'Witnesses Cannot Be Expected To Present Parrot-Like Version Before Trial Court': Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Conviction In Murder Case

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has upheld the conviction in a murder case observing that the witnesses cannot be expected to present parrot-like version to the Trial Court.

The Court rejected the "various inconsistencies appearing in the testimonies" of witnesses contended by the accused.

Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and Justice N.S. Shekhawat said, "When the witnesses were deposing after such a long period, certain inconsistencies would appear in the statements of truthful witnesses also and the witnesses could not be expected to present a parrot-like version before the Trial Court."

The Court was hearing an appeal against conviction for committing murder under Section 302 of IPC and under Section 25 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and Rs.500 as a fine.

According to the prosecution, a complaint was lodged by the deceased person's brother that due to a land dispute between the accused, Om Prakash, and the deceased person's family, Prakash shot him dead.

During the investigation, certain recoveries were made from the spot and the bullet/pallets were also taken into possession by the police vide the separate memos.

Prakash was arrested by the police in 1997 and he suffered his disclosure statement and stated that he had kept concealed one country-made pistol of .12 bore along with two cartridges, wrapped in a glazed paper in the heap of wheat crops inside his Kotha.

As per the prosecution, in pursuance of the disclosure statement, the appellant recovered one country-made pistol with a .12 bore along with two cartridges and the same was taken into possession by the police. 

However, the counsel for the accused argued that another complaint was filed by the complainant on the same incident where the deceased was shot dead according to which it was not Prakash but one Prem Singh who fired upon the deceased.

After hearing the submissions, the Court rejected the appellant counsel's contention and said, "It is a matter of common knowledge that in this part of country, there is an unfortunate tendency to involve number of persons, by exaggerating the version of the prosecution."

The Court opined that the second version of the complaint was an "afterthought" since it was lodged after several days.

The bench noted that "it appears that the complainant wanted to involve several other persons also in the occurrence after several days of murder, however, the statement of PW-11, Karan Singh, which was immediately recorded after the occurrence in the present case, cannot be thrown away only on this ground."

It further noted that the complainant has clearly stated in its cross-examination that the second complaint was lodged at the instigation of some co-villagers.

"Apart from that, the occurrence in the present case had taken place on 05.10.1997 and immediately thereafter, a parcel containing pallets, which had been extracted by the doctor from the dead body of Ramesh Kumar, at the time of his post-mortem examination, were taken into possession by the police on 06.10.1997," said the Court.

Perusing the post-mortem report, the Court noted that, as per the doctor, the cause of death in the present case was haemorrhage and shock as a result of the injuries described in the post-mortem.

"All the injuries were caused due to fire arm and were ante-mortem in nature. He also took out the pallets from the dead body and handed over the same to the police for forensic examination."

The Court also noted that there was nothing on record to suggest that the Police witnesses had deposed falsely against the present appellant.

It rejected the contention raised by the appellant's counsel that the testimony of the two witnesses was inconsistent.

"In fact, both the witnesses are rustic villagers and had got a chance to appear before the Trial Court after several months of the occurrence. In fact, when the witnesses were deposing after such a long period, certain inconsistencies would appear in the statements of truthful witnesses also and the witnesses could not be expected to present a parrot-like version before the Trial Court," said the Court.

In light of the above, the plea was dismissed and the Court upheld the conviction.

Title: Om Parkash v. State of Haryana

2024 LiveLaw (PH) 191

Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Advocate as Amicus Curiae, for the appellant.

Ms. Sheenu Sura, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

Click here to read/download the order