Page 1

1

Non-reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLAE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1265 OF 2009

Deepa @ Deep Chand & Anr.                        … Appellants Versus

State of Haryana                                       …Respondent  

J U D G M E N T

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

This  appeal  challenges  the  judgment  and  final  order  

dated  09.05.2008  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Punjab  and  

Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.559-DB of 2000  

affirming the judgment of conviction recorded by the learned  

Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, in Sessions Case No.54 of  

1999.

2. According to the prosecution,  one Amar Singh had two  

brothers, namely, Data Ram and Sheo Chand.  Amar Singh had

Page 2

2

four sons, viz., Mauji Ram, Roop Chand @ Roopa, Ram Singh  

and  Deepa  Chand  @  Deepa.   Deep  Chand  @  Deepa  and  

Sukhbir Singh, son of Mauji Ram, are the present appellants,  

who were tried and stand convicted for the offence of murder  

of  Roop  Chand  @ Roopa.   Said  Roop  Chand  @ Roopa  was  

unmarried and aged about 80 years on the date of incident  

and was residing with Randhir Singh, grandson of the above-

named  Sheo  Chand.   It  is  alleged  that  Roop  Chand  owned  

agricultural land which was being cultivated by said Randhir  

Singh,  which fact  was not  to  the liking of  his  brother  Deep  

Chand @ Deepa and the immediate family.

3. It is alleged that on 04.12.1998 at about 7.00 a.m., Roop  

Chand  had  gone  to  irrigate  his  land  and  was  followed  by  

Randhir Singh and his son Surender Singh at 8.00 a.m. with his  

meal.   While  they  were  approximately  an  acre  and  a  half  

length away from the kotha in their field, they saw Roop Chand  

@ Roopa being attacked by Deep Chand @ Deepa with an axe,  

by Sukhbir Singh with a jaili and Basti Ram, son of Sukhbir with  

a  gandasa.   These  three  assailants  noted  the  presence  of  

Randhir  Singh  and  his  son Surender Singh and escaped with  

their weapons.  Randhir Singh and Surender Singh immediately

Page 3

3

put the injured Roop Chand on their tractor and shifted him to  

Aggarwal Hospital, Gannaur, for medical treatment.  According  

to the Medico-legal Report (Ext. PN), Roop Chand was brought  

to the hospital at about 9.20 a.m. and was examined by Dr.  

G.P. Aggarwal.  Dr. Aggarwal sent intimation or ruqa (PN/1) to  

the Police Station at 10.00 a.m., whereupon the Police reached  

the hospital.  Roop Chand was not in a position to make any  

statement and succumbed to his injuries in the hospital.  The  

Police recorded the statement of Randhir Singh at about 11.50  

a.m., pursuant to which FIR No.444 was registered with Police  

Station, Gannaur.

4. Accused  Deep  Chand  and  Sukhbir  Singh  were  

arrested  on  07.12.1998  and  pursuant  to  their  disclosure  

statements, an axe and a jaili were recovered.  Basti Ram was  

arrested on 08.12.1998.  During the investigation, it was found  

that  Basti  Ram  was  juvenile  and  as  such  his  case  was  

separated and he was later tried by the Juvenile Justice Court.  

As regards Deep Chand @ Deepa and Sukhbir Singh, challan  

was filed after completion of the investigation and the case  

was  later  committed  to  be  tried  by  the  Sessions  Court,  

Sonepat.  In order to substantiate the charge of murder, the

Page 4

4

prosecution examined fourteen witnesses and tendered some  

documents. Randhir Singh and Surender Singh, eye-witnesses  

to  the  occurrence,  were  examined  as  PW-5  and  PW-6  

respectively, while Dr. G.P. Aggarwal was examined as PW-12.  

Dr. Arun Garg, who conducted the  post mortem on the dead  

body of Roop Chand at about 3.00 p.m. on 04.12.1998, found  

the  following  ante  mortem injuries  on  the  person  of  the  

deceased:

“1.  A stab wound with clean cut margins 2.5 x 1  cms on the left side of face, 3 cm lateral to the left  angle of mouth with bleeding.  Fragments of bone  were visible.

2.  A stab wound with clean cut margins 4 x 1 cms  on the left side of face with bleeding and exposed  bone fragments.

3.  Incised wound 7 x 1.5 cms on the left side of face  crossing the left  ear.   The left ear was cut deeply  with bones exposed, bleeding was present.

4.  There was a swelling 5 x 3 cms over the right  side of face with crepitus felt.

5.  There was swelling and deformity of nose 2 x 1  cms with crepitus present.

6.  A lacerated wound 2.5 x 1 cms on the scalp in  the left parietal region near the midline with bone  exposed and fragments felt.  Bleeding was present.

7.  The  left  eye  was  black  with  subconjectival  hemorrhage on the left eye.

Page 5

5

8.   An incised wound 6 x  2  cms on the posterior  lateral side of the forearm with bleeding.  Bones and  muscles were exposed.  There was fracture of both  bones of forearms with haematoma.

9.  Incised wound 4 x 2 cms on the left forearm, 3  cms  above  injury  No.8  with  bleeding  and  bones  exposed.

10. A bruise reddish in colour 8 x 2 cms in the form  of a lathi mark on the lateral side of the upper part  of upper thigh with infiltration of blood.

On dissection of scalp and face there were multiple  fractures of left maxilla, zygomatic multiple fractures  of mandible and right maxilla.  There was infiltration  of blood all over.  There was fracture of nasal bone  with infiltration of blood around.

On dissection of scalp there was haematoma over  the scalp with fracture of  the parietal  bone.    On  removing the vault,  there was subdural as well  as  extra dural haematoma in this region.  On removing  the brain there was blood in the anterior and middle  crenal  foesae.   The  membrance  and  brain  were  lacerated in the left parietal area.

Cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage  and injuries were found to be anti mortem in nature  and  were  sufficient  to  cause  death  in  ordinary  course  of  nature.   Probable  time  that  elapsed  between injuries and death was within one to two  hours.”

5. The  defence  version  of  the  accused  was  that  Randhir  

Singh wanted to grab the property of the deceased, that he  

was compelling the deceased to transfer the same in the name  

of prosecution witnesses for the last two to three months and

Page 6

6

that said Randhir Singh had filed a suit for transfer of the land  

of the deceased in his name.

6. The  Trial  Court  after  considering  the  evidence  on  

record, found the eye-witness account through the testimonies  

of PW-5 Randhir Singh and PW-6 Surender Singh to be cogent  

and reliable.  It was further found that the FIR in question was  

registered soon after  the incident.   The injured Roop Chand  

was brought to Aggarwal Hospital by Randhir Singh soon after  

the incident and it was Dr. Aggarwal (PW-12) who had, in fact,  

sent the intimation or ruqa to the Police.  Accepting the case of  

the prosecution, the Trial Court on 20.10.2010 convicted Deep  

Chand @ Deepa and Sukhbir Singh for the offence punishable  

under Section 302 read with Section 34 of  the Indian Penal  

Code and sentenced them to suffer  life  imprisonment.   The  

decision of the Trial Court was affirmed by the High Court by  

dismissing  the  appeal  preferred  by  the  Accused-Appellants.  

This Court, after granting special leave to appeal against the  

judgment of the High Court, was later pleased to release both  

the appellants on bail vide order dated 11.04.2011.

7. Mr.  Rishi  Malhotra,  learned Advocate appearing for  

the appellants, submitted that the appellants had been falsely

Page 7

7

implicated  to  grab  the  property  of  the  deceased.   It  was  

submitted that PW-5 Randhir Singh and PW-6 Surender Singh  

had done nothing to apprehend the assaulting accused and  

that their presence was doubtful.  It was further submitted that  

the  trial  of  Basti  Ram  which  stood  segregated  and  was  

conducted by the Juvenile Justice Court, had resulted in clean  

acquittal of Basti Ram, which would also reflect on the falsity in  

the  case  of  the  prosecution.   Mrs.  Vivekta  Singh,  learned  

Advocate appearing for the State, supported the view which  

weighed with both the courts below and submitted that the  

eye-witness account was completely truthful and reliable.

8. We have gone through the record and considered the  

submissions  of  the  counsel.   It  must  be  noted  that  the  

judgment of the Trial Court in the instant case was passed on  

20.10.2000, while the judgment acquitting juvenile Basti Ram  

was passed on 23.04.2004.  The acquittal was based on the  

assertion by Randhir Singh, who was examined as PW-1 in that  

trial that Basti Ram was not involved and that the deceased  

was assaulted by Deep Chand @ Deepa and Sukhbir  Singh.  

Thus, the judgment in the case of Basti Ram would be of no  

avail to the appellants herein.  The eye-witness account in the

Page 8

8

present case is truthful and has been accepted by both the  

courts below.  In the circumstances, we do not find anything on  

record to take a view different from the one which weighed  

with the courts below.  We, therefore, affirm the judgment and  

order  of  conviction  and  sentence  as  recorded  against  the  

present appellants and dismiss the instant appeal.

9. The appellants, who were released on bail pursuant  

to  this  Court’s  order  dated  11.04.2011,  shall  serve  out  the  

sentence awarded to them.  Their bail bonds stand cancelled  

and they be taken into custody forthwith.  

…………………………J.                                           (Dipak Misra)

…………………………J.                                                   (Uday Umesh Lalit)

New Delhi, March 23, 2015.                            

Page 9

9

ITEM NO.1F               COURT NO.12               SECTION IIB                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Criminal Appeal  No(s).  1265/2009 DEEPA @ DEEP CHAND & ANR.                          Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA                                   Respondent(s)

Date : 23/03/2015 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of  judgment today.

For Appellant(s) Mr. Rishi Malhotra, Adv. Mr. B. Veeraswamy Raju, Adv.

                     For Respondent(s) Mrs. Vivekta Singh, Adv.                    Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, Adv.

Hon'ble  Mr.  Justice  Uday  Umesh  Lalit  pronounced  the  non- reportable judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice  Dipak Misra and His Lordship.  

The appeal is dismissed.   The appellants, who were released  on bail pursuant to this Court's order dated 11.04.2011, shall  serve out the sentence awarded to them.  Their bail bonds stand  cancelled and they be taken into custody forthwith in terms of the  signed non-reportable judgment.

(R.NATARAJAN)        (SNEH LATA SHARMA)  Court Master       Court Master

(Signed non-reportable judgment is placed on the file)