TO]PAWAN MISHRA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-9-73] [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHARAN AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-4-10] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK YADAV VS. STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) [LAWS(DLH)-2018-2-110] [REFERRED TO]
AZIM KHAN VS. STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) [LAWS(DLH)-2016-5-217] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2019-2-48] [REFERRED TO]
MADHAV VENKAT PAWLE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2020-9-13] [REFERRED TO]
TENDERLYWELL HYNNIEWTA VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA [LAWS(MEGH)-2017-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
VIKAS SHARMA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-1-141] [REFERRED TO]
VINERGY INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD VS. DIMPLE DINESHBHAI SHAH [LAWS(BOM)-2016-12-34] [REFERRED TO]
STATE NCT OF DELHI VS. AMIT SHARMA & ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2018-7-103] [REFERRED TO]
MEERA DEVI VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2019-11-156] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH RABHA VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA [LAWS(MEGH)-2016-11-18] [REFERRED TO]
MD. TAHUR & ORS VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2015-10-90] [REFERRED]
KISHANLAL VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2021-8-50] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. ASHISH @ NIRMAL& ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2019-2-23] [REFERRED TO]
DHARMENDRA KUMAR TANDON VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2019-9-122] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK @ NANHU KIRAR VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2020-2-8] [REFERRED TO]
RAMJANI VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2020-3-41] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN SINGH VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2014-11-75] [REFERRED TO]
PAHALWAN SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-2-13] [REFERRED TO]
ARVIND S/O ABHILASH SINGH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2016-5-45] [REFERRED TO]
SACHIN ALIAS CHAJJA VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2019-10-123] [REFERRED TO]
NIRANJAN VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2020-1-34] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAMSUNDAR VITHAL PAWLE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2020-9-88] [REFERRED TO]
BHAJJU VS. STATE OF.M.P [LAWS(MPH)-2021-8-17] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESHWAR RAI VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2015-3-30] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI. LUKCHAM LOMI VS. THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS [LAWS(GAU)-2017-5-185] [REFERRED TO]
PRATAP VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-7-243] [REFERRED TO]
CHARAN SINGH VS. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) [LAWS(DLH)-2020-11-169] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2020-5-17] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD RANA VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2019-7-215] [REFERRED TO]
MUNNA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-4-175] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJESH HARIJAN VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-9-32] [REFERRED TO]
SABIR KHAN VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2022-5-115] [REFERRED TO]
POOJA SHARMA VS. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2015-2-631] [REFERRED]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 20.1.2010, passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal appeal No.499-DB of 2001, affirming the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat dated 4.9.2001/7.9.2001, passed in Sessions Trial No.49 of 2000 by which and whereunder the appellant alongwith one Jagbir Singh stood convicted under Sections 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5,000/- each. They had further been convicted under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo two years RI and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each. In default of payment, further undergo RI of six months.
(2.)Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are:
A. That one Ram Chander (PW.13), brother of Suraj Mal (since deceased) alleged that his brother Suraj Mal was missing from 21.6.1995 and his dead body was found on 26.6.1995 floating in the canal after recovery of his chappal on the path to canal near the bridge. Initially, the report in this respect was lodged on 25.6.1995 as a missing person by the mother of the deceased, namely, Smt. Bharto Devi (PW.8) at Police Station, Mathlauda, Panipat. On 28.6.1995, an FIR was lodged at 8 A.M. under Sections 302/201/120B/34 IPC on the basis of complaint made by Shri Ram Chander (PW.13), brother of deceased alongwith one Balbir Singh who had also gone to search the deceased on a motorcycle and that on reaching canal bridge of Kavi village, they saw one chappal, one saw, two pieces of blade, some blood and two pieces of meat lying on the path and the dead body lying on the surface of the river.
B. Pursuant to the registration of FIR, the matter was investigated and during investigation it is alleged that Jagbir Singh, co-accused had illicit relationship with Sudesh Rani (wife of deceased) and deceased's wife was also involved and all of them had conspired to remove the deceased from the way. The appellant also had a grudge on account of marriage of Sudesh Rani with the deceased and there had also been incident of "maar peet" between them and some cases are pending also. Thus, investigation revealed that the deceased was killed on intervening night of 21.6.1995/22.6.1995 by the appellant and Jagbir Singh, co-accused at the instance of Sudesh Rani and threw away the dead body in the canal.
C. After conclusion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed under Sections 302/201/120B IPC against the appellant, Jagbir Singh, co-accused and Sudesh Rani. The proceedings were committed to the Sessions Court and charges were framed vide order dated 17.1.1996.
D. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and on conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge, Panipat convicted the appellant alongwith Jagbir Singh, co-accused for the offences referred to hereinabove and sentenced them accordingly. However, Sudesh Rani was acquitted of all the charges.
E. Aggrieved, the appellant filed Criminal Appeal No.499-DB of 2001 before the High Court while Jagbir Singh, co-accused filed Criminal Appeal No.520-DB of 2001. Both the appellants were heard together and their appeals had been dismissed by way of impugned judgment and order.
Hence, this appeal.
(3.)So far as co-accused Jagbir Singh is concerned, he has filed separate appeal in this court, i.e. Criminal Appeal No.2232 of 2010, but his advocate refused to argue the case. So we have adjourned the matter to be heard in ordinary course. In such a fact-situation, the appeal of Mahavir Singh appellant is heard.
(2.)Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are:
A. That one Ram Chander (PW.13), brother of Suraj Mal (since deceased) alleged that his brother Suraj Mal was missing from 21.6.1995 and his dead body was found on 26.6.1995 floating in the canal after recovery of his chappal on the path to canal near the bridge. Initially, the report in this respect was lodged on 25.6.1995 as a missing person by the mother of the deceased, namely, Smt. Bharto Devi (PW.8) at Police Station, Mathlauda, Panipat. On 28.6.1995, an FIR was lodged at 8 A.M. under Sections 302/201/120B/34 IPC on the basis of complaint made by Shri Ram Chander (PW.13), brother of deceased alongwith one Balbir Singh who had also gone to search the deceased on a motorcycle and that on reaching canal bridge of Kavi village, they saw one chappal, one saw, two pieces of blade, some blood and two pieces of meat lying on the path and the dead body lying on the surface of the river.
B. Pursuant to the registration of FIR, the matter was investigated and during investigation it is alleged that Jagbir Singh, co-accused had illicit relationship with Sudesh Rani (wife of deceased) and deceased's wife was also involved and all of them had conspired to remove the deceased from the way. The appellant also had a grudge on account of marriage of Sudesh Rani with the deceased and there had also been incident of "maar peet" between them and some cases are pending also. Thus, investigation revealed that the deceased was killed on intervening night of 21.6.1995/22.6.1995 by the appellant and Jagbir Singh, co-accused at the instance of Sudesh Rani and threw away the dead body in the canal.
C. After conclusion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed under Sections 302/201/120B IPC against the appellant, Jagbir Singh, co-accused and Sudesh Rani. The proceedings were committed to the Sessions Court and charges were framed vide order dated 17.1.1996.
D. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and on conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge, Panipat convicted the appellant alongwith Jagbir Singh, co-accused for the offences referred to hereinabove and sentenced them accordingly. However, Sudesh Rani was acquitted of all the charges.
E. Aggrieved, the appellant filed Criminal Appeal No.499-DB of 2001 before the High Court while Jagbir Singh, co-accused filed Criminal Appeal No.520-DB of 2001. Both the appellants were heard together and their appeals had been dismissed by way of impugned judgment and order.
Hence, this appeal.
(3.)So far as co-accused Jagbir Singh is concerned, he has filed separate appeal in this court, i.e. Criminal Appeal No.2232 of 2010, but his advocate refused to argue the case. So we have adjourned the matter to be heard in ordinary course. In such a fact-situation, the appeal of Mahavir Singh appellant is heard.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.