SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- Arun Kumar and P.P. Naolekar, JJ.

Criminal Appeal No. 269 of 2004. D/d. 17.2.2005.

Satish - Appellant

Versus

State Of Haryana - Respondent

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 34 and 302 simpliciter - Out of six accused only appellant convicted under Section 302 simpliciter - Charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 dropped - Held - Contention of appellant that under said circumstances he could not be convicted under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, cannot be accepted in view of the fact that he was specifically charged under Section 302 Indian Penal Code.

[Para 4]

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the Judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. Before the trial court, six persons were tried for offences under Section 148/302/324/149. However, the trial court convicted only Naresh, Satish and Raju under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. On appeal before the High Court the conviction of Naresh (one of the accused) and Raju was set aside and they were acquitted while the conviction of Satish under Section 302 Indian Penal Code was upheld. Hence the present appeal by Satish.

2. Briefly, the facts are that Naresh (the complainant), Jasbir and Suresh (deceased) used to live in a room in Rajindra Colony, Bhiwani Road, Rohtak, Haryana. They were doing the work of earth-filling with the help of their tractor trolley. Bijender, a mechanic was also residing in another room in the same house.

3. On 6th March 1995, at about 6.30 p.m. Naresh (the complainant) and Suresh (the deceased) were sitting in their room. On hearing some noise outside they came out and went to the place where Satish @ Lala - the appellant, Naresh (one of the accused) and Raju were quarreling and were beating Bijender, the mechanic. They both tried to rescue Bijender. Thereafter, Raju and Naresh (one of the accused) caught hold of one hand of Suresh while accused Satish took out a knife from his pocket and gave 3-4 knife blows on the head and abdomen of Suresh. Meanwhile, Jasbir also came there and witnessed the occurrence. All the three accused fled towards the city in a three-wheeler auto-rickshaw. Suresh was removed to the Medical College Hospital, Rohtak by Naresh in his tractor. Dharambir met him on the way who also accompanied them to the hospital. However, Suresh was declared dead by the doctors at the hospital.

4. For convicting Satish of the murder of Suresh, the Courts below have mainly relied on the eye-witness account of PW-8 Naresh the complainant and PW-9 Jasbir.

5. We have been taken through the testimony of these two witnesses.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant tried to build an argument on the basis of certain inconsistencies in the statements of these two eye-witnesses, particularly the fact that PW-8 Naresh did not mention the presence of PW-9 Jasbir at the spot. However, reading the evidence of these two eye-witnesses as a whole leaves no manner of doubt about the occurrence and about the fact that it was Satish - the appellant who gave fatal knife blows to the deceased. The medical evidence supports the ocular evidence given by these two eye-witnesses. Therefore, we have no reason to find any fault with the conclusion arrived at by the courts below convicting the appellant under Section 302 Indian Penal Code.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant also tried to urge that when the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code had been dropped, the appellant alone could not have been convicted under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. This argument overlooks the fact that the appellant was specifically charged separately under Section 302 Indian Penal Code alone. The learned counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to the charge framed against the appellant in this case on 8th June 1995.

8. The first charge against the appellant is under Section 302 Indian Penal Code only. Therefore, this argument has no merit. We find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.

.