STATE OF HARYANA Vs RAJINDER
Bench: H.L. GOKHALE,KURIAN JOSEPH
Case number: Crl.A. No.-001931-001931 / 2013
Diary number: 10484 / 2010
Advocates: NARESH BAKSHI Vs
SANJAY JAIN
Page 1
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1931 OF 2013
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.4763/2010)
STATE OF HARYANA Appellant(s)
:VERSUS:
RAJINDER Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
2. Heard Mr. Vikas Sharma, learned counsel
appearing for the State of Haryana and Mr. Salil
Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent. This appeal by the State of Haryana
seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated
18.9.2009 rendered by the Division Bench of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in
Criminal Appeal No.715-DB of 2004 whereby the
respondent Rajinder son of Jita came to be acquitted
from a charge under Section 302 I.P.C. amongst other
charges.
Page 2
2
3. The short facts leading to this appeal are
this wise. The respondent herein along with some
others were alleged to have murdered one Lachhman on
26.11.2002. There were in all 10 accused. They were
tried for the offences under Sections 302, 452, 342,
148 & 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of
the Arms Act. The learned Sessions Judge by his
judgment and order dated 23/27.7.2004 convicted all
of them in Sessions Case No.13 of 2003 and sentenced
them to life imprisonment along with other
punishments. The respondent herein filed Criminal
Appeal No.715-DB of 2004 before the High Court which
came to be allowed by the Division Bench of the High
Court acquitting him. Hence, this appeal by the
State.
4. Learned counsel for the State of Haryana
points out that the exclusion of the respondent from
the other group by the High Court in the impugned
judgment was erroneous. The respondent was also a
party to the crime and the High Court should not
have reversed the judgment of conviction. He has
drawn our attention to the judgment of the Sessions
Page 3
3
Court and also to the statement of PW-8 – Rajmal who
stated that the respondent Rajinder son of Jita gave
a Lalkara (shout) and all other accused persons
assembled there which led to the murder of the
aforesaid Lachhman. It is also stated in the
deposition of the said witness that the respondent
gave a Gandasa blow on the left cheek of the
deceased Lachhman. Learned counsel pointed out that
the Sessions Judge disbelieved the DW-4 Ishwar Singh
who stated that the respondent Rajinder was not
present at the site of the occurrence but he, in
fact, was working at another place on the relevant
date. Learned counsel submitted that this finding
of the Sessions Judge could not have been upturned
by the High Court.
5. We have perused the judgment of the High
Court which clearly records that not only has this
DW-4 deposed as above, but a copy of the relevant
register Exhibit D-C has been produced to show that
this accused was in the office of the Haryana State
Electricity Board at that particular point of time.
It is also to be noted that the allegation against
the respondent is that he had given a blow by a
Page 4
4
Gandasa on the left cheek of the deceased. There is
no such injury on the left cheek of the deceased and
it is Injury No.5 which was on the chest of the
deceased because of which the deceased succumbed to
death. This being the position, we do not see any
error in the order passed by the High Court. It is
also material to note that the incident was of
26.11.2002 and the Sessions Court judgment is of
23/27.7.2004 and the High Court judgment is of
18.9.2009. All this time the respondent was in
custody until he was acquitted by the High Court.
We do not see any reason to interfere with the
impugned order passed by the High Court. This appeal
is, therefore, dismissed.
.........................J (H.L. GOKHALE)
...........................J (KURIAN JOSEPH)
New Delhi; November 12, 2013.