Punjab & Haryana High Court Awards Life Sentences To Three Army Officers In 1998 Murder Case
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has convicted three formers army officers and another in a 1998 murder case, wherein they shot a man dead in Haryana's Sonepat.
The Court while overturning the trial court's decision of acquittal granted to the convicts, rejected the plea of alibi taken by the army officers. The Trial Court had accepted Army records and officer statements that all the three convicts namely Captain Anand, along with Yudhvir Singh and Raj Kumar, in Roorkee on the day of the crime.
Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma noted, "conjoint readings of the report of the doctor concerned, who proved the apposite post-mortem report of the deceased concerned, with the efficaciously proven signatured disclosure statement...as made by the accused-respondents, and, also with the consequent thereto made valid recovery through recovery memo..., does therebys foster an inference, that therebys there is inter se corroboration inter se the medical account and the report of the ballistic expert, besides with the memos supra. Resultantly, therebys, the plea of alibi which otherwise for reasons.., becomes not cogently proven, thus therebys also becomes inconsequential."
The Court held accused persons guilty for committing the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
According to prosecution's case altercations had earlier taken place between Mahender Singh and Raj Kumar's family during panchayat elections resulting in an ill-will between the parties.
After examining the submissions, the Court noted that the Trial Court has committed "a gross perversity or absurdity in the appreciation of the adduced relevant evidence."
It took note of the disclosure statement of Raj Kumar which led to the discovery of the "country made weapon."
Taking note of account of eye-witnesses the bench opined that the discovery of the weapon is a "pivotal corroborative link" even in a case based upon eye witness account.
The court highlighted that the defence must show that the disclosure statement and any resultant recovery were forged or fabricated by proving that the alleged discovery did not directly arise from the custodial statement of the accused.
"In a case based upon circumstantial evidence when the appositely made signatured disclosure statement by the accused and the consequent thereto prepared recovery memos, do not fall foul, of the...principles, therebys they acquire grave evidentiary vigor, especially when in pursuance thereto able recoveries are made," added the Court.
While relying on the disclosure statement of the accused, discovery of weapon, eye-witness account and linking the chain of circumstantial evidence, the Court allowed the appeal against acquittal.
Mr. Pawan Girdhar, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Vinod Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arnav Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner (in CRR-563-2003).
Mr. R.S.Cheema, Senior Advocate with Mr. K.D.S.Hooda, Advocate for the respondents/accused.