DEEPA @ DEEP CHAND Vs STATE OF HARYANA
Bench: DIPAK MISRA,UDAY UMESH LALIT
Case number: Crl.A. No.-001265-001265 / 2009
Diary number: 29268 / 2008
Advocates: RISHI MALHOTRA Vs
KAMAL MOHAN GUPTA
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)