LawDistill
Supreme Court of India

VEDPAL vs STATE OF HARYANA on 4 November, 2009

Cites 1 provisionsCites 0 judgmentsCited by 0
Crl.A. No.-001670-001670 - 2005Official PDFBench Harjit Singh Bedi, Jagdish Madhurlal PanchalAdvocates BALRAJ DEWAN
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1670 OF 2005
VEDPAL & ORS.APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANARESPONDENT
O R D E R

We have heard the learned counsel for the

parties at length.

The learned counsel for the appellants has

raised several issues before us, more particularly, (i)

that some of the accused who were similarly placed had

been acquitted by the trial court; (ii)that the

evidence of the injured eye-witnesses could not be

entirely believed; and (iii) that the statements of the

eye-witnesses made in Court vis-á-vis their statements

under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had

clear improvements which cast a doubt on the

prosecution story; (iv) that the recording of the FIR

had been inordinately delayed and the time so taken had

been utilised to concoct a false story; and (v) that

the non-examination of the Investigating Officer had

caused prejudice to the accused as it had not been

possible for them to ascertain from his statement as to

why only an empty cartridge case of 12 bore had been

recovered from the place of the incident and as to why

no efforts had been made to effect recoveries of the

weapons used in the incident.

We find that each of these issues has been dealt

with by the trial court as well as by the High Court

and cogent reasons have been given by both courts as to

why the case of the appellants before us and those of

the accused who have been acquitted by the trial court

were different in their circumstances. We cannot lose

sight of the fact that it is the admitted case on all

sides that the incident had happened in the residential

house of the complainant party and had been

precipitated on account of the incident two days

earlier wherein P.W. - Rai Singh had been beleagured

as he had misbehaved at the complainant's home after

taking excessive drink. The nature of the injuries

clearly show that they had been caused by fire arms.

Mr. Sadique, the learned counsel for the

appellants has, however, argued that the katta which

was allegedly in the hands of two of the appellants

would ordinarily use a bullet and not a cartridge and

as no bullet wound had been detected or any bullet

recovered from the body, the entire prosecution story

stood falsified. We find absolutely no merit in this

submission for the simple reason that a katta can fire

a cartridge of 12 bore as well and there is universal

rule that a rifle catridge alone can be fired from such

a weapon. The medical evidence including a large

number of x-rays taken from the body of the deceased

and also the injured persons reveals the presence of

radio opaque shadows which leads to the only

conclusion that a cartridge firing pellets had been

used. It is also true that the Investigating Officer

had not been examined and no cogent reason had been

given for this omission. We find, however, that no

prejudice has been caused to the accused on this

account as the necessary benefit has been given to the

accused party as some of them have been acquitted. The

mere fact also that weapon used in the incident had not

been recovered does not detract from the evidence of

the seriously injured eye-witnesses. In any case,the

trial court has separated the grain from the chaff and,

granted the benefit to those of the accused persons

whose involvement was in doubt.

We, accordingly, dismiss this appeal.