- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Suresh v. State Of Haryana .
Factual and Procedural Background
On 14 October 1991, Ram Sarup and his sons Nakul and Sehdev were travelling in a tempo when four accused—Suresh (armed with an iron chain), Ram Kumar (with a hockey stick), Jai Dev and Raj Kumar (both with gandasas)—blocked the vehicle and violently attacked the trio. Other passengers fled. The victims were taken to the Medical College & Hospital, Rohtak, where the police recorded a statement and registered an FIR.
Seven accused were ultimately tried before the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak. Four were convicted—Jaibir (sic), Ram Kumar, Suresh and Raj Kumar—while three were acquitted. During the pendency of the High Court appeal, Ram Kumar died and the case against him abated. The Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld the convictions under Sections 326 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code but reduced the sentence for Section 307 from 10 years to 7 years’ rigorous imprisonment. The present appeals by the surviving convicts challenge that decision in the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the evidence on record legally justifies the conviction of the appellants under Sections 307 and 326 read with Section 34 IPC.
- Whether the sentence of seven years’ rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 307 IPC is excessive.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Arguments
- The prosecution witnesses did not specifically attribute acts that would attract liability under Section 307 IPC.
- The seven-year sentence confirmed by the High Court is unduly harsh.
Respondent State’s Arguments
- Injury to Ram Sarup was so severe that he suffered memory loss, underscoring intent to cause death.
- The injured eyewitnesses (PWs 6 and 8) gave cogent and credible testimony supporting the conviction.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court found the testimony of the injured eyewitnesses “cogent and credible,” leaving “no scope for interference.” It rejected the defence of false implication, noting that injured victims would have no reason to shield the real culprits and implicate innocent persons; moreover, the appellants offered no substantive basis for such a claim. Because the medical evidence revealed multiple grievous and life-threatening injuries inflicted with both sharp and blunt weapons, the Court concluded that the appellants’ conduct satisfied the ingredients of Sections 307 and 326 read with Section 34 IPC. Consequently, both the conviction and the sentences as modified by the High Court were upheld.
Holding and Implications
Appeals Dismissed; Conviction and Sentences Affirmed.
The Supreme Court’s decision leaves intact the High Court’s judgment: seven years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and three years under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC. The ruling affects only the parties to the case and sets no new precedent beyond reaffirming the evidentiary weight accorded to credible injured eyewitnesses.
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.— Leave granted in SLP (Crl.) No. 2007 of 2008. These appeals are directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant-accused and two others for the offence punishable under Sections 326 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”). However, the sentence of 10 years' rigorous imprisonment as awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, was reduced to 7 years while the sentence of 3 years in respect of the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC was upheld.
2. Seven persons faced trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, out of which four accused were convicted and the remaining three were acquitted. During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, the accused, Ram Kumar expired on 17-4-1995 and, therefore, Criminal Appeal No. 493-SB of 1994 was held to have abated so far as he is concerned. Out of the seven persons who faced trial, Jaibir (sic), Ram Kumar, Suresh and Raj Kumar were convicted while the accused Jaibir, Rajmal and Surender were acquitted.
3. The prosecution case in a nutshell is as follows:
On 14-10-1991 (the date of occurrence), Ram Sarup and his two sons, namely, Nakul and Sehdev (injured in the present case) had boarded a three-wheeler/tempo of Dharambir from Meham for going to attend a peshi in the Court of SDM. On the way, some passengers including Sanjay (PW 11) boarded the said tempo from Village Madina. At about 10 a.m by which time the said tempo covered the distance of about 2/3 km from Village Madina, the accused Suresh armed with an iron chain, Ram Kumar armed with a hockey stick, Jai Dev and Raj Kumar, both armed with gandasas, emerged on the road from one side and stood in front of the tempo. When the tempo was stopped by the driver, all the four persons started giving blows by their respective weapons to Ram Sarup, Sehdev and Nakul. On seeing the occurrence, the other passengers got down and ran away to the fields.
4. After causing serious injuries to these three persons, the accused ran away from the spot along with their respective weapons. Thereafter, Dharambir, the driver of the tempo with the help of Sanjay (PW 11), took the injured to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak, in a Haryana Roadways bus. Sanjay got down at Madina and went to Village Mokhra for giving information to the family members of the injured. Dharambir got the injured admitted in Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak. The medical officer attended the injured and informed the police. A message was sent to Police Station Meham. ASI Ishwar Singh came to Medical College and Hospital and recorded the statement (Ext. PN) of Dharambir on the basis of which FIR (Ext. PN-2) was registered.
5. On 14-11-1991, Dr. S.P Chugh, Casualty Medical Officer, MCH, Rohtak (PW 9) conducted the medico-legal examination of injured Ram Sarup, Nakul and Sehdev and found the following injuries on their person:
The injuries pertaining to Ram Sarup, the injured:
1. An incised wound 10 × 4 × 2 cm deep over front of the neck just above the thyroid cartilage. The trachea was cut and exposed. Advised ENT surgeon's opinion.
2. An incised wound 16 × 2 cm × bone-deep over right side of the scalp extending from right eyebrow to the parietal region up to the midline. Advised surgeon's opinion.
3. Incised wound 6 cm × 1 × cm bone-deep over left side of the scalp extending from the left eyebrow over the scalp. Advised surgeon's opinion.
4. Incised wound 4 × 1 × 1 cm deep over the left side of the forehead, 1 cm deep over the left side of the forehead, 1 cm of midline.
5. Incised wound 4 × 1 × 1 cm over the anterior aspect of left shoulder.
6. Crash injury 16 cm × 8 cm × bone-deep over the right shoulder, the underlying bone muscles were exposed.
As per the witness, PW 9, Injuries 1 to 5 were caused by sharp-edged weapons and Injury 6 by a blunt weapon.
6. The injuries pertaining to Nakul, the injured:
1. An incised wound 12 cm × 6 cm deep over the dorsal aspect of the left shoulder.
2. An incised wound 10 × 3 cm × bone-deep over left side of the occipital region 1 cm from midline. Advised surgeon's opinion.
3. Incised wound 4 cm × 2 cm × bone-deep over right side of the occipital region of the scalp, 1 cm of Injury 2. Advised x-ray of the skull.
4. An incised wound 6 × 4 × 1 cm over the right leg, 2 cm below the tibial tuberosity. Advised orthosurgeon's opinion.
5. A crash injury over the palmar aspect of right hand. Advised orthosurgeon's opinion.
6. Incised wound 6 × 4 cm × bone-deep over the lower part of the right leg.
7. Incised wound 3 × 2 cm × bone-deep over the palmar aspect of left hand.
8. Incised wound 6 × 3 cm × bone-deep over the palmar aspect of left hand.
9. Incised wound 3 × 2 cm × bone-deep over the left leg.
As per the witness, PW 9 Injuries 1 to 4 and 6 to 9 were caused by sharp-edged weapons and Injury 5 by a blunt weapon.
7. The injuries pertaining to Sehdev, the injured:
1. An incised wound 4 × 1 cm over the palmar aspect of right hand. Bleeding was present. Advised orthosurgeon's opinion.
2. An incised wound 6 × 4 × 2 cm over the right side of the chest. Advised surgeon's opinion.
3. An incised wound 3 × 1 × 1 cm over the ventral aspect of right arm just above the elbow.
4. Multiple incised wounds of varying sizes present over the right side of the face. Whole of the face was flushed with blood. Advised surgeon's opinion.
As per the witness, PW 9, all the injuries were caused by sharp-edged weapons.
8. Injuries 1 to 4 of Sehdev were declared as grievous in nature vide opinion, Ext. PS-1 given by the said witness, PW 9, and the injuries on the person of the injured could have been caused by sharp weapons, Exts. P-1 and P-2.
9. The injuries of Nakul and Ram Sarup were sufficient cause of (sic to cause) death in the ordinary course of nature. As per the opinion, Ext. PR-1 given by the said witness, there were multiple fractures and surgical emphysema was present. So, the injuries were dangerous to life.
10. After the investigation, charge-sheet was filed in respect of the offence relatable under Sections 148, 307/149, 326/149, 324/149 and 323/149 IPC. Since the accused persons pleaded innocence they were put on trial. Twelve witnesses were examined including the alleged eyewitnesses, PWs 5, 6, 8 and 9. The trial court directed convictions and imposed sentence as aforementioned.
11. Before the High Court, the stand taken was that no offence under Sections 307, 326 read with Section 34 IPC has been made out and the prosecution has failed to prove the specific injuries alleged to have been caused by the accused to the injured. On the other hand, the State supported the judgment. The High Court after referring to the evidence of the witnesses held (sic upheld) the eyewitnesses' version that the accused persons were armed with chain, gandasa and hockey sticks and that they stopped the tempo and started causing injuries to the injured. Injuries on Ram Singh and his two sons, namely, Nakul and Sehdev have been clearly established. Accordingly, the conviction was maintained.
12. The High Court noted that the injured persons were given a large number of injuries with sharp-edged weapons and blunt weapons like hockey sticks. They were mercilessly beaten and the attack was also so severe that all the other passengers sitting on the tempo ran away from the spot and none came forward to save the injured. It was also noticed that the injuries caused on Nakul and Ram Sarup were definitely dangerous to life. Therefore, the conviction was maintained, but the sentence was reduced to 7 years.
13. In support of the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the witnesses have not specifically indicated about what acts attracted under Section 307, if any. The sentence in respect of Section 307 was also characterised to be heavy. Learned counsel for the respondent State on the other hand submitted that the injury on Ram Singh was so severe that he lost his memory due to the injuries caused to him. The other injured witnesses PWs 6 and 8 who suffered serious injuries were examined.
14. In view of the cogent and credible evidence of the injured witnesses there is no scope for interference in these appeals. Though false implication was pleaded, the same is without any foundation. Clearly, all the persons who have suffered injuries would not shield the actual culprit and implicate an innocent person when false implication is pleaded. The foundation has to be laid on the same. In the instant case that has not been done.
15. The appeals are without merit and deserve dismissal which we direct.
Alert