High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRA-D/248/2005disposed of

Ram Bhaj And ORS. v. State Of Haryana

2025-03-10Mr. Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill,Mr. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi25 pages

# $ %$

& '

( $$ ))**!+ , -. / ( $$$ ) !0! 1%

( '

$$ ))**!+ , -. / ( $$$ ) !0! &"

2 3 &$ ( - ( 4 3 &$ (

( (

# $%&&#'(&)&#**+

,%&&#'(&#**+

! !

%&#-$&)&#**+

. / ( ( $

!! !1 "

%&&#'(& )&#**+! % )

23 / %&#-$& )&#**+! 2 /3 4 /

56%

%&&#'(&)&#**+ # !

1 ! 2

*#*$#**+ 1/

! 7 %

$ 2 /8 !!

%&&#-$&)&#**+9

: ' 56% *-*$#**' 2

! 7 %

*#*$#**+ ! ! *'*'#**+;#,*$#**+ 1

#*< /

56% + 1

*-*$#**'

=** 4 >?$, !

2 !% !!

9 6

% 1 @,' .6 %

!! !:

>?+1/

(+*

! / A%>?$' 2 !% B ! >?$,

% 1

!% B @' !%

'$* >?C

*+*$#**' ! 1 1

1 / B

/*-*$#**' C** 8B 9

1 !

!! !

/ !

/ /

A !

% 1

2D ) 2!!/1!

2!!/1!

! !

2 / !

! /! ! !% 8 9

% ! D

% !

!% !

! D

21!

!1 % 2 !% !!

1 / !

/ E / 1 % " 8& /9 % 2 8@+9 !! / 1 ! / /

/ /8 /9 1 /8 /9 : ! 8 /9 / !

1 !!

! 1 !%

- % 1 @,'

>?C !

>?C; 1 !

56%>?C; 1/6

1! $*C$#$+*-'+#,'(

,'= 6 C %

@,+ ($* &! !!/?

2 !% *($* A%>?$'

& !1!

!!/ !

! C(

2/ & i) There was lacerated wound of size 7cmx.5cm.xsuperficial deep situated over the left parietotemporal region, with fresh bleeding. Patient was advised for surgeon's opinion and management. Patient was advised for surgeon opinion and management, plus any other injury detected during management and treatment.

2/ 1 6 1/ 1! !?

>?+ (+* !

! ( ;B @'

2 % 1 !?

@,$ !!/ ?

B A%>?#( !!

& i) Reddish contusion 4x2.3cm., on left upper lid, pupils were B/L normally reacting normally to light.

No complaint in vision was found. Adv. Opthealmiel/Eye surgeon opinion.

ii) Lacerated wound .3x.3cm., on left lower chest posterior aspect, posterior to axillary fold. Depth not assessed. Referred to GH, Rohtak for further treatment. Adv. Surgeon's opinion.

iii) Lacerated wound .4cm x .2cm. On right side of abdomen superolateral to anterior axillary fold. Adv. Surgeon's opinion.

!! 2 1/ 1! 2 1 2 !! = % 1 8@,'9 !

! 1!

! ! ! !E%F / >?,, 1/

@=% 1 !

>?$$

B ! ! ! %

@- A 5 A /

1 1!

18@C91:!/ 5A >?,* 1!

1/6;6

! 4 @,# ,* 62 !% 1 2 $'+

>?' ',+

! !% 4 >?#* ! ! 1

1! $*# 6

,, 6;6

! 4 @,# .6 %

: >?$

/ ?

! ! >?, )

@6 ?

>?# !!

2 & i) Stitched wound on parieto temporal region 7cm x 5cm., on exploration of the skull, the underline bone was found fractured. Sub dural heamotema was present.

ii) Fracture of both the bones of left forearm. iii) Left eye blackened.

/& 2 &

/ ,# B ?

C$#**' B ! ! / >?,

6 %

2/ !

!% %

2/ ! !1

! 1 2& ,$ B,,$#**'

1 6% 21 8@,,91/!!

B 1 !

>?,'

>?,( !

6 >?,(;

/ !

>?,(;)

! / >?,+ !

!/ 1

>?,- !

>?,= 6 >?,=;

/ !

>?,=;)

! / >?,C )

@,* @ / 8 & /9 ,' % )

2 1/64 @,# ,'$#**'B 1 !

>?#,

2!!/>?## 6 >?#,;)

/ !

>?#,;

! / >?#,;!

!/ 1 !

>?#$ % )

22!!/>?#'

! 6 >?#$;)

/ !

>?#$;

! / >?#$;

@,* @ / ,+ 2 / #,'#**' 1/64 @,#B 1 !

>?#+!

>?,$

6 >?#+;)

/ !

>?#+;6

! / >?#+; /

@= ,- % #$'#**' 1/64 @,#B 1 !

>?#- !

>?,# 6

! ! ! / >?,*

/ !

>?#-; / 1/ >

@= ,C B$,$#**' 2!! % )

1/64 1

@,$ 2 B !

1 1/ 2!!

>?+ >?-

2 ! 1/1! 1

! 1/ 1 1!/ !

1! ,( !

!/ ,,*+#**' !

2 /%

1/64 1

2 ! % !

1 1/ !

,= ! !

>?-

! @# ! / !/? H% )

2 2 /%

1/6;6B% 21 @,,

1! $*#'+#+*-,'(

,'=

A ! ! !

! #

#* B

1! ,'(6 $#$$*# +*-

,'= 6 % ! ! !/

1! ''= 6

! #, ;B @, ! $,=

A ! ! ! 1/

##=#**' ! !

? / ! !/

/ ! !

!/ !

! ## 6

)

@,G @#G6

@$ B @'G/ % 2 @+G >%

@-G 1!

1 @CG%

!@(G

@=G

@,*G6% 21

@,,G64 @,#G

@,$G% 1 @,' %

@,+ & @#& !

@$&6%

!56%8>?C;9

>?C;)6 &?

!56% ?

!/ >?C :

1 !

1/ / ! !

1 2

1 1

% )

2D) @'&B

/1 6 &?

56%

2/ !

1 ?

1 !

% @+&% 2

*-*$#**' *C**

B 8 9

% " I

/ J

1/1/B 8@'95

! !% 8 I

/ J / ! ! B 8 9

A !

B )!! D% )

2 2!!/1!

2!!/1!

! !

B 2 /D% !

! / B 7 !

!% ! D

!% !

/ !%

% !

! !1 !% !

% "

!6 &?

.6%

! !

@-& %

@C& 1!

@(&%

.6%

% 1 !% !

B ;

1/ !?

@=&

! % ?

/ !

2 / % !

/ .

@,* / !

7 @,,&6% 21 ?

7 %

1 1/ %

) !

@,#&64 ?

4 *C*$#**' .6%

: !% 8 9 % )

2D) 2!! 2 / % !

% 1 ?

@,' /

>?C 1 !56%>?C; #$ @% " % / / !

#' !! $,$ ! / !

#+ $,$1/ % )

*+*$#**' : !1 !

/ / B-$#**'

-$* B !% 8 9

% )

1 6 ! ! % )

2 1!

B !7 ! !

6 B !!

6 !1 !% 8 9 !% ! !!

F)F

! /& !/% 2

@+ % "

6 1/

) ! !!

! /

! ! !

! ! /8 % 1

2 ! 9

/ *-*$#**' 1 1!

!! !

#- !

K1 8!

!! !!

!!/ 1 !!

!) ! #C

A !!

: !!

F 7

) #( ! !

1 1!

#= & @,&%

! )>

1 >?C& / !

A !

) 17

A !

! !

>?,*

>?,, % !! %

7 @#&

6 1 !

! !1 1/

A ! @$&

! !1

A ! @'&%

4!!

!% 1 !!

B ,-*$#**' *-$C

+*/

5 1% )

2 ! ) B

!% 1

/ !

!% !

7 !

!% !! )8 9

B 2/ !% 1

/1/ @+&%

@'&%

@-&%

A ! !

1 !!

.1 @C& ?

!1 $* ) ! ! !

: @+&% 2 !

! !

1 !

1 L M 2/ 1 / 2/1 2/

/ 1 & :

A ! :

! B

# ! D

1 1 $, !!

1 1/

! 7 %

*#*$#**+ &

/!0.

( !

(!!

6( ! 6(

0 /*

)78!

! $*# 6 %; ,'=6 %6 ! %,****;&

%6 *#/ $#$ 6 %;

,'=6 %6 *- %+**;&

%6 *,

+*- 6 %; ,'= %6 *- %+**;&

%6 *,

,'( 6 %; ,'=6 %6 *,/ %,***;&

%6 *#

/ 0 9 8 !0 : ;

<. 00 !**7 !!

/!0.

''=6 %6 *( %+***;&

%6 *,/ !! !/ $# % )

2 7 % ! !

%&&#'(&#**+ 2 / % ! !"

%&#-$&)& #**+ $$ 6

!! ! $' ! ! ;

;

! % )

1 !!/! 56% ;BDB

7 %

2/ ! !1

,C+ : % " 8 ?

9 1/ 56%

7 ! !1 % ;

! ,C+

/ 1 /

! / *C*$#**'

7 1 !

!% % 1 !

! !1 ! !!/ !

1 ! ;

! !

1 1 1 56%8>?@C;9

/2/ 1/ :

8>?C91

2/ ! !/>?C

1 !

)

!! 1 !/ !2/

1 1 @ % )

!! 1 !/ !2/

1 1

!! 1

!/ !/ !2/

7 % !

1! 1! $*'6

''=6 1 % )

2 !

1! 1! !

2 1/ !

1 $#$6 !

$+ ! ! %

56% % 1 2/ !

1 1 2/ !1

8 9

: !

!! !

1/% " : )

*-*$#**'

56% *C*$#**' ! /

! B 8 9 ?

1 !

@+&% 2

1 2

! ! !/ !

1 ! !

1!/

!! !/1

! : 2 !/

1 !!/ 1! & !/ ! D

1 :

1 ! D

1/%

1 !!/ 1! !

!! !/

1 : B

! 1 56% 1/

1/ @'&%

%! !

!!/ ! 1! $- B

! !

1! 1/ 1!

1@'&B @+&% 2

1 % !

1 /6 ! !!/ !

!! 1! 1 $C @

! ! $( % !

56% @'&B

% 1 !

/*-*$#**' ,C+

: ;B

! !1 ! !

1/ % " ;

!% : % " ?

B /?

/*C*$#**' ! /

2/ !1 !

! 6 /1!

% 7 ! D

2 ! D

1 : !/

1 !/ !!/1! @+&% 2

!/11! ?

! 1

;B 8@'9

% >

! 1

1 !/ ! B

7 /

@'&B 1/

@'&%

2/ !1

!! ) 8 9 $= M1! 8 9

18. It could thus be seen that this Court has held that when the witness is found to be wholly reliable, then there is no difficulty, inasmuch as the conviction could be based on the testimony of such a witness. The Court has further found that equally when the testimony of a witness is found to be wholly unreliable again the difficulty would not arise because such an evidence will have to be discarded. The difficulty arises when a witness is found to be partly reliable and partly unreliable. In such a case, the conviction could not be maintained unless there is some corroboration to the testimony of such a witness. The law laid down in the case of Vedivelu Thevar (supra) is consistently followed by this Court in a catena of judgments.

19. In the present case, even accepting the view of the High Court that Sindhubai (PW1) would fall within the category of partly reliable and partly unreliable, in such an event the High Court should have insisted upon some corroboration to the testimony of such a witness. However, the High Court has itself found that the prosecution has not examined Sitabai and as such, there was no corroboration to her testimony. Apart from that, another witness who could have corroborated the prosecution version is Tekaram Rahagadale. Admittedly, he has also not been examined. Another witness, i.e. the Sarpanch (Vasanta Tarte) of the village has also not been examined. Insofar as Police Patil/PW4 (Narendra Katre) is concerned, he has turned hostile. In his cross examination at the behest of the accused he has given the following admission: "...

I did not state in my statement that when I returned after informing the police on telephone about the incident Sindhubai was present at my home and that she informed me about the incident. I cannot assign any reason as to why this has not been recorded in my statement..

20. As such, there is no corroboration to the testimony of Sindhubai (PW1) from any other witness.

21. It is further to be noted that though Sindhubai (PW1) stated that she had lodged a complaint at the Police Station about her apprehension with regard to Rajkumar's threat, no such complaint was placed on record.

22. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the High Court was not justified in resting the conviction of the appellants herein solely on the basis of the evidence of Sindhubai (PW1) when her testimony was found to be largely unreliable. For doing so, the High Court should have insisted upon some corroboration.

23. In our considered view, there is no corroboration to the testimony of Sindhubai (PW1). As such, the conviction would not be sustainable. The appellants would be entitled to benefit of doubt.

24. In the result, we pass the following order: (i) The appeals are allowed;

(ii) The judgments and orders of conviction and sentence passed by the High Court and the trial court are quashed and set aside; (iii) The appellants are acquitted of all the charges charged with; (iv) Insofar as appellant Mehatar is concerned, who is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged; and (v) Insofar as appellant Rajkumar is concerned, he is directed to be released forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case.

25. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.= 8>

! '* 6

;@'& B

! 2/ 1/% 5

1/ 1!

1 % 1

', @' 2/ 1/

@'&%

1! 1/

'# :

7 !/ CC / !

! !!/ !!

!/ !2/ !

6 !

B!/ !

1 !

!2/ 6 1

1 !

1/ 2/

! !/ ! $*#6 $*' 66 6

1 ,** / ! *+/

! /

''=6 ) !

!/ '$ ;

% )

!/ 1 1 ! 2 /

$*#

,'=6 $#$6 !

*, / *( #=

/ *# / *'

/ !/

/ 1/ '' ! +( ( ,

+- ( 33, # $ %$

(

=;;.

)>!96. !0"