Material evidence required on demand of dowry

Delhi High Court

Bench: R Sodhi, P Bhasin
Ran Singh @ Ram Singh And Ors. vs State
[Along With Criminal Appeal No. 722 Of 2004] on 30/4/2007
JUDGMENT
P.K. Bhasin, J.
1. In these two appeals six accused persons have challenged their conviction under Section 302 read with
Section 149 IPC and also under Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC vide judgment dated 27-07-2004
as also the sentences imposed on them vide order dated 28-07-2004 by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Delhi in Sessions case No. 179/01 arising out of FIR No. 528/97 of Patel Nagar police station.
Since both these appeals arise out of the same judgment of conviction and they were heard also together
we are deciding both the appeals by this common judgment.
2. The facts leading to the conviction of the six appellants for the murder of one Yoginder on 19-06-97
are that the deceased Yoginder was residing in house No. 2392/1, gali Mandir Wali, Shadipur, Delhi
along with his father PW-12 Lakhan Singh, mother PW-6 Usha Devi and brother PW-7 Vinod Kumar.
Appellant Intezar Hussain(the sole appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 722/2004) was a neighbour of the
deceased. The five appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 640/04, who are all members of one framily, were
also the neighbours of the deceased. There was some dispute between the family of the deceased and the
appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 640/04 over the cutting of a peepal tree which was there inside the
house of the deceased by his father when some construction was to be carried out in their house. On the
night of 19th June, 1997 accused Intezar Hussain parked his rehris in front of the house of the deceased.
The father of the deceased (PW-12 Lakhan Singh) raised objection to the parking of the rehris by Intezar
Hussain in front of his house. Upon that Intezar Hussain along with his brother Ansar(proclaimed
offender) started beating him. When his wife(PW-6 Usha Devi) intervened to save him appellant-accused
Smt. Rajbala came out of her house and she caught hold of PW-6 Usha Devi and took her in her grip and
when PW-7 Vinod Kumar tried to save his mother from accused Rajbala she called her husband Ran
Singh @ Ram Singh and her sons Kuldeep, Lalit @ Billoo and Rupesh @ Bhondu (all of whom are the
appellants in Crl. A. No. 640/04) and when they came out she told them that it was the appropriate time to
finish off Lakhan Singh and his family. In the meantime Yoginder, other son of Lakhan Singh, came out
of his house and then accused Rupesh, who was having a hockey in his hand, started beating Lakhan
Singh and when Yoginder tried to save his father accused Ran Singh caught hold of him and accused
Rupesh gave a hockey blow on his head. Accused Intezar and his brother Ansar (proclaimed offender)
gave danda blows to Yoginder and accused Kuldeep and Lalit stabbed him with knives. On getting
injured Yoginder tried to run away from the spot to save himself but after some distance from the place of
occurrence he fell down. His brother then took him to a nearby hospital where he was declared to have
been brought dead. All these facts were narrated before the police by PW-7 Vinod Kumar, the brother of
the deceased Yoginder, in his first information statement Ex. PW-7/A and on that basis formal FIR was
registered. Vinod Kumar had also claimed that he had also intervened to save his parents and brother but
he himself did not receive any visible injury and so he did not require any medical aid. The investigating
officer recovered from the place of occurrence one piece of broken hockey. At the spot he also noticed
that one rehri was parked there. As it was raining the investigating officer did not notice any blood at the
spot. Post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased was conducted by PW-13 Dr.
K.L.Sharma on 20-06-97 and he gave his report Ex. PW-13/A wherein he had noticed seven external
injuries out of which injury No. 4 was a lacerated punctured wound on the chest below middle part of
clavical and injury No. 5 was an incised penetrating wound located over back of the right side chest. The
autopsy surgeon gave his opinion that the cause of death was haemothorax as a result of injury No. 5
which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. According to him injuries No. 4 and
5 were caused by the sharp cutting penetrating weapon while other injuries were caused by hard blunt
weapon and fist blows. Out of the seven assailants only six could be arrested by the police during
investigation and since the seventh one, namely, Ansar could not be arrested he was got declared a
proclaimed offender. As per the further prosecution case appellant-accused Kuldeep made a disclosure
statement in police custody after his arrest and pursuant thereto he got recovered two guptis/daggers Ex.
P-2 & 3, one broken hockey piece Ex. P-1 from the roof of his house. Accused Intezar also made a
disclosure statement in police custody and got recovered dandas Ex. P-6 & 7. The two guptis/daggers got
recovered by accused Kuldeep were shown to the autopsy surgeon for seeking his opinion about the
possibility of the injuries found on the person of the deceased being caused by them with those weapons.
The broken hockey piece and the two dandas were also shown to the autopsy surgeon who gave his
opinion that the injuries No. 4 and 5, which were noticed on the body of the deceased at the time of postmortem
examination, were possible with the said two weapons and injury No. 1, which was a lacerated
wound behind the left ear of the deceased,could be caused with the afore-said hockey. The two guptis and
the broken hockey piece got recovered by the accused persons were sent to CFSL during the investigation
for Chemical analysis and on examination there human blood was detected on the recovered piece of
hockey stick.
3. On the completion of the investigation the six appellants – accused were charge-sheeted and the trial
Court framed charges under Sections 147 IPC, 148 IPC, 302/149 IPC, 325/149 IPC and 323/149 IPC.
Since all the accused had pleaded not guilty the prosecution was called upon to adduce evidence in
support of its claim. Twenty one witnesses were then examined by the prosecution out of whom three
were the eye witnesses of the occurrence. The accused persons when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
denied the prosecution allegations in toto and pleaded false implication at the instance of the police in
order to solve this case of blind murder. No evidence was adduced by any of the accused persons in
defense. However, during cross-examination of PW-6 Smt. Usha Devi it was suggested to her on behalf
of all the accused that her son Yoginder fell down in front of the shop of Surender Kumar and from there
he was removed to the hospital and that no quarrel had taken place with accused Intezar and Ansar
regarding the parking of rehri with her husband prior to the incident. The other defense taken by the
accused persons was that after hearing the noise of abuses about twenty boys from Mohd. Community
collected at the spot, they pelted stones and Usha Devi received injuries at the hands of those persons who
were pelting stones and also that those 20 boys followed the son of PW-6 Smt. Usha Devi and some of
them caused injuries in the main street at a distance of about 2000 yds. from the house.
4. After examining the prosecution evidence the learned trial Court found the evidence of all the eye
witnesses to be trustworthy and reliable and relying upon their evidence as also the recovery of two guptis
and a broken piece of blood stained hockey stick at the instance of accused Kuldeep and two dandas at the
instance of accused Intezar Hussain held that all the accused persons had formed an unlawful assembly
and they were sharing the common object which was to harm the family of Lakhan Singh and in
furtherance of that common object and on the exhortation of the accused Rajbala to finish the family of
Lakhan Singh injuries were caused on the person of the deceased which resulted into his death and
accordingly convicted them under Sections 302 and read with Section 149 IPC and also under Section
323 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced all of them to undergo life imprisonment for their
conviction for the offences of murder and also to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- each and for their conviction
under Section 323/149 IPC they were awarded rigorous imprisonment for 10 days and were also imposed
a fine of Rs. 500/- each. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently and
the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. was also extended to the accused persons.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court five accused persons, namely, Ran Singh @ Ram
Singh, Kuldeep , Lalit @ Billoo, Rupesh @ Bhondu and Rajbala filed Criminal Appeal No. 640/2004
while the sixth convicted accused Intezar Hussain filed Criminal Appeal No. 722/2004 and, as noticed
already, now both these appeals are being disposed of together by this common judgment.
6. We have heard Shri Naresh Kaushik, learned Counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.
640/2004, Shri G.B.Sewak, learned Counsel for the sole appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 722/2004 and
Shri Ravinder Chadha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State and with their
assistance we have also gone through the relevant prosecution evidence which only was referred to from
both the sides during the course of hearing of these appeals.
7. It was not disputed by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the deceased Yoginder’s death was
homicidal. That fact is even otherwise fully established from the evidence of the autopsy surgeon PW-13
Dr. K.L.Sharma. The injuries noticed by him on the body of the deceased at the time of post-mortem
examination are as follows: EXTERNAL INJURIES
1. Lacerated wound 1 x 1 cm was present with bruised around below and behind the left ear.
2. The lips were bruised, nose had an abrasion 1 x 1 cm with swelling.
3. A linear with bruised around over top of the left shoulder 4 x 1 cm.
4. There was lacerated punctured wound circular in disposition 1.5 x 1.5 cm over chest below middle part
of left clavicle (muscle deep only).
5. Incised penetrating wound 2.5 x 1 cm., upper margins were shelved and lower margins were flap cut,
blood was oozing from the wound and it was located over back of the right side chest, horizontal being 4
cm away from middle part of the right scapular border, lower margin being 130 cm. above right heel.
Both angles were acutely cut.
6. Two upper central incisors were broken with laceration of the gums. Bleeding was seen.
7. Nasal bones were fractured and bleeding was present.
INTERNAL EXAMINATION
Head and brain were normal, neck and its structures were normal except wind by contained frothy blood.
Chest: Injury No. 5 after cutting skin, intercostal muscle and inner border of 5th and 6th ribs near right
side vertebral column, entered posterior upper border of right lower lobe of lung, passed through whole
thickness and came out through base of the lung after cutting pluera. This injury further cut the right
dome of diaphragm and entered the convex border of liver and penetrated up to the depth of 8 cm. The
total depth was 25 cm. and plane was upside downwards.
We have already referred to the opinion of the autopsy surgeon regarding the cause of death. From the
afore-said injuries and the opinion of the autopsy surgeon there is no manner of doubt that the death of the
deceased Yoginder was homicidal.
8. Learned Counsel for the appellants, however, seriously challenged the correctness of the findings of the
learned Trial Court holding the appellants guilty of the offence of murder. It was contended that the
learned Trial Judge had not properly appreciated the flaws in the evidence of the three eye witnesses. It
was also contended that on proper appreciation of the evidence of the three eye witnesses they could not
be said to have been the eye witnesses and their claim of being eye witnesses was absolutely false.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, on the other hand, while supporting the judgment of
the Trial Court submitted that all the three eye witnesses were rightly relied upon by the Trial Court and
that there is no infirmity at all in their evidence which could discredit them and, therefore, the learned
trial Judge has rightly convicted the appellants.
9. Before dealing with the submissions of the counsel for the parties in detail and in order to find out
whether the prosecution had been able to establish its case against the appellants the evidence of the eye
witnesses needs to be noticed and then independently analysed by this Court. We shall first take up the
testimony of PW-7 Vinod Kumar, who is the brother of the deceased and also the first informant of the
incident to the police. After narrating the initial incident between his father(PW-12) and accused Intezar
and his brother Ansar(PO) PW-7 over the parking of rehris by Intezar in front of their house deposed that
when his mother Usha Rani(PW-6) came out of the house in order to save his father accused Raj Bala, the
wife of accused Ran Singh, who were also their neighbours, came outside his (PW-7’s) house and started
grappling with his mother. He was standing outside his house at that time and when he went to rescue his
mother, accused Raj Bala gave a call to her husband and sons. Accused Ran Singh and his sons, namely,
Kuldeep, Lalit and Rupesh came outside their house and then accused Raj Bala made a ‘lalkara’ and
exhorted her sons and her husband that there was an opportunity to finish Lakhan Singh and his family.
On hearing the noise his elder brother Yoginder(the deceased) came outside. PW-7 further deposed that
accused Kuldeep and Lalit were carrying churris in their hands at that time while accused Rupesh was
carrying hockey stick and accused Intjar and Ansar were carrying dandas in their hands. Accused Rupesh
started beating his father Lakhan Singh with hockey stick and when his elder brother Yoginder tried to
save his father, accused Ram Singh @ Ran Singh caught hold of his brother Yoginder and accused Lalit
then stabbed Yoginder with churri on his chest while accused Kuldeep stabbed him on his back. Accused
Rupesh hit his brother Joginder with hockey stick on his head and accused Intjar and Ansar hit his brother
with dandas. His brother tried to run away in order to save himself but he fell down at some distance and
then his father directed him(PW-7) to rush his brother Yoginder to DDU hospital. PW-7 further deposed
that finding the serious condition of his brother he removed him to Khera hospital in Pandav Nagar where
the concerned doctor declared his brother Yoginder as brought dead. He also deposed that in the incident
his parents(PWs 6 and 12) also sustained injuries and he himself sustained invisible injuries but he did not
get himself medically examined. The police recorded his statement Ex. PW-7/A at Khera Hospital.
10. Now we come to the evidence of the other injured eye witness. He is PW-12 Lakhan Singh, the father
of the deceased. He has deposed that on 19.6.1997 he was residing at H. No. 2392/1 Mandir Wali Gali,
Shadipur, Delhi which was purchased by him in October, 1996 from the son of Maha Singh, who was
related to accused Ran Singh and his family. Accused Ran Singh was also residing along with his family
just next to his house. Accused Ran Singh and his wife Raj Bala were claiming that the house purchased
by him belonged to their family and threatened him with dire consequences. In March, 1997 when he
started constructing the first floor of the said house, he cut the pipal tree in his house for making
construction on which he was again threatened by Ran Singh and his family for having removed the tree
as they claimed that the peepal tree belonged to the ancestors of their family. He also deposed that during
the construction of house 2-3 members of family of Ran Singh called him to stop the construction but the
matter was reconciled. He further deposed that after the construction was over he started residing in the
said house from the first week of June, 1997. On 19.6.1997 accused Intjar, who was residing with his
brother Ansar(proclaimed offender) as tenant of one Sunil, who was related to accused Ran Singh, parked
rehris in front of his(PW-12’s) house due to which the passage was blocked. He requested Intezar to
remove the rehris and park them on one side and on that accused Intjar along with his brother Ansar
started abusing and beating him with danda. He further deposed that at that time his wife Usha(PW-6)
also came and tried to take him out of the clutches of the aforesaid two accused persons and at the same
time accused Raj Bala also came to the spot and caught hold of his wife and started beating her. Accused
Raj Bala also gave lalkara to her children by stating “Aa jao, aaj moka hai, Lakhan Singh ke pariwar ko
khatam kar do” and on hearing that accused Ran Singh, Kuldeep, Lalit and Rupesh came there. His sons
Yoginder (the deceased) and Vinod(PW-7) also came there to save them. Accused Rupesh was having a
hockey in his hand, whereas Lalit and Kuldeep were having churri in their hands and soon after reaching
the spot, accused Ran Singh caught hold of his son Yoginder. Rupesh gave a hockey blow on the left side
of the head of Yoginder near his ear and Lalit gave a churri blow on the left side of his chest. Kuldeep
gave a churri blow on the back of Yoginder near left shoulder. Yoginder tried to run with a view to save
himself but fell down just after about 15 paces. He further deposed that Intjar and Ansar had also given
danda blows to Yoginder. Accused Intjar and Ansar gave danda blows to him(PW-12) also on his head.
Accused persons thereafter ran away thinking that his son Yoginder had succumbed to injuries. Vinod
removed Yoginder in TSR to the hospital. PW-12 also deposed that during this scuffle his wife had also
received injuries and because of the blow given by accused Raj Bala to his wife she had lost her two teeth
of her lower jabra. He thereafter deposed that he along with his wife went to the DDU hospital for
treatment and MLC was also prepared by the doctor in respect of injuries. He also deposed that he was
waiting for his son Yoginder in the hospital but his son did not reach hospital and when he was coming
back to his house he checked about his son in Khera hospital and came to know that his son was brought
dead in the said hospital.
11. The third eye witness PW-6 Usha Devi is the mother of the deceased. She has deposed that there was
a peepal tree inside their house which they had purchased from Maha Singh, uncle of accused Ran Singh
but since accused Ran Singh had cut off two of its branches they totally uprooted the peepal tree. Accused
persons took strong exception to that claiming that tree was planted by their forefathers. She also deposed
that when they started constructing their house the accused persons had extended threat to them that they
will have to face the consequences for cutting the peepal tree. She further deposed that on 19-06-97 at
about 10.15 p.m. when she was present on the first floor of her house accused Intjar Hussain parked
two/three reharis in front of their house blocking the passage of their house and when her husband Lakhan
Singh objected to that accused Intjar Hussain and Ansar started beating her husband with dandas on
which she came down to save her husband. At that time Raj Bala, wife of accused Ran Singh, came out of
her house and took her(PW-6) in her grip and called her husband Ran Singh and her sons Rupesh, Lalit
and Kuldeep and when they came out from their house. Accused Intjar Hussain and Ansar started raining
danda blows on her husband. Accused Rupesh was carrying a hockey stick and he attacked her husband
with the hockey stick. On hearing the noise her two sons, namely, Yoginder(the deceased) and Vinod
came out from their house in order to save their father and then accused Ran Singh caught hold of her son
Yoginder and accused Rupesh attacked Yoginder with hockey stick on his head. Accused Lalit then
stabbed Yoginder with ‘churi’ on the front side of his chest and accused Kuldeep stabbed Yoginder with
‘churi’ on his back. Yoginder tried to save himself and started running but he fell down after a short
distance. Her husband told her son Vinod(PW-7) to rush her son Yoginder to DDU hospital and her son
Yoginder was rushed to DDU hospital by her son Vinod in a three wheeler scooter. She also deposed that
she along with her husband went to DDU hospital for medical treatment as her tooth broken in that
incident. After reaching DDU hospital they came to know that their son Yoginder had been taken by
Vinod to Khera hospital and after getting treatment from DDU hospital when they came to Khera hospital
they came to know that Yoginder had died. She further deposed that at the time of the incident accused
Raj Bala had uttered that today it was a golden opportunity to wipe out the family of Lakhan Singh.
12. This is the only evidence referred to before us during the course of arguments from both the sides.
Learned Counsel for the six appellants in Crl. A. No. 640/04 had contended that the entire prosecution
case is unbelievable since PW-12 Lakhan Singh was an Assistant Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police and so it
is not possible to accept that the accused persons would have dared to fight with a police officer and kill
his son. In any case, the evidence of the eye witnesses is unreliable for many reasons. It was submitted
that as far as PW-7 Vinod Kumar is concerned his evidence should not be relied upon since his abnormal
conduct at the time of incident in not making any attempt to save his father and brother when they were
being assaulted makes his claim of being an eye witness highly doubtful. It was also contended that even
though he claims to have received invisible injuries in the incident but there is no proof submitted by the
prosecution to substantiate the same and the non-production of any evidence to show that he had also
received an injury in the incident also makes his evidence quite doubtful. Learned Counsel also contended
that if actually PW-7 had been present at the time of the alleged incident and had received an injury he
would have definitely got himself medically examined but he himself has claimed in his examination-inchief
itself that he had not got himself medically examined. Learned Counsel, however, submitted that
presence of PW-7 at the place of incident becomes doubtful also for the reason that his mother PW-6
Usha Devi had admitted in her cross-examination that she had seen Vinod for the first time at Khera
Hospital. It was also contended that PW-7 Vinod Kumar has although deposed that he had taken his
brother Yoginder to the hospital but that statement of his gets falsified from the MLC of the deceased
which was prepared at the time of his examination by the doctor in which the names of the assailants were
not mentioned which would have been there if Vinod had been an eye witness and if actually he had gone
to the hospital with the deceased. Regarding the evidence of PW-6 Usha Devi and her husband PW-12
Lakhan Singh the submission of learned Counsel for the appellants was that both of them should be
disbelieved because both of them do not corroborate each other inasmuch as PW-12 claims that his wife
Usha Devi had lost her two teeth because of the blow given to her by accused Rajbala while Usha Devi
although claimed in her examination-in-chief that in the incident her tooth was broken not that it was
because of Rajbala beating her and during her cross-examination she had claimed that she had not
sustained very serious injuries. Learned Counsel further contended that in cross-examination PW-6 had
also admitted that she had not tried to lift her injured son nor had she tried to console him and she also did
not get him medically treated and that abnormal conduct of hers belies her claim also of being an eye
witness of the incident because it is highly improbable that a mother on seeing her son being stabbed
would not even try to save him. Learned Counsel also contended that there are other material
inconsistencies also in the evidence of the three eye witnesses inasmuch as PW-6 Usha Devi has deposed
that when on the call of Rajbala her husband and sons came out of their house accused Intezar Hussain
and his brother Ansar had started giving danda blows to her husband(PW-12) and similarly PW-12
Lakhan Singh himself has also claimed that Intezar Hussain and Ansar had given him also danda blows
on his head but PW-7 has not claimed that Intezar Hussain and Ansar had also assaulted his father after
other accused had come out of their house.
13. It was also submitted that PW-6 Usha Devi and PW-7 Vinod have deposed that accused Rupesh had
hit PW-12 Lakhan Singh with a hockey but PW-12 Lakhan Singh himself has not claimed that he was hit
with a hockey by accused Rupesh. Learned Counsel also contended that as far as accused Rupesh is
concerned it is the prosecution case that he had assaulted the deceased and PW-12 with a hockey but in
evidence two broken pieces of hockey were produced out of which one piece was allegedly got recovered
by accused Kuldeep and not by Rupesh and other broken piece was shown to have been recovered from
the spot. However, none of the witnesses has claimed that at the time of incident the hockey used by
Rupesh had broken with the force with which it was struck on the head of the deceased or otherwise and
in any case to none of the eye witnesses the broken piece of hockey got recovered by Kuldeep was shown
to have it identified as the weapon of offence. It was also contended that even though as per the FSL
report some human blood was noticed on the broken piece of hockey which Kuldeep had got recovered
but considering the fact that no blood was detected on the two churis which also he had allegedly got
recovered it becomes highly improbable that blood could have been found on the hockey when it was not
found on the churis one of which had, as per the prosecution case, pierced up to the lungs of the deceased
and that shows that the police had thrown some blood on the piece of hockey. So, no reliance can be
placed on the FSL report also and based on that accused Rupesh cannot be implicated nor can that
recovery be used as a corroborative evidence. So the role attributed to Rupesh by eye witnesses definitely
becomes highly doubtful and consequently their evidence in entirety should have been discarded.
14. Learned Counsel also submitted that as far as accused Rajbala is concerned no overt act has been
attributed to her except that she gave a call to her family members to come out of their house when
accused Intezar Hussain and Ansar were giving beatings to PW-12 Lakhan Singh. It was also contended
that all the three eye witnesses have given inconsistent statements regarding what all Rajbala did at the
time of occurrence inasmuch as PW-6 Usha Devi has deposed that when she rushed to the spot on seeing
her husband being beaten by Intezar Hussain and Ansar accused Rajbala also came out of her house and
she(Rajbala) took her in her grip and then she called her husband and her sons while PW-7 Vinod has
deposed that when his mother came to the spot to save his father accused Rajbala on coming out of her
house had started grappling with his mother and when he went to rescue his mother Rajbala called her
husband and sons. Usha Devi does not claim that Vinod had come to rescue her. PW-7 says that when her
husband and three sons came out of their house accused Rajbala then exhorted them that they had got an
opportunity to finish Lakhan Singh and his family. Learned Counsel submitted that although PW-6 had
also stated in her chief-examination that at the time of incident Rajbala had uttered that it was a golden
opportunity to wipe out the family of Lakhan Singh but she did not state as to whether she had said so
before the coming of her husband and her sons out of their house or after they had come while her
husband PW-12 Lakhan Singh has claimed that Rajbala had caught hold of his wife and had also started
beating her and then called her children by shouting that they had got an opportunity and they should
come out and finish off the family of Lakhan Singh and hearing that lalkara her husband and three sons
had come to the spot. Learned Counsel also contended that when the deceased Yoginder came to the spot
and was allegedly assaulted by Kuldeep and Lalit Rajbala did not do anything at that time and further that
while PW-12 has deposed that because of the blow given by accused Rajbala to his wife Usha Devi her
two teeth had broken but PW-6 Usha Devi herself has not claimed that Rajbala had given any blow to her
which broke her teeth and she had simply stated that Rajblala had taken her in her grip when she (PW-6)
had come out of her house to save her husband. There is no medical evidence also to show that teeth of
Usha Devi were broken in the incident. As far as PW-7 Vinod is concerned he has also not claimed that
Rajbala had beaten his mother and that because of that beating her mother’s teeth had broken. It was also
pointed out that PW-7 has claimed that Rajbala had called out her husband and sons when he(PW-7) had
gone to save his mother when Rajbala was grappling with her but PW-6 does not claim that Rajbala had
called out her husband and sons when Vinod had come to save her when Rajbala had taken her in her
grip. She did not claim that Vinod had come to her rescue. In these circumstances it becomes clear that as
far as accused Rajbala and Rupesh are concerned they have been clearly roped in falsely just to invoke
Section 149 IPC. Learned Counsel submitted that these flaws in the prosecution evidence in respect of
accused Rajbala and Rupesh are sufficient enough to at least give them the benefit of doubt.
15. Another submission made by learned Counsel for the appellants was that the prosecution has not
examined any independent witness of the incident which is alleged to have taken place outside the house
of the deceased and based on the evidence of the family members of the deceased only the conviction of
the appellants cannot be sustained. It was also argued that the prosecution has not been able to attribute
any motive to the appellants for causing the death of Yoginder and that even though the eye witnesses had
claimed that at some time there was some ill feeling between the appellants and the complainant party on
account of cutting off of the peepal tree in the house of the complainant party which the appellants
claimed to have been planted by their(appellants’) ancestors but PW-12 Lakhan Singh, the father of the
deceased, had also deposed that the parties had already reconciled which shows that that chapter was over
and thereafter there could be no occasion for the appellants to have killed the deceased. Half heartedly it
was also contended that the prosecution story that Kuldeep and Lalit had caused injuries to the deceased
with churis becomes doubtful because the churis which allegedly were got recovered by accused Kuldeep
were not shown to any of the eye witnesses for identification as weapons of offence. In any event, even if
it is accepted that the incident did take place in the manner as deposed to by the eye witnesses none of the
accused persons could be convicted for the offence of murder since the fatal injury was not on any vital
part of the body and considering the fact that none of the other injuries also on the person of the deceased
was caused on any vital part of his body it could not be said that the accused persons had intended to kill
him and, so, as far as the nature of offence in respect of the deceased is concerned the same can at the
highest be said to be one under Section 304(II) IPC and certainly not under Section 302 IPC. Even for the
offence under Section 304(II) IPC all the appellants can not be convicted by invoking Section 149 IPC
since there are no circumstances brought out on record by the prosecution from which it could be inferred
that the common object of the so-called unlawful assembly of the appellants was to cause the death of
Yoginder. Section 34 IPC also cannot be invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case since it
cannot be said that all the appellants had shared common intention to cause the death of the deceased
Yoginder and, therefore, all the appellants have to be dealt with as per their individual roles in the
incident, if at all this Court accepts the prosecution version. To bolster his submissions regarding the nonapplicability
of Section 149 IPC learned Counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the judgments of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as Gangadjar Behera and Ors. v. State of Orissa ; Mukati Prasad Rai
@ Mukti Rai and Ors. v. State of Bihar(now Jharkhand) (2004) 13 SCC 144; and Munna Chanda v. State
of Assam .
16. Learned Counsel for the appellant Intezar Hussain adopted all the afore-said arguments advanced by
the learned Counsel for the other five appellants. Additionally it was contended by him that Intezar had
no dispute with the complainant party and on the day of the incident there was a minor quarrel between
this appellant and PW-12 Lakhan Singh and he had no role to play thereafter. PW-6 had admitted in
cross-examination that prior to this incident there was never any quarrel with Intezar and Ansar(PO) over
parking of rehris and so Intezar cannot be said to have become a member of the so-called unlawful
assembly of the five other appellants with whom only, according to the prosecution case itself, the
complainant party had a dispute over the cutting off of the peepal tree. It was further contended that the
appellant Intezar Hussain cannot be attributed the knowledge that when the quarrel between him and PW-
12 was going on the other five appellants would come out of their house and start assaulting the
complainant party because of their own grudge against them. Learned Counsel further contended that the
evidence of the eye witnesses in respect of this accused regarding his assaulting the deceased is not
consistent. It was also contended that even if this Court accepts the version of the eye witnesses that
Intezar Hussain had assaulted the deceased also even then he would be guilty only for the commission of
the offence under Section 323 IPC and certainly not for the offence of murder with the aid of Section 149
IPC.
17. No other points were raised on behalf of any of the six appellants.
18. To combat the afore-said arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants regarding the truthfulness of
the evidence of the eye witnesses and applicability of Section 149 IPC learned additional public
prosecutor submitted that the evidence of the three eye witnesses is wholly reliable and cannot be rejected
because of their being family members of the deceased. It was contended that all of them corroborate
each other on all material aspects and the fact that PW-7 Vinod Kumar has not claimed that Intezar
Hussain and the proclaimed offender Ansar assaulted his father also as has been deposed to by PWs 6 and
12 will not make his entire evidence unreliable. It was further submitted that the death of the deceased
cannot be said to be falling within Section 304 IPC considering the fact that the deceased was given one
knife blow on the chest and one knife blow was given on the back side of the chest with such force that
the weapon pierced into the body right up to the lungs and in that process liver of the deceased was also
damaged and so the only conclusion which can be arrived at is that it is a case of murder and in the facts
and circumstances of the case none of the exceptions under Sectiion 300 IPC is attracted. It was also
contended that Kuldeep had caused knife injury on the back of the chest of the deceased and that injury
proved to be fatal and it cannot be said that he had not intended causing that injury or that he did not
know it to be likely that that injury would cause the death of the deceased. It was also contended that as
far as PWs 6 and 12 are concerned they are injured witnesses and so their evidence cannot be discarded
lightly. In respect of this submission reliance was placed on three judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Bonkya and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra Sardul Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab 1993 SUPP
(3) SCC 678 and Mohar Singh v. State of UP 2002 Crl.L.J. 4310. Regarding the applicability of Section
149 IPC in respect of all the six appellants the submission of the Additional Public Prosecutor was that
considering the fact that when accused Rajbala called out her husband and sons saying that they should
come out as they had an opportunity that day to finish off Lakhan Singh and his family accused Kuldeep
and Lalit came out armed with churis while accused Rupesh had a hockey stick and even though accused
Ran Singh did not have any weapon with him he had caught hold of the deceased when he had tried to
save his father and thereafter accused Kuldeep and Lalit had given him churi blows and accused Intezar
and Ansar had also given danda blows on the person of the deceased and all that shows that all the seven
persons had at that stage formed an unlawful assembly for committing the murder of the deceased. It was
also contended that considering the fact that the two accused gave churi blows on the person of the
deceased and one hit him with hockey stick and two gave danda blows to him and when the father of the
deceased wanted to rescue him he was also badly beaten up it becomes evident that the common object of
that unlawful assembly of the seven persons was to finish off the entire complainant party and
consequently all the accused persons had been rightly convicted for causing the death of Yoginder and
injuries to his parents. It was also contended by the learned additional public prosecutor that even if it is
accepted that not all the appellants had decided to cause the death of the deceased after forming an
unlawful assembly but it can definitely be said that the appellants who were armed with dandas and
hockey stick and the two who were un-armed knew that the offence of murder was likely to be committed
since the appellants Kuldeep and Lalit were having churis when they came out of their house on the
lalkara of their mother for finishing off the entire family of Lakhan Singh and, therefore, second part of
Section 149 IPC would definitely get attracted even in respect of the appellants Ran Singh, Rajbala,
Rupesh and Intezar Hussain. In any event, accused Kuldeep and Lalit, both of whom inflicted injuries to
the deceased with churis on the vital parts of his body and the injury caused by Kuldeep was so forceful
that the churi had pierced up to the lungs and liver was also damaged, can definitely be said to have
caused the death of Yoginder in furtherance of their common intention and so both of them can, in any
case, be convicted under Section 302/34 IPC.
19. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the afore-said submissions advanced on behalf of both
the sides. We will first proceed to decide whether it is a case of murder, as is the case of the prosecution,
or culpable homicide not amounting to murder falling within Part-II of Section 304 IPC, as is the stand of
the appellants. As noticed already, the prosecution evidence is to the effect that the deceased had
sustained a knife injury on the back side of his chest and that injury as per the autopsy surgeon was
sufficient to cause the death of the deceased in the ordinary course of nature. As per the post-mortem
report because of that injury the lung and the liver of the deceased had been damaged from which it can
be safely concluded that that injury was caused by the assailant with the intention of causing the death of
the deceased. The intention to cause death of the deceased by the assailants in furtherance of their
common object is also clear from the fact that the deceased was given a knife injury on his chest also and
he was also beaten with dandas. In these circumstances, we do not find any force in the submission of the
learned Counsel for the appellants that the death of Yoginder would be culpable homicide not amounting
to murder.
20. We shall now proceed to examine if the evidence of the three eye witnesses establishes that the
incident in question had taken place in the manner as narrated by them and whether from their evidence it
can be said that all the six appellants along with the proclaimed offender had formed themselves into an
unlawful assembly with the common object of causing the death of the deceased Yoginder. On an
independent and careful analysis of the evidence of the three eye witnesses we are of the view that despite
the fact that three eye witnesses are not consistent regarding the role played by accused Rajbala and
Rupesh their entire evidence cannot be discarded for that reason. In one of the judgments cited by the
counsel for the appellants itself (2002(8) SCC 381) it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the
maxim “falsus un uno, falsus in omnibus” has not received general acceptance nor has it become rule of
law in this country and so even if the evidence of a witness is found to be deficient in respect of some
accused the remaining accused can still be convicted on the same evidence. The evidence of all the three
eye witnesses in the present case is reliable, cogent and fully trustworthy in respect of the four accused –
appellants, namely, Ran Singh, Kuldeep, Lalit and Intezar Hussain. Their credibility cannot be doubted
for any of the reasons put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellants, as far as the involvement of
accused Intezar Hussain, Ran Singh, Kuldeep and Lalit is concerned. The evidence of the three eye
witnesses, which we have already narrated in extenso, clearly shows that all of them have supported each
other’s version on material aspects of the prosecution case and particularly the assault on the deceased
Yoginder by accused Kuldeep, Lalit, Intezar and his brother, the proclaimed offender. Despite gruelling
cross-examination they could not be shaken nor anything could be elicited from them which could
discredit them. No contradictions or improvements with reference to their version before the police in
respect of the occurrence could be brought on record which fact strengthens our conclusion that all of
them have given a truthful version of the occurrence and we have no hesitation in accepting the same as
far as accused Ran Singh and his two sons, Kuldeep and Lalit, and Intezar Hussain are concerned. As far
as PW-7, the brother of the deceased is concerned his testimony has been attacked on the ground that he
did not try to save his father and brother when they were being assaulted by the accused persons and that
abnormal conduct of his renders his presence at the place of occurrence doubtful. We, however, do not
find any force in this submission also and the evidence of PW-7 cannot be discarded for this reason put
forth. It is quite possible that when this witness saw his father and brother being assaulted by seven
persons he may have got frightened and did not gather the courage to come to their rescue. In any case,
how someone should react at the time of this kind of an occurrence is not for the Courts to decide.
Different persons can react differently on seeing the same occurrence and in a situation like the present
one where the witness did not react in a particular manner in which according to learned Counsel for the
appellants he should have reacted it cannot be said that he was not a witness of the occurrence resulting in
the death of his brother. He was less than 18 years of age at the time of the incident and his not gathering
courage to stop the assailants who had deadly weapons with them cannot be said to be an abnormal
conduct. Another reason put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellants for discarding the evidence of
PW-7 Vinod was that the MLC prepared in respect of the deceased at Khera Hospital(Ex. PW-15/A) does
not show the names of the assailants and, therefore, that fact belies his claim of being an eye witness.
Learned Counsel submitted that if actually PW-7 had witnessed the incident and had also taken the
deceased to the hospital the names of the assailants would have been mentioned in the MLC by the
concerned doctor. There is no doubt that the MLC of the deceased does not mention the names of the
assailants but that fact is not sufficient to hold that PW-7, in fact, did not witness the incident and did not
even take him to the hospital. It was held by the Supreme Court in Bhargavan and Ors. v. State of Kerala
2004 Crl.L.J. 646 that evidence of a witness who claims to have taken the deceased to the hospital cannot
be discarded for the reason that the names of the assailants are not disclosed to the doctor by that witness
since the primary duty of the doctor is to treat the patient and not to find out by whom the injury was
caused. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pattipati Venkaiah and Ors. v. State of
Andhra Pradesh . Therefore, non-disclosure of the names of the
appellants – accused by PW-7 to the doctor who examined the deceased at Khera Hospital does not render
his testimony in any way unreliable or doubtful.
21. As far as PWs-6 and 12 are concerned their evidence is being sought to be discarded on the ground
that they did not accompany their injured son to the hospital. In our view, for this reason the evidence of
these two eye witnesses also cannot be considered to be unreliable. As has been noticed already, while
narrating their evidence it is clear that when the incident was over they immediately told their other son
Vinod to take Yoginder to DDU Hospital and then Vinod had taken Yoginder in a three wheeler scooter
and then both these witnesses had also gone to DDU Hospital independently on a two wheeler scooter.
PW-7 has claimed that since Khera Hospital was nearer to the place of occurrence he had decided to take
his brother to that hospital and accordingly he took his brother to Khera Hospital and not to DDU
Hospital and that is why PWs 6 and 12 on reaching DDU Hospital did not find them there. So, in these
circumstances it cannot be said that the parents of the deceased acted abnormally in not going along with
their injured son in the same three wheeler scooter in which he was taken by Vinod. PWs 6 and 12 were
both injured in the same occurrence and, therefore, their presence at the place of occurrence where the
deceased was fatally assaulted is beyond any doubt. The occurrence took place outside their own house
during the late night period when they were expected to be present at their house and so their presence as
also that of their son Vinod(PW-7) at the place of occurrence was quite natural. On behalf of appellants in
Criminal Appeal No. 640/04 it was put to PW-6 Usha Devi in her cross-examination that she had received
injuries at the hands of some boys of Mohammadon community who had collected at the spot after
hearing the noise of abuses and had pelted stones. This suggestion, which PW-6 denied, is an admission
on the part of the accused persons that PW-6 was actually injured. It is now well settled that evidence of
witnesses who are injured in some incident deserves to be accepted without any corroboration unless the
accused is able to lay a strong foundation for discarding their evidence. The judgments of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court relied upon by the prosecutor in this regard do fortify this view. However, the plea taken
by the accused persons that some mohammaden boys had injured PW-6 cannot be accepted since they
have not substantiated the same by adducing any evidence. In fact, when they were examined under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. they did not even take this plea at that time which shows that they had given up that
stand and earlier they had taken a false plea which also shows their guilty mind. The MLCs Ex. PW-14/A
and B in respect of PWs 6 and 12 respectively also corroborate their version that in the incident they had
also got injured. In the cross-examination of PW-6 it was put to her that to begin with abuses were hurled
between her husband on one side and accused Intezar Hussain and his brother Ansar on the other. That
suggestion is also an admission on the part of the appellants about the correctness of the version of the
initial incident when PW-12 Lakhan Singh objected to the parking of rehris in front of his house by
Intezar Hussain and was then beaten up by Intezar Hussain and his brother. It was also suggested to PW-6
in her cross-examination that in the incident Ran Singh, Rajbala and Kuldeep had also received injuries in
the incident. The witness stated that she was not aware about that. This suggestion put to this witness also
confirms that the incident did take place in the manner as deposed to by the witness. As far as the plea
taken by accused that they had also received injuries in the same incident is concerned after putting this
suggestion to PW-6 the same was not sought to be adopted when they were examined under Section 313
Cr.P.C. which shows that on this aspect also a false stand had been taken and that is also a strong
circumstance to persuade us to accept the testimony of these eye witnesses. The evidence of the eye
witnesses can also not be rejected for the reason that PW-7 Vinod does not claim that accused Intezar
Hussain and Ansar had assaulted his father Lakhan Singh with dandas as has been claimed by his mother
PW-6 Usha and PW-12 Lakhan Singh himself. PW-7 in his cross-examination had claimed in answer to a
question that “when my father was being beaten by accused Intezar Hussain and Ansar with dandas my
mother had gone to save him, but at that time I was standing outside my house but I had not gone to save
my father at the spot.” Thus, PW-7 also claims that his father was beaten by Intezar Hussain and Ansar
also and, therefore, it cannot be said that there is any inconsistency in the versions of the three eye
witnesses, as was the submission of the leaned counsel for the appellants.
22. The evidence of the eye witnesses in respect of the assault on the deceased gets duly corroborated by
the report of the autopsy surgeon, Ex. PW-13/A and as far as injuries to Usha Devi and Lakhan Singh are
concerned the accused had themselves claimed that they were injured although not by them but by some
other boys, which plea of theirs we have found to be false. Their evidence also gets corroborated from the
prompt lodging of the FIR in which PW-7 narrated the manner in which the incident took place. So, we
have no hesitation in accepting the evidence of the eye witnesses in respect of accused Ran Singh, Intezar
Hussain, Kuldeep and Lalit. However, considering the inconsistencies highlighted by the learned Counsel
for the appellants regarding the role of accused Rajbala and Rupesh we feel inclined to extend benefit of
doubt to them which doubt we consider to be fair. It is a matter of common knowledge that at times there
is a tendency on the part of the prosecution to exaggerate the guilt of other side and to implicate persons
considered to be sympathisers of the real assailants. In the facts and circumstances of the present case it
appears to us that the complainant party has put forth an exaggerated version by attributing some overt
acts to accused Rajbala and Rupesh so that they also could be implicated as being members of the
unlawful assembly.
23. We also do not find ourselves in agreement with the submission of the learned Counsel for the
appellants that this is a case of no motive at all. As noticed already, all the three eye witnesses have
claimed that there was a dispute between the families of the complainant side and the appellants of
Criminal Appeal No. 640/04 over the cutting of peepal tree by the complainant side from their house. It
has also been claimed by PW-6 that when they started construcing their house the accused persons had
extended threat to them saying that they will have to face the consequences for cutting the peepal tree.
This part of her statement could not be got falsified in her cross-examination. PW-12 Lakhan Singh has
also deposed that because of the removal of the peepal tree by him from his house the accused (PWs 6
and 12 were both referring to the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 640/04) had threatened him when he
was constructing his house but at that time he had advised his wife to maintain her cool and not to
unnecessarily talk with Ran Singh’s family. There is no doubt that PW-12 had also claimed that the matter
was reconciled but that does not mean that Ran Singh and his family could not have been thereafter
nursing any ill-will towards the complainant party within their hearts. Motive for any crime is normally
hidden within the perpetrator of the crime and it is very difficult to get direct evidence about that. The
manner in which Ran Singh and his sons behaved at the time of occurrence clearly shows that they were
still having grievance against the complainant party for their having cut off the peepal tree which
they(Ran Singh and family) were claiming to have been planted by their own ancestors. It is not in
dispute that for many people peepal tree has special value. In the present case the complainant party has
not claimed that the peepal tree had been planted by them. They have also not disputed the claim of the
Ran Singh’s family that it was planted by their ancestors. Complainant party has also not disputed that the
house in which the peepal tree was there belonged to one Maha Singh, who was related to Ran Singh’s
family. In these circumstances, it can be safely said that Ran Singh’s family must be having the grievance
against Lakhan Singh and his family for their having cut off the peepal tree planted and grown up by their
ancestors. There was, thus, a motive also for Ran Singh and his family to commit the crime. As far as
Intezar Hussain is concerned there is no doubt that he had no prior enmity with the complainant party but
even in the absence of any motive he could be held guilty relying upon the trustworthy evidence of the
eye witnesses regarding his joining the other accused along with his brother Ansar in the assault on the
deceased.
24. There is no doubt that the three eye witnesses were not shown the weapons of offence allegedly got
recovered by two of the accused persons but that fact does not cause any dent in the prosecution case
since from the evidence of the eye witnesses we have found that the injuries to the deceased were caused
with sharp edged weapons, which according to the eye witnesses were churis, and also with dandas. The
autopsy surgeon had opined that the fatal injury on the back of the chest of the deceased was caused by a
sharp cutting penetrating weapon and injury on the chest also was caused by a similar kind of weapon
while other injuries were caused by a hard blunt weapon and fist blows. During the investigation the
autopsy surgeon had been shown the weapons of offence got recovered by accused Kuldeep and Intezar
Hussain and after seeing those recovered weapons the autopsy surgeon had opined that the injuries
sustained by the deceased were possible with those weapons. In these circumstances, the absence of
identification of the recovered weapons by the three eye witnesses in Court during their evidence is of no
consequence. Here we may make a useful reference to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State
of Rajasthan v. Dhool Singh wherein also a similar objection was raised but was rejected. In that case the
fatal injury was caused with a sword and the accused had got recovered one sword. The autopsy surgeon
had opined that the injuries on the deceased were caused by a sharp edged weapon. The sword got
recovered by the accused was not produced in Court. It was argued before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on
behalf of the convicted accused that non-production of the sword and the prosecution not getting it
identified from the concerned witnesses should lead to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to
establish the fact that the accused had caused the fatal injury with a sword. Hon’ble Supreme Court
repelled that argument and held that even if the prosecution had not established that the fatal injury was
caused by a particular sword that would not make the prosecution case doubtful because it had been
established from evidence of the witnesses that the accused had caused the fatal injury with a sharp edged
cutting weapon. So, in the present case also the prosecution case cannot be doubted for the reason that the
weapons of offence were not shown to the eye witnesses during their evidence.
25. Having reached the afore-said conclusions that in the incident accused Ran Singh, his sons Kuldeep
and Lalit and accused Intezar Hussain and the proclaimed offender had participated in the manner stated
by the three eye witnesses the next question which now arises for consideration is the applicability of
Section 149 IPC. It is the prosecution case that the initial incident took place only between appellant –
accused Intezar Hussain and his brother Ansar(proclaimed offender) on one side and PW-12 Lakhan
Singh on the other side on account of parking of rehris by Intezar Hussain in front of the house of Lakhan
Singh and, therefore, it is clear that at that time there was no unlawful assembly since for an unlawful
assembly as contemplated under Section 141 IPC there has to be a group of minimum five persons getting
together, inter-alia, to commit some offence. However, when accused Ran Singh along with his sons
Kuldeep and Lalit came to the spot and started assaulting the deceased and his father and Intezar Hussain
and his brother(proclaimed offender) also joined that assault on the deceased by giving him danda blows
and also by beating PW-12 Lakhan Singh with dandas at that stage these five persons definitely
constituted an unlawful assembly for committing an offence.
26. It was also the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the common object of the
unlawful assembly, in any event, could not be said to be to cause the death of Yoginder considering the
fact that the injuries were not caused on any vital part of the body of the deceased and at the most it can
be said to be to cause injuries to all the family members of Lakhan Singh and, therefore, all the accused
persons could not be held responsible for the fatal injury caused by accused Kuldeep . We, do not
subscribe to this argument. In order to find out as to what was the common object of an unlawful
assembly the conduct of the members of the assembly at the scene of occurrence, weapons used by them
and the nature of injuries inflicted by them can be considered as indicators of their object which can even
be formed on the spur of the moment also. No prior concert is necessary. In our view, considering the fact
that accused Kuldeep and Lalit were having churis in their hands and immediately on coming to the spot
accused Ran Singh caught hold of the deceased Yoginder, who had in the mean time come out of his
house to save his father, and then accused Lalit gave a knife blow on the chest of Yoginder and Kuldeep
gave a knife blow on the back side of the chest, which injury was found to be sufficient to cause death in
the ordinary course of nature, and Intezar Hussain and his brother also gave danda blows to the deceased
there can be no manner of doubt that the common object of that unlawful assembly which developed at
that time was to cause the death of Yoginder and injuries to his parents. That is also evident from the fact
that when the father of the deceased had tried to save him from the assault he was also beaten up.
27. For the fore-going reasons, we do not find any merit in the challenge of appellants Ran Singh,
Kuldeep, Lalit and Intezar Hussan to their convictions under Sections 302/323/149 IPC and as a
consequence of this finding of ours the conviction of appellants Ran Singh, Kuldeep, Lalit and Intezar
Hussain has to be upheld. However, as far as appellants Rajbala and Rupesh are concerned, they deserve
to be acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt.
28. In the result, we allow Criminal Appeal No. 640/04 partly by acquitting appellants Rajbala and
Rupesh of all the charges. The conviction of appellants Ran Singh, Kuldeep and Lalit under Sections
302/323/149 IPC and the sentences awarded to them are maintained. Criminal Appeal No. 722/04 of
Intezar Hussain is dismissed. Appellants Ran Singh and Intezar Hussain are stated to be on bail but now
as a result of dismissal of their appeal they shall be taken into custody immediately to serve out the
sentences awarded to them by the trial Court and upheld by this Court and compliance report shall be
submitted to this Court within a month. Other three appellants, namely, Kuldeep, Lalit and Rupesh are
stated to be already in jail. Since Rupesh stands acquitted he shall be released forthwith, if not required to
be detained for any other crime.

READ  HC granted divorce on irretrievably broken down Marriage

One thought on “Material evidence required on demand of dowry

  1. Hi to All visitors,

    My self Abhinatre Bridegroom in above fake dowry case.

    I only want to say to proove my innocence, That i already submit my Consent for “POLYGRAPH TEST – Lie Detection Test” against all allegations mentioned over myself as mentioned in FIR no 0123 dated 12/05/2011 of East District Geeta Colony Police Station.

    Bride as well her family members along with the help of her relatives alleged us with a fake dowry case just before saptpadi, When persons on our side only remaining five in totality.

    So if all of you want that defaulters really get punished, Then it’s my urged to all of you that call IO (Sh. Yogesh kumar- SI in Geeta colony PS) on this mobile number and challanged him to do Lie Detection Test on myself. IO number is 9811648023.

    DVD having all evidences against defaulters of my case is already submitted into the various level of law makers of indian constituency.

    Hope favorable support from all of you.

    Regards,
    Abhinatre Gupt.
    +91-9313105773,
    +91-9968226657,
    +91-9680484171.

    STAND TO WIN FOR JUSTICE & DIGNITY – By Abhinatre Gupt..

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *