- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Krishan And Others v. State Of Haryana
Case Summary — Judgment by Nirmal Singh, J.
Factual and Procedural Background
On 12.1.2000, Balraj, Bijender and Satbir were travelling by bus from Sonepat to Gannaur. Because the bus was overcrowded, Bijender and Satbir sat on the roof. At about 3:00 P.M., when the bus reached village Kami, Bijender and Satbir alighted; Balraj remained inside the bus. An altercation occurred between Balraj and two others identified as Krishan and another youth (later referred to as Dinesh). According to the prosecution, Krishan took out a knife and attacked Balraj while Dinesh restrained him; Balraj sustained knife injuries and later died. PW8 (Bijender) gave a statement on the basis of which an FIR was registered and investigation was conducted.
The accused (Krishan and Dinesh) were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC; Krishan was additionally charged under Section 25 of the Arms Act. At trial the prosecution examined multiple witnesses (including PW8 Bijender, PW10 Suresh Kumar, PW11 Hari Singh, PW12 Ranbir Singh, PW7 Dr. R.K. Kataria and others). The trial court convicted the appellants and, by judgment and order dated 3/4.12.2003, sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000 under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC (in default RI for one year). Krishan was further sentenced under Section 25 of the Arms Act to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 (in default RI for three months); sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
The appellants appealed against the conviction and sentence. This opinion disposes of that appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the conviction and sentences imposed under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC (and Section 25 of the Arms Act as to Krishan) were sustainable on the basis of the evidence on record.
- Whether the earlier statements of PW8 (Bijender), from which he later resiled in court, remained admissible and could be acted upon (i.e., effect of a hostile witness/resiled statement).
- Whether the recovery of the knife (disclosure statement and recovery at Krishan's house) was reliable and properly corroborated.
- Whether the medical and forensic evidence sufficiently corroborated the prosecution case to uphold conviction.
- Whether the distinction sought to be drawn between the roles of Krishan and Dinesh (specifically that Dinesh only held Balraj and was unaware of a knife) was legally tenable in negating common intention.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- The trial court misappreciated the evidence and convicted on conjectures and surmises without any evidence connecting the appellants to the crime.
- PW8 (Bijender) and PW10 (Suresh Kumar), alleged eye-witnesses, did not support the prosecution case.
- PW11 (Hari Singh), alleged to witness the recovery of the knife, did not support the prosecution regarding Dinesh.
- The knife said to have been recovered from Krishan was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory but there was no serologist's report establishing human blood on the knife; therefore the recovery was planted.
- Counsel argued that as to Dinesh, Bijender attributed only that Dinesh caught hold of the deceased and that Dinesh was unaware that Krishan had a knife — implying lack of common intention.
The opinion does not set out, in comparable detail, a separate, itemized presentation of the State's opposing arguments; the State's case appears from the prosecution evidence and the court's analysis of that evidence.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1976 SC 202 | The fact that a witness is declared hostile does not completely efface his evidence; if corroborated by other evidence, such testimony can be the basis of conviction. | The court relied on this principle to hold that PW8's earlier court statement could still be used where corroborated, and thus could support conviction. |
| Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1976 SC 294 | A court must determine whether a witness, even if contradicted after being called by the party, remains partly credible; if not wholly discredited, parts may be accepted after careful consideration. | The court used this authority to explain that Bijender's resiling did not automatically discard his prior testimony; the judge should assess which parts remained credit-worthy. |
| Koli Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2000 SC 210 (2000 (1) RCR (Crl.) 26) | Reiterates the same view that hostile or contradicted witnesses may still have admissible, credit-worthy testimony. | The court cited this decision to support the conclusion that earlier statements of PW8 could be acted upon where corroborated by other evidence. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court framed the inquiry as whether the Additional Sessions Judge committed any legal error in appreciating evidence which led to conviction. The reasoning proceeded in the following steps, reflecting the court's application of law to the facts:
- Hostile/resiled witness principle — The court began with settled law (Bhagwan Singh, Sat Paul and Koli Lakhmanbhai) that a witness declared hostile or who resiles does not have his entire evidence wiped off the record; the factfinder must examine whether parts of the testimony remain credible. The court emphasized that when a witness resiles, the requirement is that the witness be confronted with his previous statement (reference to Section 145 of the Evidence Act). In this case, PW8 (Bijender) was duly confronted with his court statement dated 7.11.2000 and his prior police statement, so the earlier statement was admissible.
- Assessment of Bijender's credibility — Although Bijender resiled during cross-examination and gave explanations that signatures were obtained on blank paper or that prior statements were under police pressure, the court found these explanations unpersuasive because Bijender did not name any police official who had coerced him and had not complained earlier to higher police or to the court. The court noted that Bijender's resiling occurred while Krishan was absconding and suggested possible motive to shield appellants (threat, pressure or monetary gain), but concluded that Bijender's earlier court statement of 7.11.2000 was voluntary and truthful and admissible.
- Corroboration by disclosure and recovery — The court evaluated the disclosure statement (Ex. PL) of Krishan to Inspector Ranbir Singh (PW12) that led to recovery of the knife from Krishan's house (recovery memo Ex. PL/1). PW11 (Hari Singh) corroborated this recovery. The court found that the prosecution established that, pursuant to Krishan's disclosure, the knife (Ex. P1) was recovered.
- Forensic evidence — The recovered knife was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory; traces of blood were detected, but the traces were too small for serological tests. The court noted this factual result (traces detected but insufficient for serology) without overstating its probative value beyond what was recorded.
- Medical evidence — The post-mortem evidence of PW7 (Dr. R.K. Kataria) established six incised wounds on Balraj; the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries sufficient to cause death. The doctor specifically opined that the injuries could be caused by the recovered knife (Ex. P1). The court treated this as material corroboration of Bijender's account.
- Circumstantial/motive considerations — The court noted circumstances tending to support the prosecution narrative: Krishan and Dinesh alighted at village Kami although their village was 4 kms away, which the court regarded as suggesting intentional alighting to cause injury; evidence of prior enmity (Balraj's allegation that Krishan had molested a girl) provided possible motive.
- On the argument distinguishing Dinesh's role — The court rejected the submission that Dinesh merely caught hold of Balraj and was unaware of any knife; having assessed Bijender's admissible statements together with recovery, forensic traces and medical evidence, the court concluded that there was abundant proof that Krishan and Dinesh acted with common intention: Dinesh restrained Balraj and Krishan inflicted fatal knife injuries.
- Conclusion on sufficiency — Considering the totality of corroborative evidence (admissible earlier statement of PW8, recovery and corroboration by PW11 and PW12, FSL traces, and medical opinion), the court found no legal error in the trial court's appreciation of evidence and held the convictions to be sustainable.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The appeal was dismissed and the convictions and sentences of the appellants were upheld. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment dated 3/4.12.2003 convicting the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC (life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000; default RI one year) and, as to Krishan, an additional sentence under Section 25 of the Arms Act (fine Rs. 1,000; default RI three months), the sentences to run concurrently.
DISPOSED OF
Implications and direct consequences:
- The convictions and sentences against Krishan and Dinesh were maintained; the appeal failed.
- The court issued a show-cause notice to PW8 Bijender Singh (the complainant and a key witness) to explain why a complaint should not be lodged against him for perjury for having resiled from his court statement of 7.11.2000; Bijender was directed to appear before the court on 7.2.2005.
- The opinion does not purport to lay down a new legal precedent; it applies established Supreme Court authorities on the treatment of hostile or resiled witnesses and upholds conviction on the basis of corroborated testimony and supporting recovery, forensic and medical evidence.
This summary is confined strictly to the information contained in the provided opinion. No facts or conclusions beyond the judgment text have been added.
Nirmal Singh, J. — This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 3/4.12.2003 vide which the appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. In default of payment of fine, the defaulter was further sentenced to undergo RI for one year. Accused Krishan was further sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 25 of the Arms Act. In default of payment of fine, he was further sentenced to undergo RI for three months. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 12.1.2000 Bijender alongwith Balraj and Satbir were going from Sonepat to Gannaur in a bus. Since the bus was overcrowded, Bijender and Satbir sat on the roof. The bus reached village Kami at 3 P.M and Bijender and Satbir alighted from the bus. Balraj who was inside the bus had an alteration with Krishan and one more youth, whose name was not known. All the three were exchanging expletives. In the meantime, Krishan took out a knife from his pocket and attacked Balraj, who was caught hold by Krishan's companion. Bijender intervened to save Balraj but Krishan gave another knife blow on the back of Balraj due to which he fell down and the assailants ran away from the spot. On the statement of PW8 Bijender, FIR against the accused was got registered. After completion of investigation, challan against the accused was presented.
3. They were charged under Sections 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Krishan, accused, was also charge-sheeted under Section 25 of the Arms Act. However, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To prove the case, the prosecution examined PW1 Rajbir Singh, PW2 Kuldeep Singh, HC, PW3 Bijender Singh, Constable, PW4 Laxmi Narain, Constable, PW5 Giri Raj Singh, PW8 Mrs. Poonam Suneja, JMIC, PW7 Dr. R.K Kataria, PW6 Bijender, PW9 Naresh Kumar, Patwari, PW10 Suresh Kumar, PW11 Hari Singh, PW12 Ranbir Singh, Retired Inspector and PW13 Satbir.
5. The accused were examined Section 313 Cr.P.C to explain the incriminating circumstance appearing in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded innocence and alleged false implication. Accused Krishan took the following plea :—
“I am innocent. I have not committed offence as alleged. The allegations levelled against me are totally false and fictitious. The story as mentioned in the FIR is totally made up one only to involve me in the above mentioned case. My name has been involved due to rivalry between the villagers.”
6. The learned trial Court, after hearing the defence counsel and learned PP for the State found the appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them vide judgment and order dated 3/4.12.2003 as stated in Paragraph 1 of the judgment, against such (which?) the present appeal has been filed.
7. Mr. R.S Ghai, Senior Advocate, alongwith Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate, appearing for the appellant, submitted that the learned lower Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in its right perspective. They submitted that the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants on the basis of conjectures and surmises, even though there was no evidence on the record to connect the appellants with the crime. They also submitted that PW8 Bijender Singh was the eye witness as well as complainant in this case while PW10 Suresh Kumar was the another eye witness. However, both have not supported the case of the prosecution. PW11 Hari Singh was the alleged witness to the recovery of knife from Krishan, appellant but he has not supported the case of the prosecution qua Dmesh. They contended that the alleged knife recovered on the statement of Krishan was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory but there is no report of Serologist that the knife recovered from the appellant was stained with human blood. They further submitted that the recovery of knife was planted by the prosecution to strengthen the case against the appellants.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the record, we are of the considered view that there are no merits in these submissions.
9. It is settled proposition of law that the evidence of a hostile witness is admissible to that extent which supports the case of the prosecution. The entire statement of a hostile witness cannot-be discarded. In Bhagwan Singh v. State Of Haryana, AIR 1976 SC 202, it has been observed as under :—
“That the fact that the witness was declared hostile did not completely efface his evidence, it remained admissible in the trial. Since his testimony was corroborated by other evidence, there was no legal bar to base his conviction upon it.”
In Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration ., AIR 1976 Supreme Court 294, it has been held as under :—
“Even in a criminal prosecution when a witness is cross-examined and contradicted with the leave of the court by the party calling him, his evidence cannot, as a matter of law, be treated as washed off the record altogether. It is for the Judge of fact to consider in each case whether as a result of such cross-examination and contradiction, the witness stands thoroughly discerted (discredited?) or can still be believed in regard to a part of his testimony. If the Judge finds that in the process, the credit of the witness has not been completely shaken, he may, after reading and considering the evidence of the witness, as a whole, with due caution and care, accept, in the light of the other evidence on the record, that part of his testimony which the finds to be credit-worthy and act upon it. If in a given case, the whole of the testimony of the witness is impugned, and in the process, the witness stands squarely and totally discredited, the Judge should as a matter of prudence discard his evidence in toto.”
10. Similar view has been taken in Koli Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai v. State Of Gujarat, 2000 (1) RCR (Crl.) 26 (SC) : AIR 2000 Supreme Court 210.
11. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, it is to be seen whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed any legal error in appreciating the evidence.
12. The case of the prosecution hinges upon the statements of PW8 Bijender Singh, PM10 Suresh Kumar, who are the eye witnesses of the occurrence and PW11 Hari Singh in whose presence the knife was recovered from Krishan. Bijender Singh was examined in the Court on 7.11.2000 His examination-in-chief was recorded. However, when the cross-examination was almost complete, then suddenly, counsel for the appellants in the trial Court, Shri B.K Tyagi, made a statement that he had become ill and on his request, further cross-examination was deferred and the case was adjourned to 16.1.2001 for the remaining evidence. On the adjourned date, no PW was present and case was adjourned to 19.2.2001 On the said date, the learned Sessions Judge was on leave and the case was adjourned to 23.2.2001 and thereafter to 8.5.2001 On 8.5.2001, one PW was examined but another PW Balwan Singh could not be examined as recording of his evidence was objected by the counsel for the appellant. Balwan Singh, PW, was, therefore, discharged. The case was then adjourned to 3.8.2001 On 3.8.2001, counsel for appellant, Krishan, appeared and brought to the notice of learned Sessions Judge that Krishan had been allowed interim bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 19.7.2001 during vacation and he was to surrender on 26.7.2001 However, appellant Krishan did not surrender and his bail bonds and surety bonds were forfeited and he was summoned through warrant of arrest for 22.8.2001 Later on, Krishan, appellant, was declared proclaimed offender on 26.11.2001 PW8 Bijender Singh was recalled for cross-examination on 13.12.2002 In his cross-examination on he resiled from his statement Ex.PB on the basis of which FIR was registered as well as from the statement recorded in the court on 7.11.2000 When he was confronted with his statement Ex.PB on the basis of which FIR was registered, he gave an explanation that his signatures were obtained on blank paper by the police. Regarding the statement made by PW8 Bijender Singh in Court on 7.11.2000, he gave an explanation that the previous statement made by him before the Court was under the police pressure. When he was confronted with his statement Ex.PB Bijender Singh admitted his signatures on it but denied its contents. At the time of recording statement of Bijender on 7.11.2000, he has not given any explanation that his signatures were obtained on blank paper by the police and its contents were not read over to him. PW8 Bijender Singh has not made any complaint to the higher police officers or to the Court that his signatures had been obtained on blank papers.
13. The explanation given by PW8 Bijender that he made statement in the Court on 7.11.2000 under police pressure is not believable because he has not given the name of the any police official who has pressurised him to make the statement in the court against the appellants. Bijender Singh was again cross-examined on 28.8.2003 He resiled from his statement made before the police, as well as before the court on 7.11.2000 He was again duly confronted with his statements.
14. The court cannot over-look the fact that PW8 Bijender had resiled from his statement when appellant Krishan was absconding. PW8 Bijender resiled either under threat or was won over under pressure or for monetary gain.
15. Therefore, it shows that the statement made by PW8 Bijender on 7.11.2000 was voluntary, truthful and it was only during the cross-examination that he resiled from his previous statement made before the court intentionally and purposely to screen the appellants from legal punishment, for the reasons best known to him.
16. Bijender Singh was again cross-examined on 28.8.2003 He resiled from his statement made before the police as well as before the court on 7.11.2000 He was again duly confronted with his statements.
17. When a witness resiles from his previous statement made in the Court, the only requirement of law is that the witness is to be confronted with his previous statement made before the court as provided in Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
18. In the instant case, PW8 Bijender was duly confronted with his statement made before the court on 7.11.2000 So the said statement is admissible in evidence.
19. Mr. R.S Ghai, learned senior counsel for the appellants tried to distinguish the case of Dinesh from Krishan and submitted that no part has been attributed to Dinesh by Bijender except that he had caught hold of the deceased. He submitted that Dinesh was not aware that Krishan was having a knife with him with which he allegedly gave injuries to the Balraj deceased.
20. We have considered this submission of learned counsel for the appellant but find the same without any foundation.
21. As per PW8 Bijender, on 12.1.2000 at about 3 p.m he alongwith Satbir alighted from the roof of the bus at bus stand of village Kami, Krishan and Dinesh also alighted from the bus with Balraj. There was an altercation between Krishan and Balraj. Dinesh caught hold of Balraj whereas Krishan gave knife blow. It has come in toe cross-examination of Bijender that accused were residents of village Rajpur which is at a distance of 4 kms from village Kami. There is another village named Bhun in between the two villages. There was no need of the appellants to alight from the bus at bus stop of village Kami whereas they were residents of village Rajpur, which was 4 kms, away from the bus stop of village Kami. It shows that the appellants Krishan and Dinesh had intentionally alighted from the bus at village Kami to cause injuries to Balraj.
22. The statement of PW8 Bijender has been further corroborated by circumstances (circumstantial?) evidence. Inspector Ranbir Singh PW12 deposed that on 16.1.2000, he interrogated accused Krishan who made disclosure statement Ex PL that he kept concealed the knife, with which he inflicted injuries on the person of Balraj, in the chubbara of his house in the quilt on the cot about which only he knew and he could get it recovered. In pursuance of the said disclosure statement, accused Krishan got recovered the knife from his house. The same was taken in to possession vide recovery memo Ex. PL/1. His statement has been fully corroborated by PW11 Hari Singh. Hari Singh PW11 and Ranbir Singh PW12 have been cross-examined by the defence at length. Rather from the evidence of PW11 Hari Singh and PW12 Inspector Ranbir Singh, it established that on the disclosure statement of Krishan, knife Ex.PI was recovered. The knife was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, and traces of blood were detected on the knife Ex.PW 1 but those were too small for serological tests.
23. The version given by PW8 Bijender finds corroboration from medical evidence given by PW7 Dr. R.K Kataria. He has conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Balraj and found 6 incised wounds on his person. The cause of death in the opinion of doctor was shock and hemorrhage due to the injuries which were ante-mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Dr. Kataria has specifically deposed that the injuries on the person of deceased Balraj could be caused by knife Ex.P1
24. There was strong motive on the part of the appellants to cause injuries to Balraj. As per PW8 Bijender, deceased Balraj had told him prior to the occurrence as well as after receiving the injuries that the fight had taken place because there was previous enmity between Balraj and Krishan as Krishan has molested a girl at the bus stand.
25. From the evidence on record, it is abundantly proved that Krishan and Dinesh with their common intention alighted from the but at bus stop of village Kami. Dinesh caught hold deceased Balraj whereas Krishan gave injuries to him with knife as a result of which Balraj had died. Therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not committed any legal error in appreciating the evidence on record and has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants Krishan and Dinesh.
26. For the reasons recorded above, we find no merit in this appeal. The same is dismissed.
27. However, before parting with the judgment, it has become necessary to issue notice to PW8 Bijender who was the complainant in this case and he has tried to screen the appellants from legal punishment by resiling from his statement made in the court on 7.11.2000 Therefore, a show cause notice is issued to PW8 Bijender Singh to explain to why a complaint be not lodged against him for committing the offence to perjury. He is directed to appear in this court on 7.2.2005
Appeal dismissed.
Alert