As per case facts, a FIR was lodged by Rajender after his son Parmod was killed with a sharp object following a prior dispute with neighbor Vikas and his mother ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
CRA-D-1075-DB-2013 (O&M) and
CRR-3676-2017 (O&M)
In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana
1.
Vikas & another
State of Haryana
2.
Rajender Singh
State of Haryana
CORAM:
Present:
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J
1. This judgment shall dispose of above
criminal revision, as it is the same very judgment dated
by learned Sessions Judge
1075-DB-2013
offences under Section 302
2013 (O&M) and
2017 (O&M)
( 1 )
In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana
At Chandigarh
CR
Vikas & another
Versus
Haryana
CR
Rajender Singh
Versus
Haryana & others
Date of Decision
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH
Mr. Gautam Dutt and Mr. Sukhsharan Sra, Advocates,
for the appellants in CRA-D-1075
Ms. Nidhi Garg, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CRR-3676
for the complainant in CRA-D-
Mr. Munish Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.
is judgment shall dispose of above-mentioned
criminal revision, as it is the same very judgment dated
Sessions Judge, Jind, which is being assailed.
2013, appellants – Vikas and Angrejo
offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC
In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana
At Chandigarh
CRA-D-1075-DB-2013 (O&M)
… Appellants
... Respondent
CRR-3676-2017 (O&M)
… Petitioner
... Respondents
Date of Decision:- 16.09.2025
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA
Gautam Dutt and Mr. Sukhsharan Sra, Advocates,
1075-DB-2013.
3676-2017 and
-1075-DB-2013.
Sharma, DAG, Haryana.
mentioned appeal as well as
criminal revision, as it is the same very judgment dated 17.08.2013 passed
being assailed. While in CRA-D-
Vikas and Angrejo assail their conviction for
read with Section 34 IPC, the petitioner –
CRA-D-1075-DB-2013 (O&M) and
CRR-3676-2017 (O&M)
Rajender Singh
imposed upon
compensation.
sentenced as under:
Under Section
302
Section 34 IPC
2. The matter arises out of FIR No.
302/34 IPC
Rajender. The translated gist of
recording of FIR reads as under:
“I am resident of Neta Ji Colony, Hansi Road, Jind and I
I have
has been adopted
the house
Pundari and
early in the morning.
son Parmod, wife Poonam, brother Satish and Amarjit
in-law
came there
will not be good
Upon this, my wife
could not object for the same.
Mother of Vikas
will do
they went to their houses
i.e. on 22
for Pokhari Kheri for taking bill of newspapers and reached in the street
near the electric pole ahead of the house, Vikas caught hold
Parmod
2013 (O&M) and
2017 (O&M)
( 2 )
Rajender Singh in CRR-3676-2017 seeks enhancement of sentence as
imposed upon the accused namely Vikas and Angrejo as well as grant of
compensation. Vide impugned judgment, the accused have been
sentenced as under:
Under Section
302 read with
Section 34 IPC
- To undergo rigorous
a fine of Rs.50,000/
fine to undergo RI for a further period of one year
each.
The matter arises out of FIR No.73 dated 22.02.2012, under Sections
302/34 IPC, Police Station City Jind (Ex.P
The translated gist of Rajender’s
recording of FIR reads as under:
“I am resident of Neta Ji Colony, Hansi Road, Jind and I
I have two sons namely Parmod and Sushil
has been adopted by my sister-in-law Meena.
the house after appearing in the final examinations of polytechnic at
Pundari and used to distribute ‘Aaj Samaj
early in the morning. On 20.02.2012 at about 1.00/1.30 PM,
Parmod, wife Poonam, brother Satish and Amarjit
law, were sitting on the roof of their
came there and said that if in future we
will not be good for us and that he will finish
Upon this, my wife replied that we were
could not object for the same. However, he continued
other of Vikas also reached there and said that her son is young and he
will do what he wants. However, my
went to their houses, but Vikas bore
i.e. on 22.02.2012 about 9.30 AM, when
Pokhari Kheri for taking bill of newspapers and reached in the street
near the electric pole ahead of the house, Vikas caught hold
Parmod from his neck. His mother also
seeks enhancement of sentence as
ikas and Angrejo as well as grant of
Vide impugned judgment, the accused have been
rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay
a fine of Rs.50,000/- each and in default of payment of
RI for a further period of one year
73 dated 22.02.2012, under Sections
(Ex.PA/2) lodged at the instance of
Rajender’s statement (Ex.PA) leading to
“I am resident of Neta Ji Colony, Hansi Road, Jind and I am a labourer.
Parmod and Sushil, whereas my daughter Rupali
law Meena. My son Parmod visited
after appearing in the final examinations of polytechnic at
Aaj Samaj’ newspaper to people’s homes
2.2012 at about 1.00/1.30 PM, when my
Parmod, wife Poonam, brother Satish and Amarjit, son of my sister-
their house, Vikas son of Sant Ram
in future we were found sitting on the roof, it
will finish us and started abusing us.
were sitting on our roof and that he
However, he continued hurling abuses.
also reached there and said that her son is young and he
wife settled the matter and then
bore a grudge in his mind. Today
when my son Parmod left the house
Pokhari Kheri for taking bill of newspapers and reached in the street
near the electric pole ahead of the house, Vikas caught hold of my son
mother also followed him while hurling
am a labourer.
CRA-D-1075-DB-2013 (O&M) and
CRR-3676-2017 (O&M)
abuses
to the spot. Vikas inflicted
Parmod and then on his waist
down
Parmod from Vikas and his
reached
treatment, but
Civil Hospital.
aimlessly by giving him injuries. Strict action be taken against them.
Rajender Singh
3. The matter was investigated by the police during the course of which
inquest proceedings were conducted. The post
also got conducted
occurrence and prepared a rough site plan (Ex.PQ).
witnesses were recorded. The accused were also arrested the same day.
is the case of prosecution that
a disclosure statement (Ex.PO) pursuant to which he got recovered a
(bodkin) allegedly used for commission of offence.
4. Upon conclusion of investigation,
Vikas and
09.05.2012, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions vide order
dated 24.05.2012
both the accused
07.06.2012
recording of
13.08.2012, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319
Cr.P.C. seeking
2013 (O&M) and
2017 (O&M)
( 3 )
abuses. Upon hearing noise, my wife Poonam and brother Satish rushed
to the spot. Vikas inflicted a blow with
Parmod and then on his waist as a result of which
down. We raised alarm of MAR DIYA MAR DIYA and rescued
Parmod from Vikas and his mother.
reached at the spot. Thereafter, we
treatment, but my son Parmod succumbed to the injuries before reaching
Civil Hospital. My son Parmod has been killed by those
aimlessly by giving him injuries. Strict action be taken against them.
Rajender Singh”
The matter was investigated by the police during the course of which
inquest proceedings were conducted. The post
conducted on the dead body. The police visited the place of
occurrence and prepared a rough site plan (Ex.PQ).
witnesses were recorded. The accused were also arrested the same day.
is the case of prosecution that upon interrogation, accused Vikas suffered
a disclosure statement (Ex.PO) pursuant to which he got recovered a
allegedly used for commission of offence.
conclusion of investigation, challan was presented against
Vikas and Angrejo in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind
, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions vide order
24.05.2012. Learned Sessions Judge
both the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC
07.06.2012 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
recording of examination-in-chief of the complainant (
, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319
Cr.P.C. seeking summoning of additional accused namely Sant Ram
Poonam and brother Satish rushed
a blow with ‘sua’ (bodkin) on the chest of
as a result of which my son Parmod fell
MAR DIYA MAR DIYA and rescued
I and my mother Dhanpati also
we took Parmod to the Doctor for
son Parmod succumbed to the injuries before reaching
son Parmod has been killed by those heinous persons
aimlessly by giving him injuries. Strict action be taken against them. Sd/-
The matter was investigated by the police during the course of which
inquest proceedings were conducted. The post-mortem examination was
. The police visited the place of
occurrence and prepared a rough site plan (Ex.PQ). Statements of the
witnesses were recorded. The accused were also arrested the same day. It
upon interrogation, accused Vikas suffered
a disclosure statement (Ex.PO) pursuant to which he got recovered a ‘sua’
allegedly used for commission of offence.
challan was presented against accused
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind on
, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions vide order
. Learned Sessions Judge, Jind framed charges against
302 read with Section 34 IPC on
to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After
the complainant (PW-1 Rajender) on
, the prosecution moved an application under Section 319
summoning of additional accused namely Sant Ram.
.
CRA-D-1075-DB-2013 (O&M) and
CRR-3676-2017 (O&M)
However, the said application
dated 21.08.2012.
5. The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as
PWs. The gist of their statements is
PW-1 Rajender (complainant) stated in tune with his statement (Ex.PA)
on the basis of which FIR ha
categorically stated that on the day of occurrence, his son Parmod
(deceased) was caught hold o
accused Vikas inflicted injuries to him with a
his back and chest
PW-2 Satish, who is an eye
prosecution to the effect that
kicked
inflicted
PW-3 Poonam, wife of Rajender (complainant), who is also stated to be
present when the occurrence took place, stated
stated by
stated that while Angrejo gave fist blows and kicks, co
Sant Ram caught hold of deceased and Vikas inflicted blows with
‘sua’
PW-4 Dalbir, who is a witness to the recovery of
instance of accused Vikas, specifically stated
he had joined the investigation and that Vikas had led the police
party and got recovered a
by him, which was taken into possession vide recovery memo
Ex.PC.
PW-5 Kuldeep Gupta, Draftsman, stated that he had prepared the scaled
site plan and proved the same as Ex.PD.
2013 (O&M) and
2017 (O&M)
( 4 )
However, the said application was dismissed
21.08.2012.
The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as
The gist of their statements is briefly referred to herein
Rajender (complainant) stated in tune with his statement (Ex.PA)
on the basis of which FIR had been lodged, wherein he has
categorically stated that on the day of occurrence, his son Parmod
(deceased) was caught hold off by Angrejo and Sant Ram, while
accused Vikas inflicted injuries to him with a
his back and chest.
Satish, who is an eye-witness, stated in tune with the case of
prosecution to the effect that while
kicked the deceased, Sant Ram caught hold of him and Vikas
inflicted ‘sua’ (bodkin) blows to the deceased.
Poonam, wife of Rajender (complainant), who is also stated to be
present when the occurrence took place, stated
stated by PW-2 Satish regarding the manner of occurrence.
stated that while Angrejo gave fist blows and kicks, co
Sant Ram caught hold of deceased and Vikas inflicted blows with
‘sua’ to deceased on his chest and back.
Dalbir, who is a witness to the recovery of
instance of accused Vikas, specifically stated
he had joined the investigation and that Vikas had led the police
party and got recovered a ‘sua’ (bodkin) from the place
by him, which was taken into possession vide recovery memo
Ex.PC.
Kuldeep Gupta, Draftsman, stated that he had prepared the scaled
site plan and proved the same as Ex.PD.
dismissed by the trial Court vide order
The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as 13
briefly referred to herein under:-
Rajender (complainant) stated in tune with his statement (Ex.PA)
been lodged, wherein he has
categorically stated that on the day of occurrence, his son Parmod
f by Angrejo and Sant Ram, while
accused Vikas inflicted injuries to him with a ‘sua’ (bodkin) on
witness, stated in tune with the case of
while Angrejo gave fist blows and
Sant Ram caught hold of him and Vikas
(bodkin) blows to the deceased.
Poonam, wife of Rajender (complainant), who is also stated to be
present when the occurrence took place, stated identically as
regarding the manner of occurrence. She
stated that while Angrejo gave fist blows and kicks, co-accused
Sant Ram caught hold of deceased and Vikas inflicted blows with
to deceased on his chest and back.
Dalbir, who is a witness to the recovery of ‘sua’ (bodkin) at the
instance of accused Vikas, specifically stated that on 23.02.2012,
he had joined the investigation and that Vikas had led the police
(bodkin) from the place disclosed
by him, which was taken into possession vide recovery memo
Kuldeep Gupta, Draftsman, stated that he had prepared the scaled
site plan and proved the same as Ex.PD.
CRA-D-1075-DB-2013 (O&M) and
CRR-3676-2017 (O&M)
PW-6 Dr. Arvind Kumar,
had conducted post
Parmod
tendered his affidavit Ex.PE in evidence
injuries found on the dead body
was due to
injury to vital organ i.e. Liver
& sufficient to cause death in normal course of nature.
PW-7 Krishan Kumar stated that on
Inspector at Police Station City Jind and that upon receipt of
statement Ex.PA of Rajender, he had recorded formal FIR
PW-8 HC Narender Singh
had delivered the special reports to the Illaqa Magistrate.
PW-9 EASI Hawa Singh,
Ex.P
handled the case property
PW-10 EASI Ramroop
investigation of the case and that after the post
examination had been conducted, the Doctor had handed over him
sealed parcel containing clothes of the deceased, which he
produced before the Inspector Ro
into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PL.
PW-11 SI Ram Chander
Incharge, Police Post Patiala Chowk, J
telephonic message regarding arrival of a dead body in the
General Hospital, Jind, he proceeded to the hospital and recorded
the statement of Rajender (complainant)
that he also
application for getting post
2013 (O&M) and
2017 (O&M)
( 5 )
Dr. Arvind Kumar, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Jind,
had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of
Parmod, apart from proving the post
tendered his affidavit Ex.PE in evidence
injuries found on the dead body and opined that the cause of death
was due to shock & haemorrhage due to hemoperitonium and
injury to vital organ i.e. Liver, which were ante mortem in nature
& sufficient to cause death in normal course of nature.
Krishan Kumar stated that on 22.02
Inspector at Police Station City Jind and that upon receipt of
statement Ex.PA of Rajender, he had recorded formal FIR
HC Narender Singh stated that pursuant to recording of
had delivered the special reports to the Illaqa Magistrate.
EASI Hawa Singh, who is a formal witness, tendered his affidavit
Ex.PK in evidence, wherein he deposed
handled the case property.
EASI Ramroop stated that on 22.02.2012 he had joined the
investigation of the case and that after the post
examination had been conducted, the Doctor had handed over him
sealed parcel containing clothes of the deceased, which he
produced before the Inspector Rohtash Singh, who took the same
into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PL.
SI Ram Chander stated that on 22.02.2012, he was posted as
Incharge, Police Post Patiala Chowk, J
telephonic message regarding arrival of a dead body in the
General Hospital, Jind, he proceeded to the hospital and recorded
the statement of Rajender (complainant)
that he also conducted inquest proceedings an
application for getting post-mortem examination conduced and
Medical Officer, General Hospital, Jind, who
mortem examination on the dead body of
post-mortem report as Ex.PF,
tendered his affidavit Ex.PE in evidence, wherein he described the
and opined that the cause of death
shock & haemorrhage due to hemoperitonium and
, which were ante mortem in nature
& sufficient to cause death in normal course of nature.
22.02.2012, he was posted as Sub
Inspector at Police Station City Jind and that upon receipt of
statement Ex.PA of Rajender, he had recorded formal FIR Ex.PJ.
stated that pursuant to recording of FIR, he
had delivered the special reports to the Illaqa Magistrate.
who is a formal witness, tendered his affidavit
in evidence, wherein he deposed regarding his having
22.02.2012 he had joined the
investigation of the case and that after the post-mortem
examination had been conducted, the Doctor had handed over him
sealed parcel containing clothes of the deceased, which he
htash Singh, who took the same
into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PL.
22.02.2012, he was posted as
Incharge, Police Post Patiala Chowk, Jind and upon receipt of a
telephonic message regarding arrival of a dead body in the
General Hospital, Jind, he proceeded to the hospital and recorded
the statement of Rajender (complainant). PW-11 further stated
inquest proceedings and moved an
mortem examination conduced and
CRA-D-1075-DB-2013 (O&M) and
CRR-3676-2017 (O&M)
had also recorded statements of PWs Raju and
had also visited the place of occurrence and that subsequently
investigation was taken over by Inspector Rohtash Singh.
PW-12 EHC Paramjit Singh
affidavit Ex.PP, stated that on
Post Patiala Chowk, Jind
Ram Chander and that the accused Vikas was interrogated in hi
presence during the course of which he had made disclosure
statement Ex.PO.
PW-13 Inspector
detail with regard to the investigation conducted by him and
proved various documents and memos prepared during the course
of investigation. He also stated with regard to the disclosure
statement Ex.PO made by ac
‘sua’
6. Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of
were recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C.,
case of prosecution and pleaded false implication.
accused have examined
original status report dated 16.05.2012 and proved the photocopy thereof
as Ex.DA.
7. The learned trial Court, upon
that the charges framed against the accused Vikas and Angrejo were fully
substantiated and accordingly convicted
punishable under Section 302 read with Sec
2013 (O&M) and
2017 (O&M)
( 6 )
had also recorded statements of PWs Raju and
had also visited the place of occurrence and that subsequently
investigation was taken over by Inspector Rohtash Singh.
EHC Paramjit Singh, apart from tendering into evidence his
affidavit Ex.PP, stated that on 22.02.2012, he was posted at Police
Post Patiala Chowk, Jind and had joined investigation with SI
Ram Chander and that the accused Vikas was interrogated in hi
presence during the course of which he had made disclosure
statement Ex.PO.
Inspector Rohtash Singh, who had investigated the case, stated in
detail with regard to the investigation conducted by him and
proved various documents and memos prepared during the course
of investigation. He also stated with regard to the disclosure
statement Ex.PO made by accused Vikas and the recovery of
‘sua’ (bodkin) effected pursuant to the said disclosure statement.
Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of
were recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C.,
case of prosecution and pleaded false implication.
accused have examined DW-1 SI Karam Singh
original status report dated 16.05.2012 and proved the photocopy thereof
The learned trial Court, upon appraisal of
that the charges framed against the accused Vikas and Angrejo were fully
substantiated and accordingly convicted both the accused for offence
punishable under Section 302 read with Sec
had also recorded statements of PWs Raju and Dinesh Kumar and
had also visited the place of occurrence and that subsequently
investigation was taken over by Inspector Rohtash Singh.
from tendering into evidence his
22.02.2012, he was posted at Police
and had joined investigation with SI
Ram Chander and that the accused Vikas was interrogated in his
presence during the course of which he had made disclosure
, who had investigated the case, stated in
detail with regard to the investigation conducted by him and
proved various documents and memos prepared during the course
of investigation. He also stated with regard to the disclosure
cused Vikas and the recovery of a
effected pursuant to the said disclosure statement.
Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, statements of both the accused
were recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they denied the
case of prosecution and pleaded false implication. In their defence, the
SI Karam Singh, who had brought the
original status report dated 16.05.2012 and proved the photocopy thereof
of the evidence on record, held
that the charges framed against the accused Vikas and Angrejo were fully
both the accused for offence
punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC vide judgment
CRA-D-1075-DB-2013 (O&M) and
CRR-3676-2017 (O&M)
dated 17.08.2013 and sentenced them
apart from imposing fine amounting to Rs.50,000/
8. Aggrieved by the same, while
preferred CRA
CRR-3676-
9. Learned counsel for the
their conviction, submitted that
present case and that
interested witnesses being relatives of the deceased, their statements are
also not consistent and in fact a vain effort was made by them during the
course of their statements to spread the net wider and
person namely Sant Pal as well to be an accused although his name does
figure anywhere
the motive alleged is too flimsy to have actually prompted the accused to
have killed the dec
matter of fact it is a case where the deceased was killed by someone else
and the accused have been named falsely on account of some minor
skirmish amongst neighbours.
10. It has also
case of prosecution and it cannot be said that the deceased had lost his life
on account of the alleged blows with a
for the appellants,
Kumar, submitted that the Doctor having stated that the injuries were
skin-deep, the accused even if said to have inflicted the said injuries
2013 (O&M) and
2017 (O&M)
( 7 )
17.08.2013 and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life
apart from imposing fine amounting to Rs.50,000/
Aggrieved by the same, while the appellants
preferred CRA-D-1075-DB-2013, the complainant
-2017, as stated above.
Learned counsel for the appellants – Vikas and Angrejo
conviction, submitted that they have
present case and that apart from the fact that all the eye
interested witnesses being relatives of the deceased, their statements are
also not consistent and in fact a vain effort was made by them during the
course of their statements to spread the net wider and
person namely Sant Pal as well to be an accused although his name does
figure anywhere in the FIR. Learned counsel further submitted that even
the motive alleged is too flimsy to have actually prompted the accused to
have killed the deceased. Learned counsel further submitted that as a
matter of fact it is a case where the deceased was killed by someone else
and the accused have been named falsely on account of some minor
amongst neighbours.
also been submitted that the medical evidence in fact negates the
case of prosecution and it cannot be said that the deceased had lost his life
on account of the alleged blows with a ‘sua’
for the appellants, while referring to the st
submitted that the Doctor having stated that the injuries were
, the accused even if said to have inflicted the said injuries
to undergo imprisonment for life
apart from imposing fine amounting to Rs.50,000/- on each of them.
appellants - Vikas and Angrejo
complainant – Rajender has filed
Vikas and Angrejo, while assailing
falsely been implicated in the
apart from the fact that all the eye-witnesses are
interested witnesses being relatives of the deceased, their statements are
also not consistent and in fact a vain effort was made by them during the
course of their statements to spread the net wider and they named a third
person namely Sant Pal as well to be an accused although his name does
Learned counsel further submitted that even
the motive alleged is too flimsy to have actually prompted the accused to
eased. Learned counsel further submitted that as a
matter of fact it is a case where the deceased was killed by someone else
and the accused have been named falsely on account of some minor
been submitted that the medical evidence in fact negates the
case of prosecution and it cannot be said that the deceased had lost his life
‘sua’ (bodkin). Learned counsel
while referring to the statement of PW-6 Dr. Arvind
submitted that the Doctor having stated that the injuries were
, the accused even if said to have inflicted the said injuries
CRA-D-1075-DB-2013 (O&M) and
CRR-3676-2017 (O&M)
cannot be attributed the offence of murder. Learned counsel, thus, prayed
for setting aside of the
accused.
11. On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that having regard to
the consistent version of the eye
evidence, there is no room for interfe
Learned counsel representing the complainant/petitioner, however,
submitted that it is a case where a more stringent punishment ought to
have been awarded
ought to have
12. We have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court and
with the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record of the
case.
13. Since it is a case
scrutinized. PW
mortem examination on the dead body of
mortem report as Ex.
his affidavit Ex.PE, where
body as under:
“1. Multiple punctured wound of size
wound present
below and 2 cm lateral to mid line on right side, one over right flank, on
dissection all were skin deep, on further dissection thoracic cavity
contents were found normal. On opening of
blood approximately 3.5 lt. (Hemoperitonium) and liver
2013 (O&M) and
2017 (O&M)
( 8 )
cannot be attributed the offence of murder. Learned counsel, thus, prayed
aside of the impugned judgment and for acquittal of both the
On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that having regard to
the consistent version of the eye-witnesses supported by the medical
evidence, there is no room for interference in the impugned judgment.
Learned counsel representing the complainant/petitioner, however,
submitted that it is a case where a more stringent punishment ought to
awarded and in any case a heavier
ought to have been imposed upon the accused.
We have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court and
with the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record of the
Since it is a case of homicidal death, the medical evidence needs to be
scrutinized. PW-6 Dr. Arvind Kumar, who had conducted
mortem examination on the dead body of
mortem report as Ex.PF. PW-6 Dr. Arvind Kumar tendered into evidence
his affidavit Ex.PE, wherein he described the injuries found on the dead
body as under:
Multiple punctured wound of size 0.5x0.5 cm, round in shape. Five punctured
wound present over left shoulder, one over on anterior aspect of chest 6 cm
below and 2 cm lateral to mid line on right side, one over right flank, on
dissection all were skin deep, on further dissection thoracic cavity
contents were found normal. On opening of
blood approximately 3.5 lt. (Hemoperitonium) and liver
cannot be attributed the offence of murder. Learned counsel, thus, prayed
impugned judgment and for acquittal of both the
On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that having regard to
witnesses supported by the medical
rence in the impugned judgment.
Learned counsel representing the complainant/petitioner, however,
submitted that it is a case where a more stringent punishment ought to
heavier fine including compensation
been imposed upon the accused.
We have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court and
with the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record of the
the medical evidence needs to be
, who had conducted the post-
mortem examination on the dead body of Parmod, proved the post-
6 Dr. Arvind Kumar tendered into evidence
described the injuries found on the dead
0.5x0.5 cm, round in shape. Five punctured
over left shoulder, one over on anterior aspect of chest 6 cm
below and 2 cm lateral to mid line on right side, one over right flank, on
dissection all were skin deep, on further dissection thoracic cavity and its
contents were found normal. On opening of peritoneal cavity was found full of
blood approximately 3.5 lt. (Hemoperitonium) and liver was found lacerated.”
rence in the impugned judgment.
CRA-D-1075-DB-2013 (O&M) and
CRR-3676-2017 (O&M)
14. While opining
as under:
“Opinion
shock & haemorrhage due to Hemoperitonium and injury to vital organ
i.e. Liver, which were ante mortem in nature & sufficient to cause death
in normal course of nature.
15. Learned counsel for the accused/appellants, however, drew the attention
of this Court to the cross
Arvind Kumar, which is reproduced herein under:
“I gave my opinion on 28.02.2012 on police request at about
However, I had not mentioned the time on opinion Ex.PI/1. I had also not
mentioned the length and width of the bodkin in my opinion. I had not noticed
the blood on the bodkin at that time. The dead body was brought in the hospital
at about 10.30
was no specific mark on the clothes. I do not remember whether the parents of
the deceased met
body of Parmod were superficial and de
it was due to massive amount of blood in peritoneal cavity and injuries to liver.
It is incorrect to suggest that I had conducted the post mortem examination as
per desire of the police.”
16. Learned counsel for the
no hole was found on the clothes of the deceased and all the injuries
been described as
has even stated that the death was not due to bodkin injuries
cannot be held responsible for having murdered the deceased.
17. We do find that during the course of cross
state that the injuries were ‘superficial’ and that the death was not due to
2013 (O&M) and
2017 (O&M)
( 9 )
opining as regards cause of death, PW
Opinion – In my opinion, the cause of death in this case
shock & haemorrhage due to Hemoperitonium and injury to vital organ
i.e. Liver, which were ante mortem in nature & sufficient to cause death
in normal course of nature.”
Learned counsel for the accused/appellants, however, drew the attention
of this Court to the cross-examination of the said witness i.e. PW
Arvind Kumar, which is reproduced herein under:
I gave my opinion on 28.02.2012 on police request at about
However, I had not mentioned the time on opinion Ex.PI/1. I had also not
mentioned the length and width of the bodkin in my opinion. I had not noticed
the blood on the bodkin at that time. The dead body was brought in the hospital
at about 10.30 A.M. There was no hole on the clothes of the deceased. There
was no specific mark on the clothes. I do not remember whether the parents of
the deceased met me in the hospital on that day. All the injuries on the dead
body of Parmod were superficial and death was not due to bodkin injuries, but
it was due to massive amount of blood in peritoneal cavity and injuries to liver.
It is incorrect to suggest that I had conducted the post mortem examination as
per desire of the police.”
Learned counsel for the accused/appellants vehemently argued that since
no hole was found on the clothes of the deceased and all the injuries
been described as ‘superficial’ during cross
has even stated that the death was not due to bodkin injuries
cannot be held responsible for having murdered the deceased.
We do find that during the course of cross
state that the injuries were ‘superficial’ and that the death was not due to
cause of death, PW-6 Dr. Arvind Kumar stated
In my opinion, the cause of death in this case was due to
shock & haemorrhage due to Hemoperitonium and injury to vital organ
i.e. Liver, which were ante mortem in nature & sufficient to cause death
Learned counsel for the accused/appellants, however, drew the attention
examination of the said witness i.e. PW-6 Dr.
Arvind Kumar, which is reproduced herein under:
I gave my opinion on 28.02.2012 on police request at about 10/11.00 A.M.
However, I had not mentioned the time on opinion Ex.PI/1. I had also not
mentioned the length and width of the bodkin in my opinion. I had not noticed
the blood on the bodkin at that time. The dead body was brought in the hospital
A.M. There was no hole on the clothes of the deceased. There
was no specific mark on the clothes. I do not remember whether the parents of
me in the hospital on that day. All the injuries on the dead
ath was not due to bodkin injuries, but
it was due to massive amount of blood in peritoneal cavity and injuries to liver.
It is incorrect to suggest that I had conducted the post mortem examination as
accused/appellants vehemently argued that since
no hole was found on the clothes of the deceased and all the injuries have
during cross-examination and the Doctor
has even stated that the death was not due to bodkin injuries, the accused
cannot be held responsible for having murdered the deceased.
We do find that during the course of cross-examination the witness did
state that the injuries were ‘superficial’ and that the death was not due to
CRA-D-1075-DB-2013 (O&M) and
CRR-3676-2017 (O&M)
‘sua’ (bodkin) injuries, bu
sentence that the death was due to massive amount of blood in peritoneal
cavity and on account of injuries to liver.
a thin pointed
account of elastic
than a centimeter in diameter.
as, ‘sua’ (bodkin) as in the present case, which measured about 4 ½ inches
long can cause exten
apparently been done in the present case inasmuch as the liver had been
lacerated and there was extensive bleeding in the
Further, the time between the injury and the death has been opi
within 6 to 36 hours.
deceased lost his life on account of multiple injuries sustained by him
with some sharp pointed object like
18. As regards the contention that all the eye
the deceased, and thus would be
between an 'interested' and a 'related' witnesses stands well defined in a
plethora of cases, stating that a witness may be called interested only
when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation. A three
Judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
(1981) 2 SCC 752
who was closely related to deceased, being his wife, observed as under:
“6. As mentioned above the High Court has decline
of P.W.1 on two grounds: (1) she was a "highly interested" witness
2013 (O&M) and
2017 (O&M)
( 10 )
(bodkin) injuries, but he has very categorically added in that very
sentence that the death was due to massive amount of blood in peritoneal
cavity and on account of injuries to liver. When anybody
a thin pointed object, the visible external injury would be
account of elasticity of the skin and the visible hole
than a centimeter in diameter. However, a sharp pointed substance, such
(bodkin) as in the present case, which measured about 4 ½ inches
long can cause extensive internal damage to the internal organs as had
apparently been done in the present case inasmuch as the liver had been
lacerated and there was extensive bleeding in the
Further, the time between the injury and the death has been opi
within 6 to 36 hours. As such, it can safely be concluded that the
deceased lost his life on account of multiple injuries sustained by him
with some sharp pointed object like ‘sua’ (bodkin).
As regards the contention that all the eye-witnesses are close relatives of
the deceased, and thus would be 'interested'
between an 'interested' and a 'related' witnesses stands well defined in a
plethora of cases, stating that a witness may be called interested only
when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation. A three
Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
(1981) 2 SCC 752, while discussing the value of testimony of a witness
who was closely related to deceased, being his wife, observed as under:
As mentioned above the High Court has decline
of P.W.1 on two grounds: (1) she was a "highly interested" witness
t he has very categorically added in that very
sentence that the death was due to massive amount of blood in peritoneal
When anybody is stabbed with
external injury would be very small on
the visible hole could even be less
However, a sharp pointed substance, such
(bodkin) as in the present case, which measured about 4 ½ inches
damage to the internal organs as had
apparently been done in the present case inasmuch as the liver had been
lacerated and there was extensive bleeding in the peritoneal cavity.
Further, the time between the injury and the death has been opined to be
As such, it can safely be concluded that the
deceased lost his life on account of multiple injuries sustained by him
(bodkin).
witnesses are close relatives of
'interested' witnesses, the difference
between an 'interested' and a 'related' witnesses stands well defined in a
plethora of cases, stating that a witness may be called interested only
when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation. A three
Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki,
, while discussing the value of testimony of a witness
who was closely related to deceased, being his wife, observed as under:
As mentioned above the High Court has declined to rely on the evidence
of P.W.1 on two grounds: (1) she was a "highly interested" witness
peritoneal cavity.
CRA-D-1075-DB-2013 (O&M) and
CRR-3676-2017 (O&M)
because she "is the wife of the deceased"
discrepancies in her evidence. With respect, in our opinion, both the
grounds are invalid. For, in the
only and most natural witness; she was the only person present in the hut
with the deceased at the time of the occurrence, and the only person who
saw the occurrence. True it is she is the wife of the deceased; but s
cannot be called an 'interested' witness. She is related to the deceased.
'Related' is not equivalent to 'interested. A witness may be called
'interested' only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a
litigation
punished.
witness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be 'interested'
the instant case P. W. 1. had no interest in Protecting the real culpri
falsely implicating the respondents.”
19. Reiterating the aforestated position of law, another three Judges Bench of
in Hari Obula Reddy and Ors. V. The State of Andhra Pradesh, (1981) 3
SCC 675, also sounded the note of caution
a related witness in the following words:
“.. it is well settled that interested evidence is not necessarily unreliable
evidence. Even partisanship by itself is not a valid ground for
discrediting or rejecting sworn testimon
invariable rule that interested evidence can never form the basis of
conviction unless corroborated to a material extent in material particulars
by independent evidence.
interes
with caution
intrinsically reliable or inherently probable, it may, by itself, be
sufficient, in the circumstances of the parti
conviction thereon."
2013 (O&M) and
2017 (O&M)
( 11 )
because she "is the wife of the deceased"
discrepancies in her evidence. With respect, in our opinion, both the
grounds are invalid. For, in the circumstances of the case, she was the
only and most natural witness; she was the only person present in the hut
with the deceased at the time of the occurrence, and the only person who
saw the occurrence. True it is she is the wife of the deceased; but s
cannot be called an 'interested' witness. She is related to the deceased.
'Related' is not equivalent to 'interested. A witness may be called
'interested' only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a
litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person
punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eye
witness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be 'interested'
the instant case P. W. 1. had no interest in Protecting the real culpri
falsely implicating the respondents.”
Reiterating the aforestated position of law, another three Judges Bench of
Hari Obula Reddy and Ors. V. The State of Andhra Pradesh, (1981) 3
, also sounded the note of caution
a related witness in the following words:
“.. it is well settled that interested evidence is not necessarily unreliable
evidence. Even partisanship by itself is not a valid ground for
discrediting or rejecting sworn testimon
invariable rule that interested evidence can never form the basis of
conviction unless corroborated to a material extent in material particulars
by independent evidence. All that is necessary is that the evidence of
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 parti
conviction thereon."
because she "is the wife of the deceased" and (2) there were
discrepancies in her evidence. With respect, in our opinion, both the
circumstances of the case, she was the
only and most natural witness; she was the only person present in the hut
with the deceased at the time of the occurrence, and the only person who
saw the occurrence. True it is she is the wife of the deceased; but she
cannot be called an 'interested' witness. She is related to the deceased.
'Related' is not equivalent to 'interested. A witness may be called
'interested' only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a
case, or in seeing an accused person
A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eye
witness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be 'interested'. In
the instant case P. W. 1. had no interest in Protecting the real culprit, and
(emphasis supplied)
Reiterating the aforestated position of law, another three Judges Bench of
Hari Obula Reddy and Ors. V. The State of Andhra Pradesh, (1981) 3
while scrutinizing evidence of
“.. it is well settled that interested evidence is not necessarily unreliable
evidence. Even partisanship by itself is not a valid ground for
discrediting or rejecting sworn testimony. Nor can it 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 particulars
All that is necessary is that the evidence of
ted witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted
. 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
(emphasis supplied)
CRA-D-1075-DB-2013 (O&M) and
CRR-3676-2017 (O&M)
20. There are a large number of cases where offence is witnessed by a close
relative of the victim, whose presence on the scene of the offence would
be natural. The evidence of such a witness
discarded by labelling the witness as interested. It only needs to be
ensured that the evidence is inherently reliable, probable, cogent and
consistent. In
199: Hon’ble
"23. We are of the considered view that in cases where the Court is called
upon to deal with the evidence of the interested witnesses, the approach
of the Court while appreciating the evidence of such witnesses must not
be pedantic. The Court must be cautious i
the evidence given by the interested witnesses but the Court must not be
suspicious of such evidence.
be to look for consistency. The evidence of a witness cannot be ignored
or thrown out
closely related to the victim.
21. Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in a case reported as
(Criminal) 753 Yogesh Singh vs. Mahabeer Singh and others
referring to
witness summarized the position of law as under:
“28. A survey of the judicial pronouncements of this Court on this point leads
to the inescapable conclusion that the evidence of a closely related
witnesses is required to be carefully scrutinised and appreciated before
any conclusion is made to rest upon it,
given case. Thus, the evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the
ground that the witnesses are related to each other or to the deceased. In
case the evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and
trustworth
2013 (O&M) and
2017 (O&M)
( 12 )
There are a large number of cases where offence is witnessed by a close
relative of the victim, whose presence on the scene of the offence would
be natural. The evidence of such a witness
discarded by labelling the witness as interested. It only needs to be
ensured that the evidence is inherently reliable, probable, cogent and
consistent. In Jayabalan v. Union Territory of Pondicherry, (2010) 1 SCC
’ble Apex Court held as under:
We are of the considered view that in cases where the Court is called
upon to deal with the evidence of the interested witnesses, the approach
of the Court while appreciating the evidence of such witnesses must not
be pedantic. The Court must be cautious i
the evidence given by the interested witnesses but the Court must not be
suspicious of such evidence. The primary endeavour of the Court must
be to look for consistency. The evidence of a witness cannot be ignored
or thrown out solely because it comes from the mouth of a person who is
closely related to the victim."
Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in a case reported as
(Criminal) 753 Yogesh Singh vs. Mahabeer Singh and others
referring to several earlier judgments on the issue of evidence of a related
witness summarized the position of law as under:
A survey of the judicial pronouncements of this Court on this point leads
to the inescapable conclusion that the evidence of a closely related
witnesses is required to be carefully scrutinised and appreciated before
any conclusion is made to rest upon it, regarding the convict/accused in a
given case. Thus, the evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the
ground that the witnesses are related to each other or to the deceased. In
case the evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and
trustworthy, it can, and certainly should, be relied upon”
There are a large number of cases where offence is witnessed by a close
relative of the victim, whose presence on the scene of the offence would
be natural. The evidence of such a witness cannot automatically be
discarded by labelling the witness as interested. It only needs to be
ensured that the evidence is inherently reliable, probable, cogent and
Jayabalan v. Union Territory of Pondicherry, (2010) 1 SCC
We are of the considered view that in cases where the Court is called
upon to deal with the evidence of the interested witnesses, the approach
of the Court while appreciating the evidence of such witnesses must not
be pedantic. The Court must be cautious in appreciating and accepting
the evidence given by the interested witnesses but the Court must not be
The primary endeavour of the Court must
be to look for consistency. The evidence of a witness cannot be ignored
solely because it comes from the mouth of a person who is
(emphasis supplied)
Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in a case reported as (2016) 4 RCR
(Criminal) 753 Yogesh Singh vs. Mahabeer Singh and others, while
several earlier judgments on the issue of evidence of a related
witness summarized the position of law as under:
A survey of the judicial pronouncements of this Court on this point leads
to the inescapable conclusion that the evidence of a closely related
witnesses is required to be carefully scrutinised and appreciated before
regarding the convict/accused in a
given case. Thus, the evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the
ground that the witnesses are related to each other or to the deceased. In
case the evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and
y, it can, and certainly should, be relied upon”
CRA-D-1075-DB-2013 (O&M) and
CRR-3676-2017 (O&M)
22. Examining
judgments, we find that
stated that on
come to their house and had threatened them and told
the roof and that on the next day i.e.
alongwith other members of his family was sitting in the house and
having breakfast, his son Parmod
reached near a electric pole in front of the Church
distance from their house,
were seen running in the street and
his son Parmod. He further stated that while Angrejo and Sant Ram
caught hold of Parmod, Vikas inflicted blows on the chest and back of his
son Parmod with
his son to the hospital, but he could not survi
23. PW-2 Satish
Parmod had gone out of the house and
Church, then accused Vikas
mother Angrejo
of him. PW
deceased (Parmod)
Angrejo and Sant Ram running
while Sant Ram caught hold his son Parmod, Angrejo gave fist and leg
blows to him whereas Vikas gave bodkin blows on his chest and back.
2013 (O&M) and
2017 (O&M)
( 13 )
Examining the ocular version in light of ratio of above referred
, we find that PW-1 Rajender (complainant
stated that on 21.02.2012, accused Vikas, Angrejo and Sant Ram had
come to their house and had threatened them and told
the roof and that on the next day i.e. 22.02.2012, when the complainant
other members of his family was sitting in the house and
having breakfast, his son Parmod (deceased)
near a electric pole in front of the Church
distance from their house, then Vikas, his mother Angrejo and Sant Ram
were seen running in the street and they were giving fist and kick blows to
mod. He further stated that while Angrejo and Sant Ram
caught hold of Parmod, Vikas inflicted blows on the chest and back of his
son Parmod with ‘sua’ (bodkin). He further stated that although they took
his son to the hospital, but he could not survi
Satish, brother of the complainant, stated that on
Parmod had gone out of the house and had
, then accused Vikas gave blows with bodkin to him and that his
mother Angrejo gave fist and leg blows while Sant Ram had caught hold
PW-3 Poonam, wife of the complainant and mother of the
(Parmod), stated that on 22.02.2012, she had seen Vikas,
Angrejo and Sant Ram running in the street
le Sant Ram caught hold his son Parmod, Angrejo gave fist and leg
blows to him whereas Vikas gave bodkin blows on his chest and back.
in light of ratio of above referred
complainant) has categorically
21.02.2012, accused Vikas, Angrejo and Sant Ram had
come to their house and had threatened them and told them not to sit on
22.02.2012, when the complainant
other members of his family was sitting in the house and
(deceased) had gone out and when he
near a electric pole in front of the Church, which is at a short
then Vikas, his mother Angrejo and Sant Ram
they were giving fist and kick blows to
mod. He further stated that while Angrejo and Sant Ram had
caught hold of Parmod, Vikas inflicted blows on the chest and back of his
. He further stated that although they took
his son to the hospital, but he could not survive.
, brother of the complainant, stated that on 22.02.2012, when
had reached near a pole near the
gave blows with bodkin to him and that his
ws while Sant Ram had caught hold
3 Poonam, wife of the complainant and mother of the
22.02.2012, she had seen Vikas,
in the street towards Church and that
le Sant Ram caught hold his son Parmod, Angrejo gave fist and leg
blows to him whereas Vikas gave bodkin blows on his chest and back.
CRA-D-1075-DB-2013 (O&M) and
CRR-3676-2017 (O&M)
24. We find that the
Poonam are consistent particularly as regards the inflicting of blows with
‘sua’ (bodkin) by accused Vikas to the deceased.
cross-examinations, their statements could not be shattered on the material
aspects of the case. The testimonies of
out from the medical evidence
discussed above, show
a sharp pointed object which ultimately led to his death. Consequently,
the findings of guilt in respect of accused Vikas
Court, do not call for any interference.
25. Interestingly, the name of one Sant Ram also finds mention in the
testimonies
but there is no such reference in the FIR as regards presence of Sant Ram.
It apparently
Court has rightly dismissed the application moved by the prosecution
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for sum
accused to face trial vide order dated 21.08.2012.
26. As far as accused Angrejo is concer
mentioned
Vikas, but the role attributed therein is of merely having followed his son
Vikas and having hurled abuses. There is a conspicuous absence of
attribution of any injury in the shape of fist and kick blows by said
Angrejo though subsequently some improvement has
witnesses when they stepped into the witness
2013 (O&M) and
2017 (O&M)
( 14 )
at the testimonies of PW-1 Rajender, PW
are consistent particularly as regards the inflicting of blows with
(bodkin) by accused Vikas to the deceased.
examinations, their statements could not be shattered on the material
aspects of the case. The testimonies of the eye
out from the medical evidence led by the prosecution which,
discussed above, shows that the deceased had been inflicted injuries with
sharp pointed object which ultimately led to his death. Consequently,
indings of guilt in respect of accused Vikas
Court, do not call for any interference.
Interestingly, the name of one Sant Ram also finds mention in the
of eye-witnesses, who is alleged to have held the deceased
but there is no such reference in the FIR as regards presence of Sant Ram.
It apparently was an attempt to spread the net wider. In any case, the trial
Court has rightly dismissed the application moved by the prosecution
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning said Sant Ram as an additional
accused to face trial vide order dated 21.08.2012.
As far as accused Angrejo is concerned, we find that although Angrejo is
mentioned in the FIR, wherein she is referred to as mother of accused
, but the role attributed therein is of merely having followed his son
Vikas and having hurled abuses. There is a conspicuous absence of
attribution of any injury in the shape of fist and kick blows by said
hough subsequently some improvement has
witnesses when they stepped into the witness
1 Rajender, PW-2 Satish and PW-3
are consistent particularly as regards the inflicting of blows with
(bodkin) by accused Vikas to the deceased. Despite their lengthy
examinations, their statements could not be shattered on the material
the eye-witnesses are also borne
led by the prosecution which, as already
that the deceased had been inflicted injuries with
sharp pointed object which ultimately led to his death. Consequently,
indings of guilt in respect of accused Vikas, as recorded by the trial
Interestingly, the name of one Sant Ram also finds mention in the
witnesses, who is alleged to have held the deceased,
but there is no such reference in the FIR as regards presence of Sant Ram.
an attempt to spread the net wider. In any case, the trial
Court has rightly dismissed the application moved by the prosecution
moning said Sant Ram as an additional
accused to face trial vide order dated 21.08.2012.
we find that although Angrejo is
in the FIR, wherein she is referred to as mother of accused
, but the role attributed therein is of merely having followed his son
Vikas and having hurled abuses. There is a conspicuous absence of
attribution of any injury in the shape of fist and kick blows by said
hough subsequently some improvement has been made by the
witnesses when they stepped into the witness-box, wherein they did state
but there is no such reference in the FIR as regards presence of Sant Ram.
CRA-D-1075-DB-2013 (O&M) and
CRR-3676-2017 (O&M)
that Angrejo, mother of accused, had also inflicted fist and kick blows to
the deceased
injury other than t
of arguments, the role as attributed in FIR is taken to be correct, still the
same would fall grossly short
or liability with regard to death of Parmod
did she inflict any injury, nor did she exhort her son to cause any injury.
As such, she cannot even be held vicariously liable.
circumstances, we find that benefit of doubt can safely be extended to
appellant No
27. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that the
has led ample evidence to establish the complicity of appellant No.1
Vikas, but the case of prosecution qua appellant No.2
said to be substantiated. As such,
No.1 – Vikas
appeal qua appellant No.
the charges framed against
immediately to undergo remaining part of sentence.
28. As far as revision filed on behalf of the complainant
not find it to be a case where capital punishment is warranted, as the
instant case
justify imposition of death sentence.
to be sans merits and is hereby dismissed.
2013 (O&M) and
2017 (O&M)
( 15 )
that Angrejo, mother of accused, had also inflicted fist and kick blows to
the deceased. However, the medical evidence does not reflect any such
injury other than the injuries with bodkin. In any case, even if for the sake
of arguments, the role as attributed in FIR is taken to be correct, still the
same would fall grossly short to saddle her with any kind of responsibility
or liability with regard to death of Parmod
did she inflict any injury, nor did she exhort her son to cause any injury.
As such, she cannot even be held vicariously liable.
circumstances, we find that benefit of doubt can safely be extended to
appellant No.2 – Angrejo.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that the
has led ample evidence to establish the complicity of appellant No.1
Vikas, but the case of prosecution qua appellant No.2
said to be substantiated. As such, CRA-D
Vikas Singh is dismissed and his conviction is upheld
qua appellant No.2 – Angrejo is accepted and she
the charges framed against her. Appellant No.1
immediately to undergo remaining part of sentence.
As far as revision filed on behalf of the complainant
not find it to be a case where capital punishment is warranted, as the
instant case would not fall in the category of ‘rarest of rare cases’
imposition of death sentence. Consequently, the revision is found
merits and is hereby dismissed.
that Angrejo, mother of accused, had also inflicted fist and kick blows to
the medical evidence does not reflect any such
In any case, even if for the sake
of arguments, the role as attributed in FIR is taken to be correct, still the
saddle her with any kind of responsibility
or liability with regard to death of Parmod. Neither was she armed, nor
did she inflict any injury, nor did she exhort her son to cause any injury.
As such, she cannot even be held vicariously liable. Under these
circumstances, we find that benefit of doubt can safely be extended to
In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that the prosecution
has led ample evidence to establish the complicity of appellant No.1 -
Vikas, but the case of prosecution qua appellant No.2 – Angrejo cannot be
D-1075-DB-2017 qua appellant
Singh is dismissed and his conviction is upheld, whereas the
accepted and she is acquitted of all
. Appellant No.1, if on bail, be arrested
immediately to undergo remaining part of sentence.
As far as revision filed on behalf of the complainant is concerned, we do
not find it to be a case where capital punishment is warranted, as the
would not fall in the category of ‘rarest of rare cases’ so as to
Consequently, the revision is found
did she inflict any injury, nor did she exhort her son to cause any injury.
CRA-D-1075-DB-2013 (O&M) and
CRR-3676-2017 (O&M)
29. A copy of this judgment be sent to the quarters concerned for necessary
compliance.
16.09.2025
Vimal
2013 (O&M) and
2017 (O&M)
( 16 )
A copy of this judgment be sent to the quarters concerned for necessary
compliance.
( GURVINDER SINGH GILL
( DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA
Whether speaking/reasoned:
Whether reportable:
A copy of this judgment be sent to the quarters concerned for necessary
GURVINDER SINGH GILL )
JUDGE
DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA )
JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Yes/No
Legal Notes
Add a Note....