Mirchpur Killings Case Judgement

IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SEESIONS JUDGE-II (NORTH-WEST)/ SPL.
JUDGE (SC/ST CASES): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No. 1238/10 Unique Case ID No. 02404R0326422010 State Versus 1. Dharambir S/o Sh. Tara Chand R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) 2. Pawan S/o Sh. Ram Mahar R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Karambir S/o Sh. Tara Chand R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Convicted) Joginder @ Jogar Sh. Bhim Singh R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Dalbir Sh. Dalip Singh R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted)
Page No. 1
3.
4.
5.
St. Vs. Dharambir Etc, FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaund (Haryana)
6.
Balwan Sh. Inder Singh R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Satyawan S/o Sh. Tara Chand R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Jaibir S/o Sh. Manphool R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Ajit S/o Sh. Sukhbir R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Balwan S/o Sh. Dharmabir R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Rajbir @ Nanha S/o Sh. Mai Chand R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted)
Page No. 2
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Viren S/o Sh. Yashpal R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Dharambir @ Illa S/o Sh. Mai Chand R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Convicted) Deepak @ Sonu S/o Sh. Krishan @ Pappu R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Kuldeep @ Midda S/o Sh. Balbir R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Rajinder S/o Sh. Balu R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Jagdish @ Hathi S/o Sh. Baru Ram R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted)
Page No. 3
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Balbir R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Rajinder Kr. S/o Sh. Sadhu Ram R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Ramphal S/o Sh. Prithvi R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Convicted) Daya Singh S/o Sh. Jeet Singh R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Pardeep S/o Sh. Balwan R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Rishi S/o Sh. Satbir R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Convicted)
Page No. 4
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
Jasbir S/o Sh. Ishwar R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Karampal S/o Sh. Satbir R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Convicted) Sunil @ Sonu S/o Sh. Jasbir R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Sumit S/o Sh. Satyawan R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Convicted) Pardeep S/o Sh. Ramphal R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Roshan Lal S/o Sh. Ram Swarup R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted)
Page No. 5
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
Surender S/o Sh. Jagda R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Hoshiar Singh S/o Sh. Mangal @ Manga R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Ajit S/o Sh. Dalip R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Rajinder S/o Sh. Dhup Singh R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Rajinder S/o Sh. Pali R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Convicted) Vijender S/o Sh. Hoshiar Singh R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted)
Page No. 6
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
Dinesh S/o Sh. Prem R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Vinod S/o Sh. Ram Niwas R/o Vill Nidhana, Tehsil Meham, Distt Rohtak, Haryana (Acquitted) Kulvinder S/o Sh. Ram Mahar R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Convicted) Monu S/o Sh. Suresh R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Convicted) Amit S/o Sh. Satyawan R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Sunil S/o Sh. Daya Nand R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Convicted)
Page No. 7
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
Baljeet S/o Sh. Inder R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Convicted) Rajesh S/o Sh. Dupa R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Ramesh S/o Sh. Karan Singh R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Ameer S/o Sh. Tara R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Anil S/o Sh. Prem Singh R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Balwan S/o Sh. Jeela R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted)
Page No. 8
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
Charan S/o Sh. Sadhu Ram R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Anup S/o Sh. Dharma R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Dalbir S/o Sh. Tara R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Krishan Kr. @ Dhaula S/o Sh. Satyawan R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Jogal @ Doger S/o Sh. Hawa Singh R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Jitender S/o Sh. Satbir R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted)
Page No. 9
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
Jora Singh S/o Sh. Balwan R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Rakesh @ Kala S/o Sh. Satyawan R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Krishan S/o Sh. Karan Singh R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Kuldeep S/o Sh. Om Prakash R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Jasbir @ Lillu S/o Sh. Raja R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Absconder) Manbir S/o Sh. Jile Singh R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted)
Page No. 10
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
Nasib S/o Sh. Prem Singh R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Rakesh @ Nikle S/o Sh. Amarlal @ Lala Ram R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Pappu S/o Sh. Pyara R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Pradeep S/o Sh. Jagbir R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Pradeep S/o Sh. Jaibir R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Convicted) Pradeep S/o Sh. Suresh R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Convicted)
Page No. 11
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
Pradeep S/o Sh. Satbir R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Praveen S/o Sh. Jagdev R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Pawan S/o Sh. Hoshiar Singh R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Pawan S/o Sh. Rajbir R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Sandeep S/o Sh. Mahinder Singh R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Sandeep S/o Sh. Raj Kumar R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted)
Page No. 12
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
Sandeep S/o Sh. Ram Swarup R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Sandeep S/o Sh. Rattan Singh R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Sandeep S/o Sh. Joginder R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Sandeep @ Langra S/o Sh. Chander R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Sanjay @ Sanjeep S/o Sh. Amar Lal R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Sanjay Handa S/o Sh. Daya Nand R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted)
Page No. 13
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
Satta Singh S/o Sh. Karan Singh R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Sattu Singh S/o Sh. Randhir Master R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Satyawan S/o Sh. Rajinder R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Shamsher S/o Sh. Rajinder R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Sheela @ Sunil S/o Sh. Bira R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Sonu @ Monu S/o Sh. Ramesh R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted)
Page No. 14
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
Mandeep @ Sonu S/o Sh.Dalbir R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Naveen @ Tina S/o Sh. Rajbir R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Vedpal @ Bedoo S/o Sh. Karan Singh R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Vikash S/o Sh. Sunehra @ Sumer Singh R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Vipin S/o Sh. Joginder Singh R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Jokhar @ Joginder S/o Sh. Inder Singh R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted)
Page No. 15
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
Rajpal S/o Sh. Sheo Chand R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Convicted) Jaibir S/o Sh. Balbir R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Ramesh @ Mahesh S/o Sh. Dalip Singh R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Rupesh S/o Sh. Tek Chand R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Bobal @ Langra S/o Sh. Tek Chand R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Convicted) Jagdish @ Jangla S/o Sh. Lahna @ Lakshman R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted)
Page No. 16
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
Pawan @ Tinku S/o Sh. Sewa Ram R/o Village Petwar, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Vinod S/o Sh. Jagdeep R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Ved Pal S/o Dayanand R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted)
97.
98.
FIR No.: Police Station: Under Sections:
166/10 Narnaund (Haryana) 120-B, 302, 307, 147, 149, 148, 323, 324, 325, 395, 397, 427, 435, 436, 449, 450, 452 Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 (1) (x), (xv), 3 (2) (iii), (iv) (v) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Date on which the case was transferred to this Court: Date on which orders were reserved: Date on which judgment pronounced:
18.12.2010 2.8.2011/ 17.9.2011 24.9.2011
Thomas Jefferson wrote the memorable words All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator by certain
St. Vs. Dharambir Etc, FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaund (Haryana) Page No. 17
inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (American Declaration of Independence, 1776). A large section of Indian society still regard a section of their own countrymen as inferior and in the words of Justice Markandey Katju this mental attitude is simply unacceptable in the modern age, and it is one of the main causes holding up the country's progress. It is unfortunate that the centuries old Indian Caste system still takes its toll from time to time. This case unfolds the worst kind of atrocities committed by the so-called upper caste (Jat's hereinafter to be referred as 'J') against the so-called lower caste (Balmiki's hereinafter to be referred as 'B') in civilized country. It is absolutely imperative to abolish the caste system as expeditiously as possible for the smooth functioning of Rule of Law and Democracy in our country.
JUDGMENT:
Brief facts:
This case was received on transfer vide the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 8.12.2010 with the directions that this court shall be free to conduct the trial afresh. As many as one hundred and three number of accused have been charge sheeted out of which five accused are juveniles facing trial in Juvenile Justice Board Hissar, whereas ninety eight are facing trial before this court of whom one accused namely Jasbir Singh has escaped/ absconded from custody during trial whose trail has been separated and the proceedings for declaring him a proclaimed offender are underway.
Page No. 18
Prosecution case:
The case of the prosecution is that on 19.04.2010 at about 88.30 PM some of the boys belonging to the 'J' community namely Rajender S/o Pale, Sonu S/o Pappu, Monu S/o Suresh, Rishi S/o Satbir alongwith 10 15 other boys were passing through 'B' Basti in an inebriated state and on seeing them, the she-dog of the complainant Karan Singh barked at them. The accused persons took an offence to the barking of the dog and started throwing stones at it which entered into the house of Karan Singh ('B') and was objected to by his nephew Yogesh. The complainant Karan Singh then intervened in the matter and attempted to settle the same after which the group of these boys then moved away from there. After some time Ajeet (belonging to 'J' community) a resident of the same village who is residing near the 'B' Basti at Village Mirchpur approached the complainant Karan Singh and advised him to apologise or else they would have to face more problems by saying zyada nuksaan ho jayega. The complainant along with his neighbour Veer Bhan went towards the house of Rajendra S/o Pali where all the boys belonging to the dominant 'J' community had gathered to settle the matter but instead the complainant and Virbhan were beaten up by the accused as a result of which they received injuries. The injuries on Virbhan were more serious. Initially both Karan Singh and Virbhan were rushed to the hospital in Hansi, but since Virbhan had serious injuries, Karan Singh took Virbhan to the District Hospital in Hissar where he was admitted for a day. On 20.04.2010 the complainant Karan Singh in apprehension of the tension in the village escalating into further violence, got Virbhan discharged from the hospital and on the way back to the village stopped at the police station Narnaund and informed the
SHO concerned about the incidents of 19th (19.4.2010) and also apprised him of the tension that was prevailing in the village but the SHO (accused Vinod S/o Ram Niwas) did not pay much heed to the pleas of the complainant and sent five to six Constables to handle the matter which was despite the clear information from the complainant that the situation in the village was turning volatile and there was a lot of tension on account of the instance of violence at the behest of the persons belonging to the 'J' community. The Constables sent by the SHO attempted to settle the tension, but to no avail and in the morning of 21.04.2010, there was tension at the 'B' Basti due to which reason the SHO Narnaund and the dominant community called a meeting of the 'J' community in the 'J' Chaupal and then called a meeting of the members of 'B' community in the 'B' Chaupal. As per the allegations the men of the 'B' community gathered in the 'B' Chaupal and most persons like women, children and old persons stepped out to see what was going on, when the accused before this court in furtherance of their common intention and in pursuance of the common design duly armed with kerosene, petrol in bottles along with lathis, jellies and stones surrounded the 'B' Basti and gave out cries for attacking the 'B' Basti shouting in saale chooron ke gharon ko jhala do, inki bacchon ko gharon main hi zinda jhala do, inke ghar tod do aur inka gaon se khatma kar do. This according to the prosecution was done with the backing and under the protection of the SHO (accused Vinod S/o Ram Niwas). On account of the aforesaid one Tara Chand and his daughter Suman (who was handicapped) were badly burnt. While Suman died at the house itself, Tara Chand in order to save his life had
rushed to the house of his neighbour Diwan Singh while his house was set on fire and managed to save himself at that time but having sustained severe burn injuries was taken to Civil Hospital, Hissar in Government Gypsy by his son Amar Lal and Nephew Ashok in a burnt condition where the police recorded his statement (Dying Declaration) and also got a statement (Dying Declaration) recorded from the Judicial Magistrate First Class and he later succumbed to his injuries on the same day. In the village as many as 51 persons all belonging to dalit community received injuries, 18 properties belonging to dalits were burnt and there was large scale rioting and looting of properties of dalits. After investigations, the charge sheet was filed in the present case wherein provisions of Sections 120-B, 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 395, 397, 427, 435, 436, 449, 450, 452 Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 (1) (x), (xv) , 3 (2) (iii), (iv) (v) of the Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, have been invoked against these accused.
Sequence of events:
19.4.2011 Rajender S/o Pale, Sonu S/o Pappu, Monu S/o Suresh, Rishi S/o Satbir alongwith ten to fifteen other boys allegedly passing in front of the house of Karan Singh (belonging to 'B' community) situated in the main gali at about 9-9:30 PM in an intoxicated state when the she-dog belonging to Jai Parkash, the brother of Karan Singh started barking at them. On this the boys belonging to 'J' community got irritated and threw a dalla when a portion of the dalla hit the dog and a portion entered the house of Karan Singh
on which Yogesh son of Jai Parkash and nephew of Karan Singh came out and there was an altercation between Rajender S/o Pale and Yogesh and followed by hatha pai (physical altercation) when other persons came and separated them. After some time Ajeet came and told Karan Singh that he had been called at the house of Rajender S/o Pale towards the houses of the 'J' community as there was a 'J' Panchayat on the incident stating that they would get the matters amicably resolved. However, when Karan Singh and Veer Bhan went there, they were beaten by the persons from 'J' community and they sustained injuries. 20.4.2010: (1) A complaint was made by Karan Singh and Veer Bhan to the SHO Police Station Narnaund regarding incident dated 19.4.2011. (2) Rajender S/o Pale who was running a milk dairy could not supply milk to many residents of the village particularly in the 'B' Basti. 21.4.2010: 22.4.2010: Incident in question took place DSP Sh. Abhay Singh arrested the accused Dharambir S/o Tara Chand, Pawan S/o Ram Mehar, Karam Bir S/o Tara Chand, Joginder @ Jogar S/o Bhim Singh, Dalbir S/o Dalip Singh, Balwan S/o Inder, Satyawan S/o Tara Chand, Jai Bir S/o Manphool, Ajeet Singh S/o Sukhbir, Balwan S/o Dharam Singh, Roshan S/o Ram Swaroop, Pradeep S/o Ram Phal, Vijender S/o
Hoshiar Singh, Hoshiar Singh S/o Mangal Singh, Ajeet S/o Dalip Singh, Rajinder S/o Dhupa, Surender Kumar S/o Jagde Ram and Rajbir S/o MaiChand. Provisions of Section 4 of SC/ST (POA) Act were added by DSP Sh. Abhay Singh on the application of Karan Singh. 23.4.2010: 27.4.2010: DSP Sh. Abhay Singh arrested the accused Dinesh S/o Prem Singh and Viren S/o Yashpal. Various politicians including Sh. Bhupender Singh Hooda, Chief Minister, Haryana visited the village Mirchpur and announced the compensation to the victims 30.4.2010: Investigations were transferred to DSP Sh. Tula Ram who arrested the accused Dharambir S/o Mai Chand and Deepak S/o Krishan. Team of doctors from Government Hospital Hissar visited village Mirchpur and conducted medical examination of the persons injured in the incident dated 21.4.2010. 1.5.2010: 02.05.2010 Inspector Vinod Kumar the then SHO Police Station Narnaund was arrested DSP Sh. Tula Ram arrested accused Naib Tehsildar Jage Ram (not sent up for trial) from the office of DSP Hansi. 14.5.2010: Accused Kuldeep, Rajender S/o Belu Ram, Jagdish S/o Baru Ram, Suresh S/o Balbir, Rajender S/o Sadhu Ram, Ramphal S/o Prithvi Singh and Daya S/o Ajeet
were arrested. 15.5.2010: 16.5.2010: 17.5.2010: 19.5.2010: 21.5.2010: 11.06.2010: Accused Pradeep S/o Balwan was arrested. Accused Rishi S/o Satbir, Jasbir S/o Ishwar and Karampal S/o Satbir were arrested Accused Sunil Kumar @ Soni S/o Jaiveer and Sumit S/o Satyawan were arrested DSP Tula Ram preapred the charge sheet in respect of 28 persons and sent it to prosecution department. Accused Rajender S/o Pale was arrested. (1) (2) First charge sheet was filed by DSP Sh. Tula Judicial Magistrate-First Class, Hansi on the Ram in respect of twenty eight accused persons. request of DSP Hansi Sh. Tula Ram, discharged/ released the accused Jage Ram (Niab TehsildarHissar), Deepak S/o Ajmer, Satish S/o Ajmer, Rajesh S/o Om Prakash, Ajay S/o Sukhbir, Sukhbir S/o Manphool, Naresh S/o Prem Singh, Dinesh S/o Amar Lal, Kulwant S/o Chander Singh and Ram Meher S/o Gulab Singh on the ground that these persons have no concern with the alleged offence though their names have been mentioned by the victims and the complainants. 1.7.2010: 27.7.2010: DSP Sh. Tula Ram filed the charge sheet in respect of nine persons arrested later. DSP Tula Ram interrogated Veer Bhan S/o Man Singh, Suresh S/o Raj Kumar, Ashok S/o Maha Singh, Parveen and Amar Lal both sons of Tara
Chand and prepared the supplementary charge sheet against the accused Vinod Kajal, the then SHO Police Station Narnaund. 29.7.2010: Supplementary charge sheet against the accused Vinod Kajal the then SHO Police Station Narnaund was filed by DSP Sh. Tula Ram before the court. Accused Jogender S/o Inder, Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand and Jaiveer S/o Balbir were arrested. 01.08.2010: Accused Ramesh @ Mahesha S/o Dalip, Rupesh S/o Tek Ram and Bobal @ Langra S/o Tek Ram were arrested. 12.08.2010: 24.08.2010: 31.08.2010: 01.09.2010: 02.09.2010: 03.09.2010: Accused Jagdish S/o Lenha was arrested. Accused Pawan @ Tinku S/o Sewa Singh was arrested Accused Balwan S/o Jai Lal was arrested. Accused Pardeep S/o Suresh, Satish S/o Randhir and Pawan S/o Hoshiyar Singh were arrested. Accused Jora S/o Balwan and Ved Pal S/o Daya Nand were arrested Accused Kuldeep S/o Om Parkash, Jogal @ Jogar S/o Hawa Singh, Naseeb S/o Prem Singh, Pardeep S/o Jaiveer Singh, Pardeep S/o Satbir, Shamsher S/o Rajender, Rakesh @ Meenu S/o Ramesh, Jitender S/o Satbir, Charan Singh S/o Sadhu Ram, Parveen S/o Jagdev, Sandeep S/o Ram Swaroop, Sandeep S/o Ratan Singh, Vikas S/o Sunehra, Ved Pal S/o Karan Singh, Kala @ Rajesh S/o Satyawan, Pawan S/o
Rajbir, Sandeep S/o Raj Kumar, Monu S/o Suresh Kumar, Amit S/o Satyawan, Ramesh S/o Karan Singh and Sata S/o Karan were arrested 04.09.2010: Accused Dalbir S/o Tara Chand, Pardeep S/o Jagbir, Sanjay @ Sanjeev S/o Amar Lal, Sunil @ Shila S/o Bhira, Naveen @ Tina S/o Rajbir, Vinod S/o Jagdev, Manbir S/o Zile Singh, Pappu S/o Pyarelal, Rakesh @ Nikli S/o Amar Lal, Vipin S/o Jogender, Sandeep S/o Mahender, Sandeep S/o Jogender, Satyawan S/o Vijender, Sunil S/o Daya Nand and Radhey S/o Dhoopa were arrested. 05.09.2010: Accused Baljeet S/o Inder, Dhaula S/o Satyawan, Anoop S/o Dharma, Sandeep S/o Chander, Lilu @ Jasbir S/o Raja, Krishan S/o Karan Singh, Meer Singh S/o Tara Chand and Anil S/o Prem Singh were arrested 06.09.2010: 09.09.2010: 16.10.2010: 18.10.2010: 28.10.2010: Accused Sonu S/o Dalbir and Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar were arrested. Accused Sanjay @ Handa S/o Daya was arrested. DSP Tula Ram prepared the charge sheet in respect of fifteen accused. DSP Sh. Tula Ram filed the charge sheet in the court in respect of fifteen accused. DSP Sh. Tula Ram handed over the investigating file to Insp. Vijay Pal SHO Narnaund who filed the charge sheet for the remaining fifty accused in the court.
8.12.2010:
The case was transferred to this court vide the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 8.12.2010 with the directions that this court shall be free to conduct the trial afresh.
26.2.2011: 11.3.2011: 18.3.2011:
This court conducted the spot inspection at village Mirchpur. Charges were framed against all the accused Trial/ prosecution evidence commenced
List of witnesses examined:

Sr. No. Witness No. Name of the witness Category
Prosecution Witnesses
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.
PW 1 PW 2 PW 3 PW 4 PW 5 PW 6 PW 7 PW 8 PW 9 PW 10 PW 11 PW 12 PW 13 PW 14 PW 15
ASI Raghubir Singh EASI Manohar Lal ASI Miyan Singh Ct. Devi Lal Ct. Anil Kumar EAI Bir Bhan Yogesh Kumar Ramphal Bindu Raj Bir Smt. Madho Ram Murti Sunita Angoori Smt. Krishna
Official police witness Official police witness Official police witness Official police witness Official police witness Official police witness Public witness/ eye witness Public witness/ eye witness Public witness/ eye witness Public witness/ eye witness Public witness/ eye witness Public witness/ eye witness Public witness/ eye witness Public witness/ eye witness Public witness/ eye witness
Page No. 27
16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45.
PW 16 PW 17 PW 18 PW 19 PW 20 PW 21 PW 22 PW 23 PW 24 PW 25 PW 26 PW 27 PW 28 PW 29 PW 30 PW 31 PW 32 PW 33 PW 34 PW 35 PW 36 PW 37 PW 38 PW 39 PW 40 PW 41 PW 42 PW 43 PW 44 PW 45
Mrs. Ishro Shanti Smt. Chander Ms. Pooja Kela Sunita Aman Satbir Suresh Sushil Raju Ravi Sandeep Dhoop Singh Santra Abhishek Sheela Rani Raj Kumar Ashok Sanjay Meena Kumar Mahajan Sube Singh Vijender Sunita Vicky Dilbagh Sanjay Manoj
Public witness/ eye witness Public witness/ eye witness Public witness/ eye witness Public witness/ eye witness Public witness/ eye witness Public witness/ eye witness Public witness/ eye witness Public witness/ eye witness Public witness/ eye witness Public witness/ eye witness Public witness/ eye witness Public witness/ eye witness Public witness/ eye witness Public witness/ eye witness Public witness/ eye witness Public witness/ eye witness Public witness/ eye witness Public witness/ eye witness Public witness/ eye witness Public witness/ eye witness Public witness/ eye witness Public witness/ eye witness Public witness/ eye witness Public witness/ eye witness Public witness/ eye witness Public witness/ eye witness Public witness/ eye witness Public witness/ eye witness Public witness/ eye witness Public witness/ eye witness
Page No. 28
46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74.
PW 46 PW 47 PW 48 PW 49 PW 50 PW 51 PW 52 PW 53 PW 54 PW 55 PW 56 PW 57 PW 58 PW 59 PW 60 PW 61 PW 62 PW 63 PW 64 PW 65 PW 66 PW 67 PW 68 DW1 DW2 DW3 DW4 DW5 DW6
Rajesh Satyawan Gulab Singh Pradeep Kamla Dr. Sandeep Dr. Puneet Kumar Dr. Sourab Arora HC Subash Chand Dr. Vishal Goel SI Manjit Singh Dr. Arun Kumar Dr. Pale Ram ASI Sadhu ram ASI Satbir Singh ASI Omprakash Dr. T. P. Sharma SI Bani Singh ASI Bhim Singh DSP Abhay Singh DSP Tula Ram Dr. Dinesh Kumar HC Ram Singh Ct. Ravinder Surender Kumar Baru Ram HC Lachman Singh Virender
Public witness/ eye witness Public witness/ eye witness Public witness/ eye witness Public witness/ eye witness Public witness/ eye witness Doctor Doctor Doctor Official police witness Doctor Official police witness Doctor Doctor Official police witness Official police witness Official police witness Doctor Official police witness Official police witness Official police witness Official police witness Doctor Official police witness Official police witness Official witness Official witness Official police witness Public witness
Page No. 29
Sh. Harish Goel (JMIC) Judicial Officer
Defence witnesses
75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99.
DW 7 DW 8 DW 9 DW 10 DW 11 DW 12 DW13 DW 14 DW 15 DW 16 DW 17 DW 18 DW 19 DW 20 DW 21 DW 22 DW 23 DW 24 DW 25 DW 26 DW 27 DW 28 DW 29 DW 30 DW 31
Sajjna Shamsher Singh Dalser Lohan Dr. Rajesh Malik Jagdish Manoj Kumar Karan Singh Ramesh Pasha Ajmere Rajesh Suman Ram Chander Ram Niwas Dharambir Praveen Ranbir Singh Ram Mehar Jai Bhagwan Dr. Balbir Singh Punia Suresh Dalbir Singh Vikas Rajinder Ramphal Dr. Rajesh Gandhi Dr. Kuldeep Pawan Singh Om Prakash Sajjan
Public witness Public witness Public witness Doctor Public witness Public witness Public witness Public witness Public witness Public witness Public witness Nurse General Hospital Jind Public witness Public witness Public witness Public witness Public witness Public witness Public witness Doctor Accused Businessman/ Poultry farm Accused Accused Accused Doctor Doctor Nodal Officer Nodal Officer Public witness/ Driver
Page No. 30
100. DW 32 101. DW 33 102. DW 34 103. DW 35 104. DW 36
105. DW 37 106. DW 38 107. DW 39 108. DW 40 109. DW 41 110. 111. 112.

DW 42 DW 43 DW44
Ranbir Dalip Singh Dipender Singh Chander Prakash Suresh Kumar Deepak Kumar Manjeet Singh Dhillon Dr. Sunita Garg Amar Lal
Public witness Official Official Public witness Public witness/ tractor workshop Nodal Officer Nodal Officer Doctor Cited as prosecution witness
Court witness:
113. CW1
Details of the exhibits:

S. No Exhibit No. Ex.P-1 Ex.P-2 Ex.P-3 PW1/1 PW2/1 PW3/1 PW3/B PW4/1 PW4/A PW4/B PW5/1 PW5/A Detail of the document/ article Remarks
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.
Burnt Motorcycle of Sunil S/o Brij Bhan Proved Bother-in- law Manoj Burnt Motorcycle of Pradeep Burnt Tricycle/ Handicap cycle of deceased Suman Affidavit of EASI Raghubir Singh Affidavit of EASI Manohar Lal Affidavit of ASI Miyan Singh CD of Photographs Affidavit of Ct. Devi Lal Video CD containing clippings of postmortem and also of spot Seizure memo of CD Affidavit of ASI Anil Kumar Video CD of Village of Mirch Pur Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved
Page No. 31
PW3/A1-A109 Photographs
14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41.
PW6/1 PW6/A PW7/PX1 PW8/PX 1 PW8/A PW10/DX1 PW25/DX1 PW11/PX1 PW12/PX1 PW13/A PW15/PX 1 PW15/A PW16//PX1 PW16/A PW17/PX1 PW18/A PW18/PX 1 PW19/PX 1 PW19/A PW20/PX1 PW20/A PW20/DX1 PW21/ PX1 PW21/A PW22/PX1 PW22/A PW23/PX1 PW23/A
Affidavit of EASI Vir Bhan Register No 19 entry no 510/671/511 (Copy) Statement of Yogesh Statement of Ramphal MLR of Ramphal Statement of Rajbir Statement of Sushil Statement of Madho Statement of Ram Murti MLR of Sunita Statement of Krishna MLR of Krishan Statement of Ishro MLR of Ishro Statement of Shanti MLR of Chanderpati Statement of Chander Pati Statement of Pooja MLR of Pooja Statement of Kela MLR of Kela Pati Copy of Election card Statement of Sunita MLR of Sunita Statement of Aman MLR of Aman Statement of Satbir MLR of Satbir
Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved
Page No. 32
42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70.
PW24/A PW24/B PW25/A PW26/A PW26/PX1 PW27/A PW27/PX1 PW36/DX1 PW28/A PW28/PX1 PW29/A PW30/A PW30/DX1 PW32/A PW32/DX1 PW33/A PW33/DX1 PW34/A PW34/PX1 PW35/A PW35/PX1 PW35/PX2 PW36/A PW37/A PW37/DX1 PW38/A PW38/PX1 PW39/PX1 PW40/PX1
Statement of Suresh (Identification of Dead body) Receipt of Dead Body MLR of Sushil MLR of Raju Statement of Raju MLR of Ravi Statement of Ravi Statement of Sanjay MLR of Sandeep Statement of Sandeep MLR of Dhoop Singh MLR of Santra Statement of Santra MLR of Sheela Statement of Sheela MLR of Rani Statement of Rani MLR of Raj Kumar Statement of Raj Kumar MLR of Ashok Statement of Ashok Supplementary statement of Ashok MLR of Sanjay MLR of Meena Kumar Statement of Meena Kumar MLR of Mahajan Statement of Mahajan Statement of Sube Singh Statement of Vijender
Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved
Page No. 33
71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98.
PW41/A PW41/PX1 PW42/PX1 PW43/PX1 PW44/PX1 PW45/PX1 PW45/PX2 PW 46/PX1 PW47/PX1 PW48/A PW48/PX1 PW49/A PW49/B PW49/PX PW49/PX2 PW49/PX3 PW50/PX1 PW51/A PW52/A PW52/B PW52/C PW52/D PW52/D1 PW52/E PW52/ F PW53/A PW53/B PW53/C
List of Burnt articles of Sunita W/o Surta Statement of Sunita Statement of Vicky Statement of Dilbagh Statement of Sanjay Statement of Manoj Supplementary statement of Manoj Statement of Rajesh Statement of Satyawan MLR of Gulaba Ram Statement of Gulaba Ram Seizure memo of Tricycle and ashes Statement of Pradeep S/o Tara Chand Supplementary statement of Pradeep Second Supplementary Statement of Pradeep Statement of Kamla
Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved
Seizure Memo of Motorcycle and ashes Proved
Information regarding injured Gulaba to Proved SHO MLR of Tara Chand Bed Head Ticket of Tara Chand Postmortem Report of Tara Chand Postmortem Report of Suman MLR of Shanti MLR of Angoori MLR of Suman MLR of Sanjay MLR of Abishek MLR of Sanjeep Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved
Page No. 34
99.
PW53/D
Information regarding Injured to SHO Scaled site plan of the house of Kamal Scaled site plan of the house of Tara Chand Scaled site plan of the house of Sube Singh Scaled site plan of the house of Satyawan Scaled site plan of the house of Sanjay Scaled site plan of the house of Nawab Scaled site plan of the house of Ram Niwas
Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved
100. PW54/A1 101. PW54/A2 102. PW54/A3 103. PW54/A4 104. PW54/A5 105. PW54/A6 106. PW54/A7 107. PW54/A8 108. PW54/A9 109. PW54/A10 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119.
PW54/A11 PW54/A12 PW54/A13 PW54/A14 PW54/A15 PW54/A16 PW54/A17 PW54/A18 PW54/A19 PW54/A20
Scaled site plan of the house of Rajinder Proved Proved Proved Proved
Scaled site plan of the house of Dilbagh Proved Scaled site plan of the house of Chander Proved Scaled site plan of the house of Sanjay S/o Satpal Scaled site plan of the house of Sunita W/o Surta Scaled site plan of the house of Gulab Chowkidar Scaled site plan of the house of Rajesh Scaled site plan of the house of Jagpal Scaled site plan of the house of Dhoop Singh Scaled site plan of the house of Raja Scaled site plan of the house of Sushil Scaled site plan of the house of Bania Scaled site plan of the house of Rajmal Scaled site plan of the house of Dharamvir Scaled site plan of the house of Karambir Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved
120. PW54/A21 121. PW54/A22
Page No. 35
122. PW54/A23 123. PW54/A24 124. PW54/A25 125. PW54/A26 126. PW54/A27 127. PW54/A28 128. PW54/A29 129. PW54/A30 130. PW54/A31 131. PW54/A32 132. PW54/A33 133. PW54/B 134. PW55/DX1 135. PW55/A 136. PW55/B 137. PW55/C 138. PW56/A 139. PW56/B 140. PW56//C 141. PW57/A 142. PW57/B 143. PW57/C 144. PW59/A 145. PW59/B
Scaled site plan of the house of Bani Singh Scaled site plan of the house of Binder Scaled site plan of the house of Dharambir
Proved Proved Proved
Scaled site plan of the house of Parveen Proved Scaled site plan of the house of Vijender Proved Scaled site plan of the house of Jai Singh Proved Scaled site plan of the house of Jaswant Proved Scaled site plan of the house of Satayawan Scaled site plan of the house of Ajmer Scaled site plan of Kirayana shop of Pawan Scaled site plan of the house of Ram Niwas Scaled site plan of Village Mirchpur Covering Letter of statement of 164 Cr.P.C. of Tara Chand Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved
Application for Recording the statement Proved of Tara Chand Statement of Tara Chand (Dying Declaration) Certificate of Statement of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class MLR of Ajmer Singh MLR of Satbir MLR of Sunita W/o Surta Seizure memo of Ashes Disclosure Statement of accused Viren MLR of Rajbir MLR of Monika Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved
Page No. 36
Disclosure statement of accused Dinesh Proved
146. PW59/C 147. PW59/D 148. PW59/E 149. PW59/F 150. PW59/G 151. PW59/H 152. PW59/I 153. PW59/J 154. PW59/K 155. PW59/L 156. PW59/M 157. PW59/N 158. PW59/O 159. PW59/P 160. PW59/Q 161. PW59/R 162. PW59/S 163. PW59/T 164. PW63/A 165. PW63/B 166. PW63/C 167. PW63/D 168. PW64/A 169. PW64/B 170. PW64/C 171. PW64/D
MLR of Bindu MLR of RajMal MLR of Piriya MLR of Karambir MLR of Pali MLR of Nawab MLR of Jai Parkash MLR of Karan Singh MLR of Naseeb MLR of Parveen MLR of Yogesh MLR of Poonam MLR of Jagbir MLR of Ashok MLR of Kamlesh MLR of Radha MLR of Madho MLR of Murti X-Ray Report of Raj Kumar X-Ray Report of Dhoop Singh X-Ray Report of Gulaba Ram X-Ray Report of Mahajan Information/Rukka Regarding Injured Tara Chand at time of admission in Hospital
Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved
Application to Medical Officer for Proved Permission to Record the statement of Tara Chand Statement of Tara Chand under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Information/Rukka when Tara Chand was Brought Dead Proved Proved
Page No. 37
172. PW64/E 173. PW64/E1 174. PW64/E2 175. PW64/E3 176. PW64/E4 177. PW64/F 178. PW64/G 179. PW64/H 180. PW64/I 181. PW64/DX1 182. PW65/A 183. PW65/A1 184. PW65/A2 185. PW65/A3 186. PW65/A4 187. PW65/B 188. PW65/C 189. PW66/A 190. PW66/B 191. PW66/C1 192. PW66/C2 193. PW66/C3
Inquest Papers of Tara Chand
Proved
Form No 25 in respect of deceased Tara Proved Chand Statement of Amar recorded by SI Bani Singh Inspection of dead body and mortuary Copy of FIR Proved Proved Proved
Application of SI Bani Singh for Proved constituting the board to conduct the Postmortem of Tara Chand Handing over receipt of the dead body Proved of Tara Chand to Amar Lal Application of SI Bani Singh to MO for Proved record the statement of other injured Disclosure statement of Rajender S/o Pale Statement of Sandeep S/o Raj Kumar Inquest Papers of deceased Suman Form No 25 in respect of deceased Suman Proved Proved Proved Proved
Statement regarding identification of Proved dead body of Suman by Amar Statement regarding identification of Proved dead body of Suman by Suresh Copy of FIR Seizure memo of Pullanda (Suman) Proved Proved
Application by SI Bani Singh to MO for Proved constituting the board to conduct the Postmortem of Suman Statement of Karan Singh/ complainant Rukka Sketch of the house of Jagpal Sketch of the house of Chander Singh Sketch of the house of Ram Niwas Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved
Page No. 38
194. PW66/C4 195. PW66/C5 196. PW66/C6 197. PW66/C7 198. PW66/C8 199. PW66/C9 200. PW66/C10 201. PW66/C11 202. PW66/C12 203. PW66/C13 204. PW66/C14 205. PW66/C15 206. PW66/C16 207. PW66/C17 208. PW66/C18 209. PW66/C19 210. PW66/C20 211.
PW66/C21
Sketch of the house of Sanjay Sketch of the house of Satyawan Sketch of the house of Sunita Sketch of the house of Sube Singh Sketch of the house of Dilbagh Sketch of the house of Kamla Sketch of the house of Dhoop Singh Sketch of the house of Tara Chand Sketch of the house of Sushil Sketch of the house of Gulaba Sketch of the house of Sanjay Sketch of the house of Rajender Sketch of the house of Satpal Sketch of the house of Nawab Sketch of the house of Raja Sketch of the house of Karambir Sketch of the house of Rajesh Sketch of the house of Bania Sketch of the house of Satyawan Sketch of the house of Rajmal Sketch of the house of Vijender Sketch of the house of Pawan Sketch of the house of Jai Singh Sketch of the house of Jaswant Sketch of the house of Ram Niwas Sketch of the house of Karambir Sketch of the house of Binder Sketch of the house of Bani Singh Sketch of the house of Dharamvir Sketch of the house of Praveen
Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved
Page No. 39
212. PW66/C22 213. PW66/C23 214. PW66/C24 215. PW66/C25 216. PW66/C26 217. PW66/C27 218. PW66/C28 219. PW66/C29 220. PW66/C30 221. PW66/C31 222. PW66/C32 223. PW66/C33
224. PW66/D1 225. PW66/D2 226. PW66/D3 227. PW66/D4 228. PW66/D5 229. PW66/D6 230. PW66/D7 231. PW66/D8 232. PW66/D9 233. PW66/D10 234. PW66/D11 235. PW66/D12 236. PW66/D13 237. PW66/D14 238. PW66/D15 239. PW66/D16 240. PW66/D17 241. PW66/E 242. PW66/F 243. PW66/E18 244. PW66/E 19
Arrest Memo of Dharambir S/o Tara Chand Arrest Memo of Pawan S/o Ram mehar Arrest Memo of Karambir S/o Tara Chand Arrest Memo of Joginder S/o Bhim Singh Arrest Memo of Dalbir S/o Dalip Singh Arrest Memo of Balwan S/o Inder Arrest Memo of Satyawan S/o Tara Chand Arrest memo of Jaibir S/o Manphool Arrest Memo of Ajit Singh S/o Sukhbir Arrest Memo of Balwan S/o Dharam Singh Arrest Memo of Roshan S/o Ram Swaroop Arrest Memo of Vijender S/o Hosihar Singh Arrest Memo of Hoshiar Singh S/o Mangal Singh Arrest Memo of Ajit Singh S/o Dalip Singh Arrest Memo of Rajender S/o Dhoop Singh Arrest Memo of Surender Kumar S/o Jage Ram Common Disclosure statement of 22 accused Application of Karan Singh Arrest Memo of Rajbir @ Nanha S/o Mai Chand
Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted
Arrest Memo of Pradeep S/o Ram Phal Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Proved Proved Proved Admitted
Arrest Memo of Dinesh S/o Prem Singh Admitted
Page No. 40
245. PW66/E 20 246. PW66/G 247. PW66/DX1 248. PW66/CX1 249. PW67/A1 250. PW67/A2 251. PW67/A3 252. PW67/A4 253. PW67/A5 254. PW67/A6 255. PW67/A7 256. PW67/A8 257. PW67/A9 258. PW67/A10 259. PW67/A11 260. PW67/A12 261. PW67/A13 262. PW67/A14 263. PW67/A15 264. PW67/A16 265. PW67/A17 266. PW67/A18 267. PW67/A19
Arrest Memo of Viren Singh S/o Yashpal Seizure memo of MLR, statement of Virbhan and DD No 31 dated 20/4/10 Departure and joining Entry Supplementary statement of Sushil under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Arrest memo of Dhamabir S/o Mai Chand Arrest memo of Deepak S/o Krishan Kumar Arrest memo of Vinod Kumar S/o Ram Niwas Arrest memo of Kuldeep S/o Balbir Arrest memo of Jagdish S/o Baru Ram Arrest memo of Suresh S/o Balbir Arrest memo of Rajender S/o Sadhu Ram Arrest memo of Ram Phal S/o Prithvi Singh Arrest memo of Daya S/o Ajeet Arrest memo of Pradeep S/o Balwan Singh Arrest memo of Rishi S/o Satbir Arrest memo of Karampal S/o Satbir Arrest memo of Sunil Kumar S/o jaivir Arrest memo of Sumit S/o Satywawan Arrest Memo of Rajinder S/o Pali Ram Arrest memo of Joginder @ Joggar S/o Inder Singh Arrest memo of Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand
Admitted Proved Proved Proved Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted
Arrest memo of Rajender S/o Belu Ram Admitted
Arrest memo of Jasbir S/o Ishwar Singh Admitted
Page No. 41
268. PW67/A20 269. PW67/A21 270. PW67/A22 271. PW67/A23 272. PW67/A24 273. PW67/A25 274. PW67/A26 275. PW67/A27 276. PW67/A28 277. PW67/A29 278. PW67/A30 279. PW67/A31 280. PW67/A32 281. PW67/A33 282. PW67/A34 283. PW67/A35 284. PW67/A36 285. PW67/A37 286. PW67/A38 287. PW67/A39 288. PW67/A40 289. PW67/A41
Arrest memo of Jaibir S/o Balbir
Admitted
Arrest memo of Ramesh @ Mahesha S/o Admitted Dalip Singh Arrest memo of Rupesh S/o Tek Ram Arrest memo of Bobal @ Langra S/o Tek Ram Arrest memo of Tinku @ Pawan S/o Sewa Singh Arrest memo of Balwan S/o Jai Lal @ Jela Arrest memo of Pradeep S/o Sursh Kumar Arrest memo of Satish @ Sattu S/o Randhir Singh Arrest memo of Pawan Kumar S/o Hoshiar Singh Arrest memo of Jora Singh S/o Balwan Singh Arrest memo of Kuldeep S/o Om Prakash Arrest memo of Juggal @ Joggal S/o Hawa Singh Arrest memo of Nasib S/o Prem Singh Arrest memo of Pradeep S/o Jaivir Arrest memo of Pradeep S/o Satbir Arrest memo of Samsher S/o Rajender Arrest memo of Rakesh S/o Ramesh Arrest memo of Jitender S/o Satbir Admitted Admitted
Arrest memo of Jagdish S/o Lehna Ram Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted
Arrest memo of Ved Pal S/o Daya Nand Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted
Arrest memo of Charan Singh S/o Sadhu Admitted Ram Arrest memo of Praveen S/o Jagdev @ Jagde Admitted
Page No. 42
290. PW67/A42 291. PW67/A43 292. PW67/A44 293. PW67/A45 294. PW67/A46 295. PW67/A47 296. PW67/A48 297. PW67/A49 298. PW67/A50 299. PW67/A51 300. PW67/A52 301. PW67/A53 302. PW67/A54 303. PW67/A55 304. PW67/A56 305. PW67/A57 306. PW67/A58 307. PW67/A59 308. PW67/A60 309. PW67/A61 310. PW67/A62 311.
PW67/A63
Arrest memo of Sandeep S/o Ram Swaroop Arrest memo of Sandeep S/o Rattan Singh
Admitted Admitted
Arrest memo of Vikash S/o Sumer Singh Admitted @ Sunehra Arrest memo of Ved Pal S/o Karan Singh Arrest memo of Rakesh @ Kala S/o Satyawan Arrest memo of Pawan S/o Rajbir Arrest memo of Monu S/o Suresh Arrest memo of Amit S/o Satyawan Arrest memo of Ramesh S/o Karan Singh Arrest memo of Satta S/o Karan Singh Arrest memo of Dalbir S/o Tara Chand Arrest memo of Pradeep S/o Jaivir Arrest memo of Sanjay @ Sanjeep S/o Amar Arrest memo of Sunil @ Sheela S/o Bherra Arrest memo of Naveen @ Tina S/o Rajbir Arrest memo of Vinod S/o Jagdev Arrest memo of Manbir S/o Zile Singh Arrest memo of Pappu S/o Pyare Lal Arrest memo of Nakkle @ Rakesh S/o Amar Lal Arrest memo of Vipin S/o Joginder Arrest memo of Sandeep S/o Mahinder Arrest memo of Sandeep S/o Joginder Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted
Arrest memo of Sandeep S/o Raj Kumar Admitted
312. PW67/A64
Page No. 43
313. PW67/A65 314. PW67/A66 315. PW67/A67 316. PW67/A68 317. PW67/A69 318. PW67/A70 319. PW67/A71 320. PW67/A72 321. PW67/A73 322. PW67/A74 323. PW67/A75 324. PW67/A76 325. PW67/A77 326. PW67/A78 327. PW67/CX1 328. PW67/CX2 329. Ex PX1 330. Ex PX2 331. Ex PX 3
Documents of defence:
Arrest memo of Satyawan S/o Rajinder Arrest memo of Sunil S/o Dayanand Arrest memo of Rajesh S/o Dhupa Arrest memo of Dhola @ Kirshan Kumar S/o Satyawan Arrest memo of Anoop S/o Dharam Singh Arrest memo of Sandeep S/o Chander Fauji
Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted
Arrest memo of Baljeet S/o Inder Singh Admitted
Arrest memo of Lillu @ Jasbir S/o Raja Admitted Ram Arrest memo of Krishan S/o Karan Singh Arrest memo of Amir S/oTara Chand Arrest memo of Anil S/o Prem Singh Arrest memo of Sonu @ Mandeep S/o Dalbir Arrest memo of Kulvinder S/o Ram Mehar Arrest memo of Sanjay S/o Daya Nand Supplementary statement of Gulab Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Supplementary statement of Chanderwati under Section 161 Cr.P.C. FSL Report Notification of commission of Justice Iqbal Singh (Retd) Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Proved Proved Admitted Admitted
Cabinet approval of Govt. Service of Admitted Amar Lal, Pradeep and Ravinder Copy of leave application of accused Vinod (the then SHO) Proved
332. DW1/A
Page No. 44
333. DW1/B 334. DW2/A 335. DW3/A 336. DW4/A 337. DW5/A 338. DW5/B 339. DW5/C 340. DW5/D 341. DW5/E 342. DW5/F 343. DW7/PX1 344. DW8/A 345. DW8/B 346. DW8/C 347. DW9/A 348. DW9/B 349. DW9/C 350. DW10/A 351. DW12/A 352. DW13/A 353. DW13/B 354. DW13/PX1 355. DW16/PX1
Sanction to prosecute the SHO accused Proved Vinod Kumar Copy of wireless record Attendance record of Pradeep S/o Tara Chand Attendance record of Amar S/o Tara Chand DD No 34 copy DD No 13 copy Copy of DD dated 19/4/2010 Copy of DD dated 20/4/2010 Copy of DD Dated 21/4/2010 Copy of DD dated 22/4/10 Statement of Sajna Attendance register copy of Rakesh S/o Satyawan Memorandum of association Copy of registration certificate Copy of Attendance of Sunil Dhanda Copy of attendance register for Sanjay Dhanda Copy of attendance register for Vinod S/o Jagdev Copy of attendance register for Manbir S/o Ziley Sjingh Copy of attendance register for Rupesh S/o Tek Ram Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Denied Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved
Affidavit of Karan Singh before inquiry Proved commission at Chandigarh Statement of Karan Singh before the inquiry commission Statement Karan Singh to IO Statement of Ajmer Proved Denied Denied
Page No. 45
356. DW20/PX1 357. DW21/PX1 358. DW22/PX1 359. DW23/A 360. DW23/PX1 361. DW24/A 362. DW25/A 363. DW26/A 364. DW26/B 365. DW26/C 366. DW26/D 367. DW26/E 368. DW26/F 369. DW26/G 370. DW27/ A 371. DW28/A 372. DW29/A 373. DW30/A 374. DW30/B 375. DW30/C 376. DW31/A 377. DW31/B
Statement of Ram Niwas Statement of Dharambir Singh Statement of Praveen Kumar Relevant Entry at Main gate (Hoshiyar Singh S/o Mangal Ram) Copy of the Entry Register of Sugar Mill, Jind
Denied Denied Denied Denied Proved
Copy of attendance register for Sandeep Denied S/o Raj Kumar Copy of Attendance register for Pradeep Proved S/o Jagbir Prescription slip of Ajeet Treatment slip of Ajeet Prescription slip of Kuldeep Treatment slip of Kuldeep Prescription slip of Viren Treatment slip of Viren Copy of OPD Register Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved
Medical Certificate of Suresh S/o Balbir Proved for Physical disability Receipt regarding the sale of the chicks Proved Certificate issued by the bank regarding Proved the sanction of the loan Affidavit of Sanjay S/o Gulab Singh to Commission Proved
Statement of Sanjay S/o Gulab Singh to Proved Commission Statement of Dilbagh S/o Gulab Singh to Commission Copy of the patta/Lease register for 2007 Copy of patta/lease register for 2009 Proved Proved Proved
Page No. 46
378. DW32/A 379. DW32/B 380. DW32/C 381. DW34/A 382. DW34/B 383. DW34/C 384. DW 34/D 385. DW34/E 386. DW34/F
Bed head ticket of Dinesh S/o Prem Singh
Proved
Attendance record of Suman (MPHW-F) Proved Joining certificate of Suman (MPHW-F) Proved Customer application Form of Rajender S/o Pale Copy of election identity card Rajender S/o Pale Proved Proved
Call Details in respect of mobile no. Proved 9812628500 (Rajender S/o Pale) Customer application form of Sandeep S/o Mahender Singh Copy of election identity card of Sandeep S/o Mahender Singh Proved Proved
Call details in respect of mobile no. Proved 9540151131 (Sandeep S/o Mahender Singh) Authorization letter in favour of Pawan Singh Certificate of U/s 65B Indian Evidence Act Customer application form of Vinod Kumar Copy of list of the compensation provided to the victims/families Copy of attendance register for Suman (MPHW-F) Proved Proved Proved
387. DW34/G 388. DW34/H 389. DW35/A 390. DW35/B 391. DW38/A 392. DW39/A 393. DW42/A 394. DW42/B
Call detail record accused Vinod Kumar Proved Admitted Proved
Authorization letter in favour of Deepak Proved Kumar Call detail record in respect of mobile no. 9812628500 (Rajender S/o Satpal Singh) Certificate of U/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act Proved
395. DW42/C
Proved
Page No. 47
396. DW42/D 397. DW43/A 398. DW43/B 399. DW43/C 400. DW43/D 401. CW1/C 402. CW1/D 403. CW1/DX1 404. CW1/DX2
Cell ID Chart of Idea Cellular Copy of customer application form Sanjay S/o Daya Nand Copy of customer application form Rajinder S/o Satpal Copy of customer application form Jitender Singh Communication From DE (B & CCS) CMTS Statement of Amar Lal on 27/6/2011 Statement of Amar Lal on 27/7/2011 Affidavit of Amar Lal Statement of Amar Lal without date
Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved
Spot inspection by the Court:

On 26.2.2011 in terms of the provisions of Section 310 Cr.P.C. this Court in order to properly appreciating the evidence on record conducted a Spot Inspection of village Mirchpur in the presence of Deputy Commissioner, Superintendent of Police, Deputy Superintendent of Police, counsels for the both the victims and the accused. Various places including the police station Narnaund, office of the Revenue Officer (Tehsildar), Main gali of the village Mirchpur where earlier the incident dated 19.4.2010 had occurred and also the spot from which the rioting commenced on 21.4.2010. The Chaupals that is both the 'J' Chaupal and 'B' Chaupal, the water tank (diggi), Houses of Karan Singh, Veer Bhan, Tara Chand, Kamla, Chander Bhan, Nawab, Pawan, Satpal, Bane Singh, Rajender, Manoj, Ram Niwas, Rajmal and Rajesh many of whom were situated on the main gali and some in the adjoining galis as shown in the site plan were also inspected. During the spot
inspection this Court carried with it a site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer (present on the Court record) and after comparison of the same with the spot, found the site plan to be factually correct. The Court further observed that the distance between Hansi Rest House adjoining the Court of Judicial Magistrate Hansi and Police Station Narnaund was 25 kilometers and it took about 30 minutes to reach the Police Station. Further, the distance between Police Station Narnaund and the office of Tehsildar (accused Jage Ram who has been discharged earlier) was 1.5 kilometers and it took hardly 3-5 minutes to reach the same. The distance between the Revenue Office of Tehsildar and the village Mirchpur was 17 kilometers and it took about 25 minutes to reach village Mirchpur. It is evident that village Mirchpur is 30 minutes away from Police Station Narnaund in case if there is no obstruction. This Court was also informed that village Mirchpur was the last village on the boarder of district Hissar after which the jurisdiction falls within district Jind. While returning the route taken was through City Hissar and it was observed by the Court that it took about 40-45 minutes to reach Hissar City uninterruptedly. It is evident that the minimum time taken by road for any reinforcement/ assistance to reach village Mirchpur from Hissar City would be 40-45 minutes which could be more in case if there is some obstruction. On the way back this Court was also informed that at many places on the route where the road was single there is a frequent problem of a traffic jam and even on the date of the incident on account of a large number of vehicles of fire brigade and ambulances coming towards the village there was a traffic jam as a result of which there was a delay in rushing many of the injured (including Tara Chand) referred to Hissar Hospital.
CHARGES:
On 10.3.2011 this court has settled the charges under Sections 120-B, 302, 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 395, 397, 427, 435, 436, 449, 450, 452 Indian Penal Code and additional charge under Section 3 (1) (x), (xv) , 3 (2) (iii), (iv) (v) of the Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the accused (1) Dharambir S/o Sh. Tara Chand, (2) Pawan S/o Sh. Ram Mahar, (3) Karambir S/o Sh. Tara Chand, (4) Joginder @ Jogar S/o Sh. Bhim Singh, (5) Dalbir S/o Sh. Dalip Singh, (6) Balwan S/o Sh. Inder Singh, (7) Satyawan S/o Sh. Tara Chand, (8) Jaibir S/o Sh. Mnaphool, (9) Ajit S/o Sh. Sukhbir, (10) Balwan S/o Sh. Dharmabir, (11) Rajbir @ Nanha S/o Sh. Mai Chand, (12) Viren S/o Sh. Yashpal, (13) Dharambir S/o Sh. Mai Chand, (14) Deepak @ Sonu S/o Sh. Krishan @ Pappu, (15) Kuldeep @ Midda S/o Sh.Balbir, (16) Rajinder S/o Sh. Balu, (17) Jagdish @ Hathi S/o Sh. Baru Ram, (18) Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Balbir, (19) Rajinder Kr. S/o Sh. Sadhu Ram, (20) Ramphal S/o Sh. Prithvi, (21) Daya Singh S/o Sh. Jeet Singh, (22) Pardeep S/o Sh. Balwan, (23) Rishi S/o Sh. Satbir, (24) Jasbir S/o Sh. Ishwar, (25) Karampal S/o Sh. Satbir, (26) Sunil @ Sonu S/o Sh. Jasbir, (27) Sumit S/o Sh. Satyawan, (28) Pardeep S/o Sh. Ramphal, (29) Roshan Lal S/o Sh. Ram Swarup, (30) Surender S/o Sh. Jagda, (31) Hoshiar Singh S/o Sh. Mang, (32) Ajit S/o Sh. Dalip, (33) Rajinder S/o Sh. Dhup Singh, (34) Rajinder S/o Sh. Pali, (35) Vijender S/o Sh. Hoshiar Singh, (36) Dinesh S/o Sh. Prem, (37) Kulvinder S/o Sh. Ram Mahar, (38) Monu S/o Sh. Suresh, (39) Amit S/o Sh. Satyawan, (40) Sunil S/o Sh. Daya Nand, (41) Baljeet S/o Sh. Inder, (42) Rajesh S/o Sh. Dupa, (43) Ramesh S/o Sh. Karan Singh, (44) Ameer S/o Sh. Tara, (45) Anil S/o Sh. Prem Singh, (46) Balwan S/o Sh. Jeela,
(47) Charan S/o Sh. Sadhu Ram, (48) Anup S/o Sh. Dharma, (49) Dalbir S/o Sh. Tara, (50) Krishan Kr. @ Dhaula S/o Sh. Satyawan, (51) Jogal @ Doger S/o Sh. Hawa Singh, (52) Jitender S/o Sh. Satbir, (53) Jora Singh S/o Sh. Balwan, (54) Rakesh @ Kala S/o Sh. Satyawan, (55) Krishan S/o Sh. Karan Singh, (56) Kuldeep S/o Sh. Om Prakash, (57) Jasbir @ Lillu S/o Sh.Raja, (58) Manbir S/o Sh. Jile Singh, (59) Nasib S/o Sh. Prem Singh, (60) Rakesh @ Nikle S/o Sh. Amarlal @ Lala Ram, (61) Pappu S/o Sh. Pyara, (62) Pradeep S/o Sh. Jagbir, (63) Pradeep S/o Sh. Jaibir, (64) Pradeep S/o Sh. Satbir, (65) Pradeep S/o Sh. Suresh, (66) Praveen S/o Sh. Jagdev, (67) Pawan S/o Sh. Hoshiar Singh, (68) Pawan S/o Sh. Rajbir, (69) Sandeep S/o Sh. Mahinder Singh, (70) Sandeep S/o Sh. Raj Kumar, (71) Sandeep S/o Sh. Ram Swarup, (72) Sandeep S/o Sh. Rattan Singh, (73) Sandeep S/o Sh. Joginder, (74) Sandeep @ Langra S/o Sh. Chander, (75) Sanjay @ Sanjeep S/o Sh. Amar Lal, (76) Sanjay Handa S/o Sh. Daya Nand, (77) Satta Singh S/o Sh. Karan Singh, (78) Sattu Singh S/o Sh. Randhir Master, (79) Satyawan S/o Sh. Rajinder, (80) Shamsher S/o Sh. Rajinder, (81) Sheela @ Sunil S/o Sh. Bira, (82) Sonu @ Monu S/o Sh. Ramesh, (83) Mandeep @ Sonu S/o Sh. Dalbir, (84) Naveen @ Tina S/o Sh. Rajbir, (85) Vedpal @ Bedoo S/o Sh. Karan Singh, (86) Vikash S/o Sh. Sunehera @ Sumer Singh, (87) Vipin S/o Sh. Joginder Singh, (88) Jokhar @ Joginder S/o Sh. Inder Singh, (89) Rajpal S/o Sh. Sheo Chand, (90) Jaibir S/o Sh. Balbir, (91) Ramesh @ Mahesh S/o Sh. Dalip Singh, (92) Rupesh S/o Sh. Tek Chand, (93) Bobal @ Langra S/o Sh. Tek Chand, (94) Jagdish @ Jangla S/o Sh. Lakshman, (95) Pawan @ Tinku S/o Sh. Sewa Ram and (96) Vinod S/o Sh. Jagdeep. Further, charges under Sections 120-B, 302, 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 395, 397, 427, 435, 436, 449, 450, 452 Indian Penal Code
and Section 4 of the Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were also settled against the accused (97) Vinod S/o Ram Niwas. I may observe that initially charge under Section 216 Indian Penal Code was settled against the accused (98) Vedpal S/o Dayanand (on bail) but later on account of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses the said charges were amended/ modified and the charge under Sections 120B, 302, 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 395, 397, 427, 435, 436, 449, 450, 452 Indian Penal Code and additional charge under Section 3 (1) (x), (xv) , 3 (2) (iii), (iv) (v) of the Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was also framed against him on 19.5.2011. claimed trial. All the accused pleaded not guilty and
Facts admitted or not disputed by the prosecution/ victims and the defence:
The following facts have not been disputed by the parties: That there is a mixed population in the village Mirchpur and persons belonging to all castes are residing in the village. That the 'B' Basti is situated in the out skirt of the village. That there are houses belonging to the members of 'B' community and 'J' community in the main gali but initially there are houses belonging to the members of 'B' community situated on one side and as one goes ahead, the houses of members of 'J' community are situated. That in the main gali which is known as Subha Satha Fauji Gali, the houses of members of 'J' community are situated on one side
and the houses belonging to the members of 'B' community are situated on the other side. That in order to reach the fields all residents of the village have to pass through this mail gali known as Subha Satha Fauji Gali. That accused Rajender S/o Pale is running a milk dairy and used to supply the milk in the village including the 'B' Basti of village Mirchpur. That on the date of incident i.e. 21.4.2010 there was an arson in the village Mirchpur in which the houses belonging to the members of 'B' community were burnt. That Tara Chand and his daughter Suman were burnt to death in the incident. That Ved Pal Tanwar a political leader and a resident of Hissar has political ambitions and is running a Gair Jat Sangathan and contests elections. That after the incident about 200-250 members of 'B' community left the village and started residing at the Farm House of Ved Pal Tanwar at Hissar. CASES REFERRED:
By the Prosecution/victims: 1. 2. Abdul Sayeed -vs- State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 Supreme Court Cases 259. Rafique -vs- State of Madhya Pradesh, (Criminal Appeal No.1399/2008). Rais @ Toun & Ors. -vs- State Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 1363-65/2010) (before P. Sathasivam and Dr.B. S. Chauhan, JJ).
3.
Page No. 53
4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
C. Muniappan & Ors. -vs- State of Tamil Nadu and D. K.Rajendran & Ors. -vs- State of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 9 Supreme Court Cases 567. Abu Thakir and Others -vs- State of Tamilnadu (2010) 5 Supreme Court Cases 91. Prathap and Another -vs- State of Kerala, (2010) Supreme Courts Cases 79. Dilpesh BalChandra Panchal -vs- State of Gujrat, (2010) 11 Supreme Courts Cases, 714. Sangappa Sanganabasappa M . and Others -vs- State of Karnataka and Others, 2010 (11) SCC 782. Balraje Alias Trimbak -vs- State of Maharashtra, (2010) 6 Supreme Court Cases 673. Moniruddin Ahmed Alias Lalu Dealer and Others Bengal, (2010) 12 Supreme Courts Cases 238. -vs- State of West
11.
12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.
Dhan Singh -vs- State of Haryana, (2010) 12 Supreme Court Cases 277. Amit Kumar & Anr. -vs- State of Punjab, (2010) 12 Supreme Court Cases 285. Adalat Pandit & Anr. -vs- State of Bihar, (2010) 6 Supreme Court Cases 469. Punjab & Haryana High Court -vs- Megh Raj Garg & Anr., (2010) 6 Supreme Court Cases 482. Neeta Rakesh Jain -vs- Rakesh Jeetmal Jain, (2010) 12 Supreme Court Cases 242. Sambhu Das @ Bijoy Das & Anr. -vs- State of Assam, (2010) 10 (Supreme Court Cases) 374. Sushila Chemical Private Ltd. & Anr. -vs- Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors., (2010) 10 Supreme Court Cases 388. Sunder Singh -vs- State of Uttaranchal, (2010) 10 Supreme Court Cases 611.
19.
Surendra Pal and Ors. -vs- State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2010) 9 Supreme Court Cases 399.
Page No. 54
20. 21.
Dharnidhar -vs- State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 759. Rasid Javed & Ors. -vs- State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 781.
22.
23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31.
Mulla & Anr. -vs- State of Uttar Pradesh, (2010) 3 Supreme Court Cases 508. State of Uttar Pradesh -vs- Ram Sanjivan & Ors., (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases 529. Lehna -vs- State of Haryana, (2002) 3 Supreme Court Cases 76. State of U.P. -vs- Jagdeo & Ors., (2003) 1 SCC 456. State of Rajasthan -vs- Abdul Mannan, MANU/SC/0764/2011. State of U.P. -vs- Mohd. Iqram & Anr., MANU/SC/0699/2011. Kannan & Ors. -vs- State of Tamil Nadu, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 81. State of U. P. -vs- Dan Singh 7 Ors., (1997) 3 SCC 747. Swaran Singh & Ors. -vs- State, (2008) 8 SCC 435. Arumugam Servai -vs- State of Tamil Nadu, 2011 (4) SCALE, 756.
By the Accused: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Dilavar Hussain -vs- State of Gujarat, 1991, Supreme Court Cases (Cri) : 163 (1991) 1 SCC 253. Musa Khan & Others -vs- State of Maharasthra, 1977 SCC (Cri) 164. Tej Singh & Anr. -vs- State of Rajasthan (1995 Cri. L. J. 1944) Rajasthan High Court. Ram Prasad Meena -vs- State of Rajasthan I (1995) CCR 795 (DB), Rajasthan High Court. Ramappa Halappa Pujar & Ors -vs- State of Karnataka, Cri. Appeal No. 1344 of 2005 (Date of decision 27.4.2007).
6.
7.
State of Maharashtra -vs- Ahmed Shaikh Babjan & Ors (Cri Appeal 25-29 of 2002, date of decision 24.10.2008). Din Dayal -vs- Raj Kumar @ Raju & Ors., 1999 CRI. LJ, 467 Supreme Court.
Page No. 55
8. 9. 11. 12.
Ram Swarup and Others, -vs- State of U. P., 1990 Cri. LJ 511 : (1989) All L. J. 1. Kanwarpal & Another -vs- State of M. P., AIR 2002 Supreme Court 3690. State (Delhi Administration) -vs- V. C. Shukla, AIR 1980 Supreme Court, 1382. Yudhistir -vs- State of Madhya Pradesh, 1971 SCC (Cri) 684. Mukteshwar Rai & Ors. -vs- State of Bihar, and Bhola Rai Kurmi & Ors. -vs- State of Bihar, 1992 SCC (Cri) 349 : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 727. State of U.P. -vs- Munni Ram & Ors., 2010 (12) JT 180. Ram Prasad Meena -vs- State of Rajasthan, I (1996) CCR 795 (DB). Din Dayal -vs- Raj Kumar @ Raju, 1999, Cri. LJ 467. Ashok Pandurang Jadhav -vs- State of Maharashtra,Crl. Appeal No.372/2009, decided on 06.05.2011. State of Andhra Pradesh -vs- Rayaneedi Sitharamaiah & Ors., (2010) 4 SCC (Cri): (2008) 16 Supreme Court Cases, 179. Bijoy Singh -vs- State of Bihar, Supreme Court, Crl. Appeal 13391340/1999, decided on 17.4.2002. Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre -vs- State of Maharashtra, AIR 2010 SC (Supp) 204. Ram Chander -vs- State of Haryana, 1981 Supreme Court 1036 = 1981 Cri LJ 609. Ramvilas & Ors -vs- State of Madhya Pradesh, 1985, Cri. LJ 1773. Dashrath -vs- State of Karnataka, 2011 Cri. LJ 220, Karnataka High Court, Crl. Appeal No. 2243 of 2006, D/-9.10.2009. Nallapati Sivaiah -vs- Sub-Divisonal Officer, Guntur, A. P. AIR 2008 Supreme Court 19. State of Maharashtra -vs- Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi Supreme Court 3986 (1). etc., AIR 1997,
13.
14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.
Kamaksha Rai and Ors -vs- State of U.P., (2000 Cri LJ 178 SC). Tej Ram & Anr. -vs- State of Rajasthan, 1995 Cri, LJ 1944.
27.
Page No. 56
28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36.
Kishore Chand -vs- State of Himachal Pradesh, 1991 SCC (Cri) 172 (1991) 1 SCC 286. U. N. R. Rao -vs- M. Shanmugavel, 1977 SCC (Cri) 172. Mohamed I. Unjawala and etc. -vs- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, City Circle VI (1) Madras, 1995 Cri.LJ 1949. Fakir Chand Behera & Anr. -vs- Narayan Nayak & Ors., I (1995) CCR 810. Shyam Babu -vs- State of Haryana, AIR 2009 Supreme Court 577. Sadaram -vs- State of Madhya Pradesh, 1971 SCC (Cri) 691. Munna Lal -vs- State, II (1997) CCR 597 (DB) Dhanno Bai & Ors. -vs- Kanhaiyalal Sansi & Ors., II (1997) CCR 605. Raju @ Rajender -vs- State of Maharashtra, 1998 SCC (Cri) 296. State of Orissa -vs- Thakara Besra, (SC) 550, Cri. Appeal No. 533/1994, decided on 16.4.2002. Rameshwar Singh -vs- State of Jammu & Kashmir, 1971 SCC (Cri) 638. Mrs. Shakila Khader etc. -vs- Nausher Gama & Anr., AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1324 (1). Parmod Kumar -vs- State, Delhi High Court, 1990 (3) 292. Sewa Ram & Ors. -vs- State of Punjab, RCR, 1990 (3)1. Nisar Ali -vs- State of UP, (S), AIR 1957 SC 366 (V 44 C 55 May). K. N. Mehra -vs- State of Rajasthan, (S), AIR 1957 SC 369 (V 44 C 56 May). Varkey Joseph -vs- State of Kerala, 1993 SCC (Cri) 1117. Navalshankar Ishwarlal Dave & Anr. -vs- State of Gujarat & Ors., 1993 (SCC) Cri 1126. Aqeel Ahmad -vs- State of U.P., (2010 (4) SCC (Cri) 11: (2008) 16 SCC 372.
37.
38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46.
47.
48. 49.
State of Karnataka -vs- K. Yarappa Reddy, 2000 (SCC) Cri,. 61. P. V. Radha Krishna & Ors. -vs- M. Bhaskar Reddy & Ors., AIR 2010 SC (Supp) 211. State (Delhi Administration) -vs- Laxman Kumar & Ors, AIR 1986 SC 250.
Page No. 57
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE: In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as 67 witnesses. Out of the eighty two cited eye witnesses it has examined forty three eye witnesses out of which twenty one have been declared hostile. Further, out of the sixty seven witnesses so examined, fourteen witnesses are formal witnesses and four witnesses are those who were involved with investigations of the case.
Public witnesses/ victims / injured:

PW7 Yogesh Kumar aged 26 years is the son of Jai Parkash and is a resident of village Mirchpur and is a labour by profession. This witness has not supported the case of the prosecution qua the incident dated 21.4.2010 and has also not supported his statement made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.PW7/PX1. This witness has turned hostile both on the incident dated 21.4.2010 and the identity of the accused. According to him, he had seen large crowd in the gali and when he came out he was hit with the stone on the leg and feeling scared he returned to his house. He has however admitted that he got his medical conducted from the doctor who had come to the village on 30.4.2010 since he had received a stone injury when he had come out of the house after which he immediately went back. I may observe that this witness Yogesh is the nephew of Karan Singh the complainant who is also stated to be the eye witnesses to the incident dated 19.4.2010 being involved in the quarrel with the boys belonging to 'J' community. He has not supported the prosecution case on both the incidents dated 19.4.2010 or with regard to the identity of the accused in respect of the incident dated 21.4.2010.
PW8 Ram Phal aged 62 years is the son of late Sh. Rishala, and is a resident of village Mirchpur. He was previously a wrestler and presently he is giving tuition's to the children in the village. This witness has stated that he did not see anything happening since he had gone to the playground for giving coaching. He has not supported his earlier statement made to the police under Section 161 Cr.PC which is Ex.PW8/PX1 and has not identified any of the accused in the court and has turned hostile on the same. He has also stated that he did not receive any injury but admits that his medical was conducted on 30.4.2010 and the explanation he has offered for the same is that since everybody in the village was getting medical conducted therefore he also got his medical conducted. He has admitted having received a compensation on the basis of the said medical report and justified the same by stating that everybody was getting the same so he also received. PW9 Ms. Bindu aged 8-9 years is the daughter of Suresh and a resident of village Mirchpur was called to the court by the prosecution and submitted for examination but it was observed by the court that despite being put various questions in vernacular she did not say anything. She also did not understand the sanctity of oath and therefore, her examination had to be dispensed with on the request of the prosecution. PW10 Rajbir aged 30 years is the son of Baje Singh and is also a resident of the village Mirchpur. He is totally illiterate and is a labour on daily wages doing the work of mason. This witness in his examination in chief has not mentioned about the incident dated 19.4.2010 though he has made a causal reference to the same. In so far as the incident dated 21.4.2010 is concerned he has deposed that on the
said date the persons belonging to 'J' community had got together and come to the 'B' Mohalla duly armed with jellies, lathies, oil containers and did mar pitai and also used abuses stating chooreya nu jala do and while using such abuses pelted stones. According to the witness 300-400 persons from 'J' community had come and had burnt houses of Tara, Dhupa and large number of other persons belonging to the 'B' community but he can only recognize the son of Pale whose name he is not aware and one boy whose name is Petla. He has also stated that in this incident he had received brick injuries on his ankle and his medical was conducted on 30.04.2010 and his MLR is Mark M1 (later on Ex.PW59/A after it was proved by Dr. Pale Ram). It was on a specific query by the court that the witness admitted that he had received a compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- from the Government. Further when all the accused were specifically put to the witness for identification, he could only identify Rajender S/o Pale by putting his hand on the accused but not by his name despite having specifically named him earlier. However, he could not identify the accused Petla when put to him. In his cross-examination the witness has stated that the police did not record his statement on 21.4.2010 but had only made inquiries from him but later on stated that the police had made inquiries from him on 30.4.2010 and not on 21.4.2010 and the police officer who was making inquiries from him was also writing down what he was saying. According to the witness, he had informed the police officer recording his statement all that he has stated in the court but when confronted with his statement made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.PW10/DX1 the facts as stated by him in his
examination in chief regarding the dispute between the parties on a shedog of Jai Parkash and the accused having come with jellies, lathies and oil containers and having made caste related remarks, were not so recorded. The witness has denied that he had named two boys on tutoring or that Rajender S/o Pale is not the same person whom he had seen at the time of rioting and had insisted that Rajender was one of the assailants. The Ld. Defence counsel has cross-examined this witness at length. The witness has on the suggestion of the Ld. Defence Counsel stated that he is not aware if on 21.4.2010 Rajender was going to his fields on his cart/ buggi in the morning along with one Karam Pal and a large number of boys belonging to the 'B' community got together and had given a beating to Rajender and Karam Pal due to which reason the incident got aggravated and there was stone pelting from both the sides. He has denied that the boys belonging to 'B' community were in fact the first aggressors and in order to create false evidence they had themselves set fire to their properties and the accused had nothing to do with the incident but has admitted that there was stone pelting from both the side which lasted for about one and a half hour. This witness has however admitted that a complaint had been made to the senior police officers but he is not aware of the contents of the same and whether the senior police officers were told that the boys of the 'B' community had made the first aggression which complaint was later on changed by the senior police officers. He has denied that he was not present in the village on the date of incident. PW11 Smt. Madho aged between 65-70 years is the wife of Tek Ram and is a resident of village Mirchpur. She has not supported the
case of prosecution with regard to the incident dated 21.4.2010 and also with regard to her statement made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.PW11/PX1 and on the identity of the accused she has turned hostile. According to the witness, she was inside the house at the time of incident and she came to know that a quarrel was going on and stones were being pelted. She has neither identified any of the accused nor she has admitted her earlier statement and has denied having named any of the accused in her statement made to the police or that she had told the Investigating Officer that in this incident dated 21.4.2010 houses of large number of members of 'B' community were damaged and burnt. PW12 Smt. Murti Devi aged 54 yeas is the wife of Karan Singh (the complainant in the present FIR) and is a resident of village Mirchpur. She has not supported the case of the prosecution in respect of the incident dated 21.4.2010, with regard to the statement made by her to the police under Section 161 Cr.PC which is Ex.PW12/PX1 and also on the aspect of identity of the assailants on which she has turned completely hostile. According to her, on the date of incident i.e. 21.4.2010, there was stone pelting in the village in which she received injury on her arm but she was staying inside her house when the stones which were being pelted out side her house, hit her arm but has stated that she did not see anything. She however admits that she had gone to get her medical conducted on 22.4.2010. She has denied her statement made and has not identified any of the accused in the court and has also stated that she cannot tell the community to which the aggressors belong. PW13 Smt. Sunita aged 29 years has deposed that is the wife of Ved and is a resident of village Mirchpur and is a labour on daily wages. At the time when her deposition was recorded in the court she
was residing at Ved Pal Tanwar Farm House. At the very outset before starting to analyze the statement of this witness I may observe that the actual name of this witness is Kanta and not Sunita and she has wrongly deposed by claiming herself to be Sunita. In fact it is also observed by this court that she has wrongly shown the MLR of her son Sunil aged 10 years as her own MLR vide Ex.PW13/A bearing her thumb impressions. When this witness was cross-examined by the defence with regard to her identity she stated that she was also known as Kanta but insisted that her real name was Sunita which name was present on all the documents including ration card, election card etc. When asked to produce the proof thereof she did not do so. Rather, later when her mother in law Kela was examined as PW20 it was she who produced her election card and informed the court that Sunita the present witness was in fact her daughter in law Kanta. This establishes that Kanta has impersonated herself as Sunita and has deposed as such. Though in her examination in chief she has deposed regarding the incident dated 19.4.2010 but it is evident from her crossexamination that it is on the basis of hearsay and she is not an eye witness to the incident. She has admitted that on 19.4.2010 at the time of the incident she was working at the Bhatta of Suresh and therefore, under these circumstances her testimony to this extent is inadmissible. Further, she has also testified that on the next day that is 20.4.2010 the persons belonging to the 'J' community had called for their Panchayat. Further, according to the witness on 21.4.2010 around 500-600 persons belonging to the 'J' community came to the 'B' Mohalla at about 8:00 AM and started pelting stones and there was arson which went on for about three hours and at around 11 AM these persons started putting fire.
According to her, the said persons had containers filled with oil and bullock-carts filled with stones and they first set the house of Suman on fire in which the whole house was burnt including the father and the daughter namely Tara Chand and Suman. She has also deposed that the SHO Police Station Narnaund and other police officers had come at about 10:00 AM in four-five vehicles also participated in the same while the arson/burning started at about 11:00 AM and a large number of ladies were also present in the crowd who had covered their faces with chunnies. She has testified that she is not aware the names of said ladies but she could identify them on seeing them and even the men had covered their faces but she could only identify some of them but not all because of these reasons. The witness has also deposed that the houses of Pala, Chander, Satya Fauji, Gulaba, Surta and others all belonging to 'B' community were also set on fire and around 20-25 houses were burnt in all. According to her, the persons who were the aggressors numbering about 500-600 were also shouting choorya ko aag laga do which they did after surrounded the Basti and when this incident was happening she went inside her house along with her children. She has further deposed that she was ailing at that time and witnessing the incident by standing on the front side gali since there was fire on the back side gali when she was hit by a stone on her left hand and on the 3 rd or 4th day they left the village under police protection and went to the residence of the DC Hissar on a Dharna. According to the witness, it was at the residence of the DC Hissar that she was given medical treatment and her hand was bandaged and she went to the government hospital after three to four days for changing of her bandage. She has proved having put her thumb impressions on her MLR which was done in the Hissar hospital which
MLR is Ex.PW13/A. On the directions of this court the right and left hand thumb impressions of the witness were taken in the court and placed on the judicial record and it has been observed by the court that the same are not matching as the MLR Ex.PW13/A in fact belongs to her son Sunil aged 10 years and not to the witness and when specifically cross-examined on this aspect and asked to explain this discrepancy, she simply stated that the doctor did not ask her the age. She also stated that her medical was conducted after three to four days of the incident when they had gone to the house of DC for Dharna which is incorrect since the said MLR of the child is dated 2.5.2010 that is after eleven days of the incident. This establishes that she has also made a false statement before this court on the aspect of this MLC. This court had put a specific question to the witness if she could identified the SHO on which she stated that she could not identified him but knew that the SHO was present because she saw that a large number of police officers had come in four vehicles. This witness has also alleged that she had seen some police officers telling the crowd to indulge to rioting but she could not identify any one of them and when the accused Vinod S/o Ram Niwas who was the SHO Police Station Narnaund was put to her but she could not identify him. She has not named any of the assailants and it was only after the accused were specifically put to her, that she has identified Rajender S/o Pale Ram as the person because of whom there was the incident of quarrel and who was indulging into arson, rioting, stone pelting. She also identified Papu S/o Pyare Lal as the person who had brought the rehri/ bullock-cart filled with stones.
Page No. 65
In her cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel the witness has admitted having received a compensation from the Government for a sum of Rs.25,000/- and according to her it was only the visit of Sh. Bhupender Singh Hooda that she came to know that all persons who have an MLR would be getting compensation and not others. This witness has been exhaustively cross-examined on the aspect of the incident dated 21.4.2010 and she has denied that she has appeared in the court at the instance and on the tutoring of Ved Pal Tanwar, police officers and the various lawyers who had been visiting the Tanwar Farm House where she is staying after the incident. I may observe that for the reasons discussed herein above this witness Sunita who is actually Kanta is not a reliable witness and her testimony being tainted with falsehood is liable to be rejected. PW14 Smt. Angoori aged between 65-70 years who is the wife of Sh. Dalip Singh and is a resident of village Mirchpur, has been dropped as a witness by the Special Public Prosecutor for the victims and not examined keeping in view her age and physical condition. She has been observed to be paralytic on the left half of her body and has been brought to the court on a wheel chair and she is also blind by one eye(left) and when questioned did not seem to know anything about the incident. PW15 Smt. Krishna aged between 40-45 years is the wife of Raghubir and is a resident of village Mirchpur and is a daily wager by profession. She has not supported the case of the prosecution at all. She has turned hostile on the aspect of the incident dated 21.4.2010 and also on the identity of the accused and has denied having received any
injury on her body or that she had received any compensation from the Government. She has not admitted her statement made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.PW15/PX1 wherein she had named Pappu S/o Payara, Pradeep S/o Jagbir, Pradeep S/o Jai Veer and Pardeep S/o Satbir of 'J' community. According to her, she has not received any injuries in the incident dated 21.4.2010 nor she had got her medical examination conducted. She also has stated that there was no damage to her property and she did not get any compensation from the Government. She has however admitted that her daughter Suman had sustained injuries in the incident but has stated that neither she nor her daughter got their medical conducted from the Hissar hospital. Her MLR Ex.PW15/A was put to her which she denied but it was observed by the court that her thumb impressions taken in the court matched with the thumb impressions present on the MLC. She has denied that she has been won over by the accused who are from the dominant community and is deliberately not identifying the assailants out of fear. PW16 Mrs. Ishro wife of Pasha a resident of village Mirchpur claims that she is 60-70 years of age but appears to be 50-55 years. She has not supported the prosecution case on both incident i.e. on 19.4.2010 and 21.4.2010 and also on identity of accused and has been declared hostile by the prosecution. She has not supported her earlier statement made to the police under Section 161 Cr.PC which is Ex.PW16/PX1. She has denied that she in her earlier statement made to the police made allegations against Manbeer S/o Zile Singh, Manjeet S/o Mahender Singh, Naseeb S/o Prem Singh, Nikli S/o Lalla of 'J' community, or that she has been own over by the accused. Rather, in her cross examination she has voluntarily told the court that she was told by
Satyawan (belonging to 'B' community) that in case if she makes a deposition against the accused she would be given lands and Rs.16 lacs. PW17 Smt. Shanti aged 70 years is the wife of Jugti Ram and is a resident of village Mirchpur. It was observed by the court that when this witness came for her deposition she had come in the vehicle belonging to the 'J' community and on query the court was informed that she had even stayed with them at Nangloi. Thereafter when she was examined she did not support the prosecution case with regard to the incident dated 21.4.2010 and also with regard to the identity of the accused and has further denied having made any statement to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.PW17/PX1, wherein she had named Sandeep Langra S/o Chander Fauji, Sanjay S/o Amar Lal, Sanjay Handa S/o Dayanand and Satta S/o Karan Singh of 'J' community and has therefore been declared hostile by the prosecution. According to her one month prior to the incident, she got her eye operated and was lying inside the house and in the evening she came know that some fire had been put but she is not aware as to who had done it. She has deposed that there was no damage to her house nor she has received any compensation from the government. PW18 Smt. Chander aged between 30-35 years is the wife of Sajna and is a resident of village Mirchpur and is a daily wages labour by profession. She has not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the incident dated 21.4.2010, with regard to the identity of the accused and also with regard to her statement made to the police under Section 161 Cr.PC on 18.5.2010 which is Ex.PW18/PX1 wherein she had named Vikas S/o Sunehra, Vinod S/o Jagde, Vipin S/o Jogender Singh and Zile Singh Master all belonging to 'J' community assailants
and has stated that she does not know any one of them. She has been declared hostile by the prosecution. According to her on the date of the incident she was giving fodder to her cattle when she heard a lot of noises and there was a stone pelting going on and some stones also landed on the courtyard and roof of the house where her cattle was tied on which she came back to her house along with her children. She has deposed that while she was putting fodder for the cattle she was hit by a brick and received injury on her side and was got medically examined after three four days from Government Hospital, Hissar vide MLR Ex.PW18/A. However, she has admitted that she had received compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/from the government. PW19 Ms. Pooja aged 18 years is the daughter of Surta and is a resident of village Mirchpur. She has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile by the prosecution. She is neither an eye witness to the incident dated 19.4.2010 nor of 21.4.2010 as she has stated that she had gone to her mama's house in village Sau on 18th and on 19th her brother had given a call to her informing her that there was some quarrel when she was at her mama's place and she returned from her mama's house after 20-25 days. This court has however observed that at the time when the witness had come for deposition, she was having severe burns and had bandage on her right arm and right side of her body till her legs and the entire portion is burnt. At one place on a specific query by the Court as to how she received the said injuries, she explained that she was getting fits for the last many years and she had got burnt when she was near the fire place in her house when she had fits and fell on the chulla and sustained burn injuries on the
day when there was a quarrel but thereafter despite a sustain questioning by the court the witness did not say anything about the incident and persisted to maintain that she was not aware of what happened in the village. Rather, according to her she had sustained injuries on the 6 th of the month which she does not remember but maintained that it was not during the incident. She has denied having made any statement to the police which is Ex.PW19/PX1 wherein she has named Rajender as the person who had caused injuries to Karan Singh and Veer Bhan on 19.4.2010 or Ramesh S/o Daleepa, Sandeep, S/o Mahender, Sandeep S/o Prem and Sandeep S/o Raj Kumar all belonging to the 'J' community as the persons who along with the other boys had brought bricks stones, lathies and other object in their hands and surrounded the 'B' Basti and started abusing them by addressing them with caste. She has denied that these boys entered in the houses belonging to the members of 'B' community and assaulted them and set them ablaze and started destroying the house hold properties and committed robbery of the articles lying in the houses or that she had told the police that one Suman D/o Tara Chand and Tara Chand both belonging to the 'B' community died in because of burns after their house was set on fire. She has specifically denied that she had sustained burns in this incident on 21.04.2010 and she had also got her medical conducted from the government hospital, Hissar. She has denied that she was taken to government hospital Hissar and provided medical treatment on 04.05.2010 vide MLR Ex.PW19/A and is unable to tell if the thumb impression at point A belonging to her but rather insists that she had never gone to the hospital. She has denied the suggestion that the thumb impression on Ex.PW19/A belonged to her.
Here, I may observe that

Page No. 70
the above MLR does not show the burn injuries which have been observed by the Court. Witness Pooja has admitted that she had got the compensation from the government and has voluntarily added that she had got Rs.1 lac at one time and Rs 10 thousand at another time and has explained that it was not compensation on account of the burn injuries which she has sustained but it had been given to her mother because their house had got burnt. She has admitted that the government had rebuilt a pucca house for them and the compensation given to them was because their house was burnt by the persons belonging to the 'J' community in the incident on 21.04.2010 but is unable to tell if a compensation of Rs.25 thousand was also given to her family because she had sustained burnt injuries in the incident dated 21.04.2010 being unaware of the same. She is unable to tell if in the incident dated 21.04.2010 her father, mother and brothers also sustained injuries because according to her she was at her mama's house at that time. PW20 Smt. Kela aged between 50-60 years is the wife of Jai Singh is a resident of village Mirchpur. I may observe that smt. Kela is the mother in law of PW13 Sunita whose real name is Kanta and is the wife of Ved the son of Kela the present witness. Smt. Kela has proved that Sunil aged 10-12 years is her grandson being the son of Ved and Kanta. In order to prove the identity of Kanta who has appeared in the court and deposed as Sunita (PW13) and has in her testimony falsely identified the thumb impressions on the MLR of Sunil Ex.PW13/A as her own MLR and thumb impression, Smt. Kela has placed on record the election I Card of Smt. Kanta which is Ex.PW20/DX1. This court has observed that in fact Ex.PW13/A is the MLR of Sunil the son of Ved and
the grandson of Smt. Kela and his age has been specifically shown as 10 years in the said MLR establishing that Sunita had made a false deposition not only qua her name but also identified the MLR of her son Sunil as her own. She has not supported the case of the prosecution on both incidents that is dated 19.4.2010 and 21.4.2010 and also on the aspect of identity of the accused. She has also denied having made any statement to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.PW20/PX1 wherein she had named wife of Dilbagh, wife of Motu, Sumitra W/o Dharambir, Sandeep S/o Jogender, Sandeep S/o Karan Singh all belonging to 'J' community as the assailants. She has also denied that she was taken to the Government hospital, Hissar, and was given treatment on 2.5.2010 vide MLR Ex.PW20/A but admits that her thumb impression at point A belonged to her and has explained that in fact she had put her thumb impression in the house of Satyawan in the presence of one lady who had asked her to affix the same. This witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution on the above aspects. She has however admitted having received compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- from the government that is Rs.10,000/- at one time and Rs.15,000/- at another occasion. She has further admitted that after the incident on the next day i.e. 22.04.2010 she and her family had left the village and had gone to her daughter's at village Ugaran, Distt. Hissar and stayed there for one day and thereafter shifted to the house of the inlaws of her son at village Gadi, Hansi, District Hissar. She has admitted that police had come to the village after the incident but no inquiries were made from her.
Page No. 72
PW21 Smt. Sunita aged 25 years is the wife of Satbir and is a resident of village Mirchpur. She has not supported the prosecution case with regard to the incident dated 21.4.2010 and on the identity of the accused and also with regard to her statement made to the police under Section 161 Cr.PC which is Ex.PW21/PX1 wherein she had named Sattu Singh S/o Ranbir Master, Satyawan S/o Tajender, Shamsher S/o Tajender, Shila S/o Bhira @ Beerha belonging to 'J' community and with regard to the identity of the assailants. She has been declared hostile by the prosecution. According to her she is not aware of any incident dated 21.04.2010. She has deposed that she was working in the fields of Ranbir and she came back at around 1:00 PM (noon) and on seeing dust rising from the village, she rushed back towards her house as her children were alone. She has also stated that she did not receive any injury and has admitted that no medical was conducted at any point of time and when she was asked to identify her thumb impression on MLR Ex.PW21/A, she explained that it bears her thumb impression but some persons had come to the village and taken her thumb impressions on the said document. She further admits that she received a compensation amount of Rs.25,000/-, that is Rs.15,000/- at one time and Rs.10,000/- on another occasion, but has denied that she had got this compensation as she had received injuries and also denied that she has been won over. PW22 Aman S/o Surta, aged 22 years, is the resident of village Mirchpur. He is totally illiterate and is working as labour in the fields belonging to Kishan numberdar (a member of 'J; community) on yearly basis. He has not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the incident dated 19.4.2010 and 21.4.2010 or with regard to
the identity of the accused. statement
He has also not admitted his earlier
made to the police on 18.5.201 which is Ex.PW22/PX1
wherein he had named Dhaula S/o Satyawan, Dilbagh S/o Guniya, Jogal @ Dogar S/o Hawa Singh, Jagla S/o Lehra, Jitender S/o Satyavir, Johra S/o Balwan, Kala S/o Kuldeep, Kala S/o Satyawan all belong to 'J' community and has turned hostile on the identity of the accused. According to him, he did not receive any injury on 21.4.2010 but earlier to that on 19.4.2010, he was in the village and in the evening while he was coming back from the fields, there was a maarpeet (quarrel) going on in the main gali and while he was passing through the gali he also got injury as he tripped and fell. He has admitted that he had got his medical conducted at Hissar Hospital on 2.5.2010 but has clarified that this was on account of the injuries received by him on 19.4.2010 and not in the incident dated 21.4.2010. He has admitted that he had received a compensation amount of Rs. 1 lac which according to him was given because his house was got burnt. PW23 Satbir aged 42 years is the son of Bhale Ram is a resident of village Mirchpur for the last 15-20 years. This witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has turned hostile on the aspect of the incident dated 21.4.2010 and identity of the accused and also with regard to his earlier statement made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.PW23/PX1 recorded on 18.05.2010 where in he had told the police that on 21.04.2010 he was present at village Mirchpur when he saw Sonu S/o Ramesh S/o Balkishan, Sonu S/o Dalbir, Tinku S/o Sewa Singh driver, resident of Petwai and Teena S/o Rajbir Vedi S/o Karan Singh along with other boys all belonging to 'J' community brought bricks stones, lathies and other object in their hands and
surrounded the 'B' Basti and started abusing them by addressing them with caste names or that these boys entered the houses belonging to the members of 'B' community and assaulted them and set them ablaze and destroyed the household properties and committed robbery of the articles lying in the houses. He has further denied having told the police that one Suman D/o Tara Chand and Tara Chand both belonging to the 'B' community died in because of burns after their house was set on fire. According to the witness, he had heard that some incident had taken place in the village and there was a hungama and arson. He has stated that on the day of the incident he was in the fields of Ranbir (a member of 'J' community) since 6-7 AM and was in the fields since it was harvesting season. He has stated that when he came to know of the incident and he was told by the persons not to go to the village but since he was worried on account of his small children, he went back to his house which is situated towards the jhor/pond on the direction of the water supply office. According to him, he had gone back in the afternoon and when he reached the village there was a lot of commotion and police force was present in the village when he heard that one girl and a person had got burnt. He has further deposed that the fire/smoke was seen in the entire village but he is unable to tell exact the places which were on fire. According to this witness his house is away from the main village and therefore he is unable to tell anything about the incident. He has further deposed that after the incident on 22.4.2010 he left the village for village Barwala, District Hissar and came back only after 15-20 days of the incident. He is therefore unable to tell whether the police had come to the village but insists that they never recorded his statement. He
has denied that he had sustained injuries in this incident on 21.04.2010 or that he had got his medical conducted from the government hospital Hissar on 02.05.2010 and has voluntarily added that he had fled the village out of fear and was staying at Hissar and he had gone to the hospital on 02.05.2010 for check up since he was feeling scared. He has admitted that his MLR Ex.PW23/A which bears his signature at point A and has admitted having received a compensation from the government to the tune of Rs.25 thousand. According to him, he had received Rs. 15 thousand on one occasion and Rs 10 thousand on another occasion and he had also received four kattas of wheat and has denied that he had received the compensation on account of the injuries received by him in the incident dated 21.04.2010 due to stone pelting by the persons from the 'J' community. The witness has stated that he does not know Ramesh Kumar and has also stated none of his nephew is known as Ramesh. He has further admitted that he has also received Rs.10 thousand from the government for coming back to the village and has voluntarily added that the entire 'B' Mohalla has received the same and has denied that he is deposing falsely being won over by the dominant community. PW24 Suresh aged 30 years is the son of Mohinder Singh and is a permanent resident of village Mirchpur. He is a graduate and is working with Bajaj as a corporate agent and is a formal witness being the nephew of the deceased Tara Chand who has identified his dead body at Civil Hospital, Hissar. He has proved that on 22.04.2010 he had gone to Hissar after receiving a call from Amar S/o Tara Chand regarding a quarrel in which Tara Chand had expired. He has deposed that he reached Hissar Civil Hospital on 22.04.2010 at about 10 AM and thereafter he identified
the dead body of Tara Chand and his daughter Suman and received the same vide his statement Ex.PW24/A and received the said body of Suman vide receipt Ex.PW24/B. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsels he has admitted that he did not see the incident dated 21.04.2010 and whatever he had told to the Investigating Officer was on the basis of information given to him on telephone by the family members of Tara Chand. PW25 Sushil aged 35 years is the son of Surta and is a permanent resident of the village Mirchpur since his birth. He is totally illiterate and he can only put his thumb impression being a labour working as daily wager. At the time of his examination this witness had come from the Farm House of Ved Pal Tanwar at Camry Road, Hissar. I may observe that this witness has in his examination in chief only made a casual reference to the incident dated 19.4.2010 and in so far as the incident dated 21.4.2010 is concerned he has specifically deposed in respect of the same as an eye witness but has only identified the accused Ramphal S/o Prithi, Bobal S/o Teka, Nanha S/o Mahi Chand, Rajender S/o Pale and Satta S/o unknown, in his examination in chief. Further, he has denied having made any statement to the police which is Ex.PW25/PX1 wherein he had named a number of other accused namely Rishi S/o Satbir, Pradeep S/o Balwan, Kulvender S/o Ram Mehar, Rupesh S/o Tika Ram, Monu S/o Dr. Suresh, Monu S/o Dr. Suresh, Ramesh S/o Karan Chand, Gagghar S/o Trara Chand, Rajesh S/o Dhuppa, Daya S/o Jeet Ram, Dalbir S/o Dalip, Pradeep S/o Ramphal, Hoshiyar S/o Ramphla, Ram Mehar S/o Gulab, Deepak S/o Ajmer, Satish S/o Ajmer, Rajinder S/o Dhupa, Sukhbir S/o Manphul, Surender S/o Jagdev Kulvant S/o Chander Singh, Surernder S/o Jagdev, Balwan
S/o Dharmabir, and also the accused Rajesh S/o Om Praksh, Dalbir S/o Dalip Singh, Dharambir S/o Tara, Roshan S/o Ram Swaroop. He has denied that he has been won over by the above accused. According to the witness, on the 19th of the previous year there was quarrel between Karan Singh and Virbhan with certain boys belonging to 'J' community on a she-dog belonging to Karan Singh pursuant to which some persons of 'J' community had taken Veer Bhan and Karan Singh to the house of Rajinder S/o Pali where they were beaten. Karan Singh and Veer Bhan were then taken and got admitted to Hissar hospital by persons belonging to the 'B' community and but were discharged on next day after which they returned to the village. There was a Panchayat of persons belonging to 'J' community in the house of Rajinder and on 21st at about 11:30 AM a large number of persons numbering around 350 belonging to 'J' community started burning houses in the main gali who burnt the houses belonging to Sanjay S/o Banney Singh, Rajender S/o Mahender, Manoj S/o Mahender. Witness has further deposed that they were carrying oil cans, gandase and jellies in their hands and were damaging the houses belonging to the persons of the 'B' community. He has further deposed that these persons started pelting stones and surrounded/ gheraoed the 'B' Basti. According to him, they also burnt the house of Tara Chand where Tara Chand and his daughter Suman were burnt to death in the fire and did torphor (caused damage) in the Basti. He has stated that the houses which were situated adjoining the water tank near the house of Gulab Singh were all burnt. He has identified Ramphal S/o Prithi, Bobal S/o Teka and Nanha S/o Mahi Chand.
Page No. 78
After the accused were specifically put to him on his request, he thereafter identified Rajender S/o Pale and Satta whose father's name he is unable to tell, by putting his hand on them as the persons who were mainly responsible for the incident. He has further identified Ramphal as the person who had removed his clothes and started dancing in front of ladies totally naked, Rajbir S/o Mahi Chand, who he submits is known as Nanha in the village as the person who was present along with Ramphal in the torphor and dancing, Bobal @ Langra as the person who was bringing out the household articles like TV, fridge etc. and damaging/ breaking them. Witness Sushil has further deposed that he had received injuries in this incident and his medical was conducted on 30.4.2010 in the village itself when the team of doctors had come to the village which MLR is Ex.PW25/A. He has further deposed that his household articles were also damaged and his TV, fridge, chairs, bed, container of grains were all damaged. According to the witness his Godrej almirah was opened and cash and jewelery articles and mobile phone were taken by them. This witness has further deposed that it was the accused Bobal who along with other boys whom he cannot identify, had come to his house and damaged the property and looted it. He has further deposed that he had received a total compensation for a sum of Rs.15,000/- only and also has stated his statement was recorded but the police but he is unable to tell the date. During the course of his examination this court had specifically questioned the witness with regard to the details of the other accused so named by him in his statement to the police on which he explained that in so far as he recollected he had named many boys but at
the time of the incident there was so much of confusion that he could not properly identify the said boys and now cannot recollect. He has also explained that at the time of the incident he was not present at the spot where the incident was actually happening but was in the same village towards the inner side of the Basti near his father's house and the place where the incident actually happened was near the water tank where he was not present. He has denied the suggestion given to him by the Special Public Prosecutor for the victims that he was present at his house at the time of incident and not at his father's house. During cross examination by the Ld. Defence Counsels the witness has admitted that he is staying in the farmhouse of Vedpal Tanwar only for the last two months prior to his deposition in the court and the reason given by him as to why he had left the village after about 8-9 months of the incident is because he felt threatened. According to him, some young boys belonging to the 'J' community had put a loudspeaker/ audio system and moved around the village making a general announcement that the persons from the 'J' community have nothing to do with the 'B' and also made remarks like pachas mar jao sau mar jau chhoron ko chhuta ke chhodengae (whether 50 die or 100 die but they will ensure that their boys are set free) and therefore feeling scared they moved out of the village. He has admitted that there is a heavy police presence in the village since 21.4.2010 and also that senior police officers often visit the village. According to him, this warning on the audio system was given on 19 th (month he does not remember) and he had also told the police about the same in his complaint on the same day and according to the witness it was Veer Bhan who had made telephone call to the SHO informing him that the boys were roaming
around in the village making these kind of announcements and warnings but no action was taken. Witness has admitted that he did not go to the police post at Mirchpur to inform this incident and has explained that this incident of announcement was prior to the CRPF deployment at village Mirchpur. He however admits that at that time of this incident nakas/ police pickets were present at the village and there was a posting of about 250 police officials at police chowki Mirchpur. On a specific question by the court the witness has informed that he personally did not make any complaint to the police regarding this incident. He has denied the suggestion that there was no such incident of announcements being made in the village. The witness has admitted that his statement was recorded on 30.4.2010 by the police and has stated that he had told the police in his statement dated 30.4.2010 that the initial dispute was with regard to the she-dog of Karan Singh but when confronted with the statement of witness recorded by the police on 30.4.2010 which is Ex.PW25/DX1, it was found that this fact was not mentioned. He has also stated that he told the police on 30.4.2010 that on 19th some persons belonging to the 'J' community had taken Virbhan and Karan Singh to the house of Rajender S/o Pale of 'J' community where they were beaten after which they were hospitalized at Hissar hospital and were discharged on 20.4.2010 but on confrontation this fact was not found to be recorded in Ex.PW25/DX1. Witness has further deposed that he had also told the police that a Panchayat of 'J' community was held after which they gathered on 21.4.2010 and at 11:30 AM about 350 persons belonging to above community started burning houses in the main gali but when confronted with the statement of witness recorded by the police on 30.4.2010
Ex.PW25/DX1, this fact regarding the panchayat was not found to be recorded but only the subsequent incident of 21.4.2010 regarding stone pelting, arson, etc. finds a mention. Witness has further deposed that he had also told the police that they burnt houses of Sanjay S/o Banney Singh, Rajender S/o Mahender, Manoj S/o Mahender and that they were carrying oil cans, gandases and jellies in their hands and were working the houses belonging to the 'B' community. They started pelting stones and surrounded / gheraoed the 'B' Basti but when confronted with his statement Ex.PW25/DX1, this fact was not found so recorded. He has further deposed that he had also told the police that they also did torphor in the Basti and the houses which were situated adjoining the water tank near the house of Gulab Singh were all burnt but when confronted with his statement Ex.PW25/DX1 this fact was not found so recorded. He has further deposed that he had told the IO that his house hold articles were also damaged and that his TV, fridge, chairs, bed, container of grains were all damaged and that his Godrej almirah was opened and cash and jewelery articles and mobile phone were taken by these boys and it was Bobal who had come to his house along with other boys whom he cannot identify, who had come to his house and damaged the property and looted it but when confronted with his statement Ex.PW25/DX1, this fact was not found so recorded. This witness has also stated that he had told the police that he can identify these boys who were resident of village Mirchpur amongst whom are Ramphal S/o Prithi, Bobal S/o Teka, Nanha S/o Mah Chand, Rajender S/o Pale and Satta S/o unknown but when confronted with his statement Ex.PW25/DX1, this fact was not found so recorded though the names of the boys found a mention in the statement. He has further denied the
suggestion that he improved upon his earlier statement dated 30.4.2010 i.e. Ex.PW25/DX1 only at the instance of Vedpal Tanwar and the police officials. PW26 Raju aged 32 years is the son of Pasha Ram and is a resident of village Mirchpur. He has not supported the prosecution on the aspect of incident dated 21.4.2010 or on identity of the accused and has also denied his statement made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 30.04.2010 which is Ex.PW26/PX1 wherein he had named Ram Phal, S/o Prithvi, Bobal S/o Tek Ram and Hem Chand, S/o Surjeet and has been declared hostile on the identity of the accused. According to the witness, on 21.04.2010 he was at his shop doing his work, when he came to know that some incident had happened in the village and he went to the main gali when he found that there was a stone pelting and disturbance in the village on which he came back home and did not see anything. The witness has admitted that his medical examination was conducted on 30.04.2010 as he was injured on his foot as he was hit with a brick and that his MLR Ex.PW26/A bears his signature at point mark A. He has admitted that he had received compensation for a sum of Rs.25 thousand but has denied that he had received compensation because he had been inflicted injuries by persons belonging to the 'J' community. He has denied the suggestion that he has been won over by the persons from the dominant community due to which reason he has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW27 Ravi aged 19 years son of Mahender is a resident of village Mirchpur and is a daily wager in the village Mirchpur. This witness has admitted that there was an incident of arson in the village on
21.4.2010 but has turned hostile with regard to the identity of the accused and his statement made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.PW27/PX1 wherein he had named the accused Bobal, Illa, Hem Chand S/o Surjeet as the persons who were pelting stones. According to him, on the date of the incident that is on 21.04.2010 he was at his house when he heard the rolla/noise on which he came out and went towards the direction which was towards the 'B' Chaupal where he saw that there was stone pelting and arson on which he immediately returned to his house but was hit with a brick and was injured on his left shoulder. Witness has further deposed that he saw that there was a quarrel going on between the persons of the 'J' community and 'B' community and there was fire in the houses belonging to the members of 'B' community but he could not identify anybody because their faces were muffled. The witness has however admitted that his medical examination was conducted on 30.4.2010 and his MLR Ex.PW27/A was prepared but has denied the suggestion that he has been won over by the persons from the dominant community due to which reason he has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW28 Sandeep aged 21 years, son of Satpal is a resident of village Mirchpur since his childhood and is a daily wager. He has present in the village on the date of incident and has supported the prosecution case on the aspect of the incident and has also identified the accused Anil S/o Prem Singh and Amir S/o Tara Chand as the persons who were setting the houses of the members of the 'B' community on fire but has turned partly hostile on the identity of accused Ajeet S/o Sukhbir and Anoop S/o Dharma whom he had earlier named in his
statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.PW28/PX1 both of whom are belonging to the 'J' community and had been named by the witness as the persons who were indulging into arson, looting and stone pelting. He has denied that he has been won over by the accused Ajeet S/o Sukhbir and Anoop S/o Dharma. Soon after the incident he had shifted to his bua's village at Bahri, District Karnal and came back to village Mirchpur after receiving summons from the court. According to the witness he was at his house on 21.04.2010 when 300-400 persons belonging to the 'J' community came to the 'B' Mohalla where his house is situated. He has deposed that these persons had brought stones in a rehri and containers of oil and started burning the houses of the members of 'B' community in the mohalla and were also carrying lathies, gandases etc. and all of them gathered in the middle of the 'B' Mohalla where his house is situated. Therefore, being scared and apprehensive he went to the roof of his house where he witnessed the incident. According to him, these boys belonging to the 'J' community were indulging into arson (putting fire to houses), looting and some of them were dancing naked and has further deposed that the first house which was set on fire belonged to his brother Sanjay and he had received injuries on his chest as he was hit with a brick and his medical was conducted after 5-7 days of the incident at Hissar hospital vide MLR Ex.PW28/A. This witness has specifically told the court that he cannot name the assailants but if they are put to him, he could identify them. On this all the accused were put to the witness and out of them he has only identified the accused Anil S/o Prem Singh and Amir S/o Tara Chand as the persons who were setting houses on fire but not Ajeet and Anoop whom he had earlier named in his statement to the police under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.PW28/PX1 which he has admitted. I may observe that it was only on a specific query by the court that the witness has admitted having told the police that these boys were also using caste abuses while committing these acts of arson and looting and has specified that they were saying chooro ke aag laga do dheda ne kad do bahar (set the chooras on fire and remove them outside). In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsels the witness has deposed that he did not inform the police that his brother Sanjay's house was first set on fire nor did he tell the police that when the incident was happening he had gone to the roof of his house or that all of them had gathered in the middle of the 'B' Mohalla and has voluntarily added that the police was already standing near the water tank and witnessing the incident and were aware of these facts. According to the witness, he also did not tell the police that it was from the roof that he had seen that these persons belonging to the 'J' community setting the houses on fire but he had told the Investigating Officer that he had seen the persons from the 'J' community setting the houses of 'B' on the fire and not the fact that these persons were also dancing naked. He has further deposed that he did not tell the Investigating Officer the words used by the persons of 'J' community while abusing them that is chooro ke aag laga do dheda ne kad do bahar. This witness has also admitted that after the quarrel he remained in the village for about 5-7 days and had gone to Hissar only thereafter and during this period of 5-7 days there was sufficient police force and the senior officers including the SHO, DSP, SP used to
frequently visit the village. However, according to the witness none of the police officers met him but he was aware of the presence of SP and DSP as they had remained at the spot for many days. The witness has admitted that he did not make any statement to the police during these 57 days and has voluntarily added that his statement was recorded much later in Hissar. He has denied the suggestion that he did not give his statement during these 5-7 days because he was not an eye witness nor he had witnessed/seen anything. This witness has also deposed that immediately after one or two days of the incident they had gone on Dharna and that he got his medical conducted and his statement was recorded on the same day when his medical was conducted. He does not recollect the date of his medical examination and has stated that it could be on 08-09.05.2010 but has admitted that on 21.04.2010 the doctors had come to the village along with the police. The only explanation given by him for not getting himself medically examined on the said day is that many persons had been injured and had to be taken to the hospital. He has deposed that he did not tell the police that he himself had got injured and should be taken to the hospital and has explained that he stayed at the spot where Suman D/o Tara Chand had got burnt and was lying dead since there was a lot of bereavement in their family. Witness has also admitted that he did not go to the government doctor in the village during the period of 5-7 days when he remained in the village and has explained that there were a large number of persons who were taking treatment from the doctor and therefore, he went to Hissar for his treatment. According to the witness he did not receive any compensation and has denied that he also got his medical conducted
belatedly only to secure a compensation for himself since others had got compensation on this ground or that he was not given the compensation despite his efforts because he had not sustained any injuries as he was not present at the spot. The witness is not aware if SP Hissar had also made inquires from the villagers on 21.04.2010 itself and has denied that he was present at the time of the inquiry made by the SP and had told the SP that the incident arose out of a small dispute because milk was not distributed in the 'B' Mohalla by the accused Rajender S/o Pale due to which reason it got aggravated and there was stone pelting from both the sides which lasted for hours. The Ld. Defence Counsel has put a specific suggestion to the witness that on 21.4.2010 the accused Rajender S/o Pale and Karam Pal S/o Satbir were stopped by the boys from the 'B' community including himself and they all beat them up as Rajender S/o Pale who was running a dairy could not supply milk in the 'B' Mohalla on 20.04.2010 due to shortage of supply on which the witness has given a vague reply stating that he is not aware because he was not present in the village before 9AM having gone for a walk and returned only by 9 AM when he found stone pelting being done by large number of boys belonging to 'J' community. He has denied the suggestion that he had wrongly identified Amir S/o Tara Chand and Anil S/o Prem Singh on the tutoring and asking of Ved Pal and other persons of 'B' community only to falsely implicate them and to support the false case. PW29 Dhoop Singh S/o Rattan Singh aged 74 years is a resident of village Mirchpur. This witness was having four shops at his house out of which two had been given on rent and he was running provisional stores in the other two shops.
It is evident from the

Page No. 88
testimony of this witness that he is also involved in sale of liquor in the village and admits that he used to sell liquor in the village without a license as many other persons are doing though he has denied his involvement in criminal cases on account of the above, nor has he been taken to the police station or ever released on bail for the same. This witness has partly supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the incident dated 21.4.2010 and has even identified Sanjay S/o Daya Nand, Jogal S/o Hawa Singh and Bobal S/o Tek Chand but has not identified the accused Rajender S/o Pale, Surender S/o Jagdev, Rupesh S/o Tek Ram, Rishi S/o Satbir, Karam Pal S/o Satbir and Ramphal S/o Prithvi named by him earlier. Dhoopa has also deposed about the incident dated 21.4.2010 but has admitted that when the incident took place he was at his home and therefore, he cannot tell the details of the assailants who were setting fire to the various houses and can only say that they were from the 'J' community. According to the witness on 21.4.2010 around 400 persons including ladies from the 'J' community had created a quarrel (rolla/ jhagra) near the 'B' Mohalla. He has deposed that they came along with buggies filled with stones, bricks, cans filled with oil and tried to enter inside the 'B' Mohalla which was not permitted by the members of 'B' community due to which reason they started pelted stones and surrounded the entire 'B' Mohalla and started burning houses belonging to persons of 'B' community. According to him, at that time he was lying down at his shop when he heard loud voices (rukka pukar) and when he came out he saw four boys entering into his house by breaking the gate/door of the compound whom he has named as Ramphal S/o Prithvi, Sanjay S/o Daya Nand, Jogal S/o Hawa Singh, Bobal S/o Tek
Chand. According to him, Ramphal S/o Prithvi gave a lathi blow on his left arm as result of which he received fracture while Sanjay S/o Daya Chand gave a danda blow on his left leg and the other two boys broke the cemented water tank. He has testified that they set fire to all his four shops where his articles were burnt including his record (behi khata) containing details of the credit transaction and the fire from his shop spread to his house and his entire house was burnt. According to him, his family members had run away and a large number of persons also came who were setting fire to various houses and they (persons from the 'J' community) broke the locks of his trunk (petti) containing money which was kept in the house and removed the cash to the tune of Rs.10 thousand but in the meantime at around 11 AM a government vehicle came and removed him to the hospital along with daughter of Tara who had got burnt and Raj Kumar S/o Kapoora. According to him, they were first taken to a hospital at Hansi where they were given first aid and bandage were put on his arm and later he was taken to hospital at Hissar. He has identified his MLR which is Ex.PW29/A and deposed that his medical was conducted at government hospital Hissar but he could not put his thumb impression of the MLR because of injuries. He has admitted that he had initially received a compensation of Rs.1,25,000/when he was admitted in the Hissar hospital and later again he received a compensation of Rs.1,15,000/-. According to this witness the police had made inquiries from him on 21.4.2010 but is not aware if his statement was also recorded or not. He has denied having told the police that Rajender S/o Pale, Surender S/o Jagdev, Rupesh S/o Tek Ram, Rishi S/o Satbir, Karam Pal S/o Satbir and other persons belonging to the 'J' community
had got together and come to the 'B' Basti and set 'B' Basti into fire by indulging into arson looting and stone pelting and has also denied having told the police that these persons were also by using caste abuses and has voluntarily added that they were giving very bad abuses but he did not tell the police because there was no occasion as his statement was never recorded. He has also stated that he did not tell the police that Raj Kumar S/o Kapoora, Sandeep S/o Raj Kumar, Gulab Singh Chowkidar, Maharjan S/o Satpal and other persons belonging to the 'B' community had also received injuries which were caused by Rajender S/o Pale, Surender S/o Jagdev, Rupesh S/o Tek Ram and has explained that he himself had received injuries when he was in his house whereas these persons had received injuries when they were at other places. According to him, apart from Suman Tara Chand has also expired as their house had been burnt in the rioting. After all the accused were put to the witness he only identified the accused Sanjay S/o Daya Nand and Jogal S/o Hawa Singh but later when the accused Ram Phal S/o Prithvi and Bobal S/o Tek Chand were specifically put to him by Ld. Special Public Prosecutor he only identified the accused Bobal S/o Tek Chand but not the accused Ram Phal S/o Prithvi and has clarified that the assailant Ramphal whom he had identified at the spot was was having a beard but the accused Ramphal S/o Prithvi is clean shaven. In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence counsel the witness has admitted that he was inside his house at the time of the incident and therefore could not tell the names of the persons who were setting the houses on fire but only adds that they were from Zamindar ('J') community and also adds that he could heard a hue and cry (ruuka
pukar) to the extent phook do phook dheda ne phook do (burn the 'B'). Witness has admitted that the doctor in the hospital had asked him about his name, age, parentage and address and also as to how he received injuries and has stated that he had told them that these injuries had been inflicted to him by persons from the 'J' community when he was at his house at village Mirchpur but did not tell the names of the assailants to the doctor and has explained that he was not in his proper senses at that time. He has admitted that he did not receive any burn injuries and has stated that only his shops and house were burnt. According to him, he had remained in the hospital for three days as his blood pressure was very low and could not be controlled. He has further admitted that he had received treatment for injuries but thereafter remained in the hospital only because his blood pressure but not because of injuries and has explained that he had developed the blood pressure on account of the tension as his shops had been burnt. The witness has further testified that the sum of Rs.10,000/which was looted was out of his earnings and has stated that the compensation had been given to his wife when he was still in the hospital. He has deposed that he had been running the shops for the last ten to twelve years and has explained that previously he was selling liquor though he had no license for the same and has explained that nobody in the village has any license and liquor is being sold at every corner because the Thekedar leaves the liquor pouches for their sale. He has admitted that the police did not arrest Sanjay S/o Daya Nand, Jogal S/o Hawa Singh and Bobal S/o Tek Chand in his presence nor he had gone to jail at any point of time for their identification.
Page No. 92
The witness Dhoopa has denied that he is not a witness to the incident or that no such incident had taken place as deposed by him or that he was ever tutored at the farm house of Ved Pal Tanwar or told what was to be deposed in the court. I may observe that though this witness has in his examination in chief deposed about the incident dated 19.4.2010 but it is evident from his testimony that he is not a witness to the said incident and has admitted that he was in his house at that time. In fact he has only deposed about the said incident dated 19.4.2010 on the basis of hearsay and therefore, no reliance can be placed on his testimony to that extent. PW30 Mrs Santra aged about 30-35 years is the wife of Satyawan and is a resident of village Mirchpur and is a labour on daily wages and before the incident she used to do the cleaning work in the house of Bali Sarpanch. She has six children and her eldest child is a son aged about twenty years and at the time of deposition in the court she was staying at Ved Pal Tanwar Farm House. I may observe that this witness has made a casual reference to the incident dated 19.4.2010 but has clarified that it is on the basis of hearsay and she was not present in the village at the time of the incident dated 19.4.2010. According to her, she had gone to her relative's house on 19.4.2010 and returned only in the afternoon of 21.4.2010 that is on the date of the incident but despite a specific query put by this court she is unable to tell the time when actually returned to the village on 21/4/2010. In so far as the incident dated 21.4.2010 is concerned she has not supported the prosecution version and in fact her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has never been recorded by the Investigating Officer
despite the fact that she is a cited witness and it is for the first time that she has made a statement. According to her, the dispute between the persons from the 'B' and 'J' community arose on 21.4.2010 after a rumor spread in the village that son of Pale had either been killed or abducted by the members of the 'B' community on which the persons from the 'B' community were attacked and there was stone pelting on them. She has deposed that these persons from the 'J' community had brought cans of oil and started burning the houses of persons belonging to the 'B' community and the house of Tara Chand was first set on fire wherein both Tara Chand and his daughter Suman were burnt to death. According to this witness Santra, she had seen the incident and has stated that she also saw that it was the son of Pale who started this incident when the house of Tara Chand was set on fire and other persons joined him and some of these boys expose their bodies in front of their daughters and started dancing but none of the senior persons from the village objected to these acts of the boys though now they are coming and telling them to save these boys. According to Santra, she had fallen down because of the stone pelting and also received injuries and has stated that she was treated in the village when the medical team had come and her MLR is Ex.PW30/A. She has also stated that she could identify the assailants by faces but not by name. After the accused were put to the witness, she could identify the accused Ram Phal S/o Prithvi by pointing out towards him as the boy who had the oil container and was setting houses on fire; Ved Pal S/o Sh. Daya Nand who is on bail, by pointing out towards him as the boy who had jellie/ gandasae and was indulging into stone pelting; Ramesh S/o Dalip Singh by pointing out towards him who is also
known as Gardulla in the village, as the person who was carrying lathi and was also indulging into stone pelting; Bijender S/o Hoshiar Singh by pointing out towards him as the person who was indulging into stone pelting; Rajender S/o Pale by pointing out towards him as the person to whom she was referring to as the son of Pale. She has stated that Rajender was the person who was carrying oil and had set the houses of persons of 'B' community on fire while others were indulging into stone pelting and dancing naked before the girls of the village belonging to the 'B' community. She has further identified accused Pardeep S/o Ramphal by pointing out towards him as the person who was dancing naked before the ladies of the 'B' community; Rishi S/o Satbir by pointing out towards him as the person who was carrying lathi and jerries in his hand and was throwing stones; Pardeep S/o Satbir by pointing out towards him and has further explained that both the earlier accused Rishi and Pardeep are real brothers and it was Pardeep who was in the front and was entering the houses of the persons belonging to the 'B' community by jumping the walls and shouting utha leye dedo ki ladkiya ne inko gaon se kada gae (pick up the girls of the 'B' and remove them from the village) and after entering their houses he was pulling the girls belonging to the 'B' community outside. She has further identified accused Rajender S/o Sadhu Ram by pointing out towards him and has stated that this accused is a daily wager and belongs to a very poor family having daughters but the other persons from the 'J' community had pressurized him on account of which he also joined them in pelting of stones. She has also identified accused Jagdish @ Jangla S/o Lehna Ram by pointing out towards him and has stated that he is also known as Fauji in the village and his father is known as Tara, as the
person who had stated maro in dedya ne bhanjod ne kutya ne (beat these 'B' dogs) and has explained that it was the accused Fauji (i.e. Jagdish) who was carrying jellie and had indulged into stone pelting and also into beating with jellie. In her cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel the witness has deposed that the police had not recorded her statement at any point of time nor made any inquiries from her and voluntarily added that the police had collected all of them from the 'B' community and taken them to the 'B' Chaupal for settlement but her statement with regard to the incident was never recorded. She has however admitted that the police had made inquires from her on the date of the incident that is on 21.04.2010 and has stated that police remained in the village in the intervening night of 21-22.04.2010 but states that they were with the zamindars ('J'). She has also admitted that the seniors officers of the police including DSP and SP had also come to the village and also stayed in the village even after the incident and has stated that after 26.01.2011 she had left the village because they were being threatened that now there is going to be aar par ki ladai but prior to 26.01.2011 the police remained present in the village and used to meet them almost everyday after the date of incident. According to her, the police was pressurizing them to compromise the disputes with the accused but has stated that no senior police officer had met her on 30.04.2010 nor had made any inquires from her. She has denied that the police had been meeting her every day but she had been telling them that she could not identify anybody and when confronted from her statement Ex.PW30/DX1 wherein it was found to be so recorded she has denied the same. The witness has however admitted that she did not tell the police that she had
got scared on seeing the crowd and therefore shut herself in her house and was confronted with her statement Ex.PW30/DX1 wherein it was so recorded she denied having made any such statement to the police. She has also denied that the police questioned her with regard to the identity of the accused in the village by showing many villagers belonging to the 'J' community but she did not identify any of them including the accused Ramphal S/o Prithvi, Ved Pal S/o Daya Nand, Ramesh S/o Dalip, Bijender S/o Hoshiar Singh, Rajender S/o Pale, Pardeep S/o Ramphal, Rishi S/o Satbir, Pardeep S/o Satbir, Rajender S/o Sadhu Ram and Jagdish @ Jagla S/o Lehna Ram whom she identified in the court and voluntarily adds that these boys were never shown to her by the police and admits that she did not tell the names of the accused to the police, it was her fault but has explained on a query by the court that she did not know their names but had been repeatedly telling the police that the assailants were the boys from the same village. Witness has further deposed that when these persons had come they were in large numbers and voluntarily has stated that they were that they were around 300-400 and had surrounded their mohalla from all the four sides. According to this witness, her thumb impressions were taken along with the others as they were told that they will get Rs.25 thousand as compensation and also the medicines for the treatment (dawai bhatha) but has denied the suggestion that she had been told that unless she will put her thumb impression, she will not get compensation. The witness has admitted having received Rs.25 thousand as compensation from the Government. Further in her cross-examination Santra has admitted that she had heard that the she-dog of Karan Singh had caught hold of the
pants of Deepak and has stated that Karan Singh would know the further details. She has admitted that after the rumor regarding the killing/ abduction of the son of Pale spread in the village, there was stone pelting from both the sides and continued for number of hours and voluntarily added that it was for almost three hours. She has further admitted that Rajender son of Pale used to distribute milk in the village and has voluntarily added that he had refused to supply milk to the members of 'B' community on the very next date of the quarrel with Karan Singh but has denied that the boys belonging to the 'B' community had stopped Rajender S/o Pale and Karam Pal in the morning when they were going to their fields in their buggies and had beaten them on account of which the quarrel got aggravated and resulting into stone pelting from both the sides and voluntarily adds that the Chowkidar of the village had gone to the houses of Brahmins to take lassi when he was beaten by son of Pale in front of Pale's house who was injured on both the shoulders and thereafter they started beating Karan Singh, Veer Bhan and others on account of which the violence spread. She has denied that the accused Ramphal S/o Prithvi, Ved Pal S/o Daya Nand, Ramesh S/o Dalip, Bijender S/o Hoshiar Singh, Rajender S/o Pale, Pardeep S/o Ramphal, Rishi S/o Satbir, Pardeep S/o Satbir, Rajender S/o Sadhu Ram and Jagdish @ Jagla S/o Lehna Ram, were not present at the spot and had nothing to do with the incident and it is for this reason she had never named them previously. She has further denied that she had falsely implicated these persons at the instance of Ved Pal Tanwar in whose farm house she presently residing on account of his political hostility or that the allegations made by her against all these accused and the acts attributed to them are false and concocted and no such acts had been
committed. She has further denied that Jagdish S/o Lehna is not known as Fauji and his father is also known as Tara in the village. She has also denied that she had falsely implicated all these boys on the tutoring of Ved Pal and other persons now to strengthen the case of prosecution. PW31 Abhishek S/o Sanjay Kumar is a child witness aged ten years and the Court after being satisfied with regard to his intellect and also with regard to his understanding in respect of the sanctity of oath, examined him on oath. He is a resident of the village Mirchpur and is an eye witness to the incident. According to the witness, at the time of the incident he was present in the village and was standing in the main gali along with his father. The witness has further deposed that he was in the middle while his father was standing on one side of the gali and the persons from 'J' community were standing on the opposite side and there was a stone pelting going on as a result of which he received injury above his temples. According to his witness, the persons from the 'J' community had set fire to many houses and even his house got burnt and after the incident he was removed to his grandfather's house by his father. He has turned hostile on the identity of the accused and is unable to give any details with regard to the name of the assailants despite the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor giving him a specific suggestion in this regard. He has denied that he had given the names of Pardeep S/o Suresh, Parveen S/o Jagdev Master, Pawan S/o Hoshiyar Singh and Pawan S/o Rajbir to the police. He has also denied that he had told the police that the persons from the 'J' community had come to the 'B' Basti duly armed with weapons and had used caste related remarks on them. However, on a court question the witness has admitted as correct that persons from 'J' community had come armed with lathies and other
weapons and entered the 'B' Basti after which they used caste related abuses and set their houses on fire. The said witness has been cross-examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel and has even been given a suggestion that he has been tutored by his parents as what has to be deposed which he has denied. He has also denied the suggestion that the persons from the 'J' community did not set the houses on fire. PW32 Mrs. Sheela aged 30 years is the wife of Subhash and is a resident of village Mirchpur. last three years. According to this witness, on 19.4.2010 there was a quarrel on the issue of a she-dog belonging to Karan Singh which quarrel was between Karan Singh and Veer Bhan on one side and persons from the 'J' community on the other side in which Karan Singh and Veer Bhan were beaten. She has deposed that on 20th there was no dispute but on 21st again there was a hue and cry in the morning wherein first there was stone pelting by persons from the 'J' community and thereafter the children/boys belonging to the 'J' community came to their 'B' Mohalla and set fire to the houses of Tara Chand, Sube Singh, Sanjay and thereafter one by one to all the houses of the members of 'B' community which were situated on the outer side of the 'B' Mohalla. Witness has further deposed that they did not enter inside the 'B' Mohalla but set the houses of 'B' situated on the outer side of the mohalla and Tara Chand and Suman expired due to burns. She has further deposed that she had came back from the school and sustained brick injury on her knee. According to the witness, she is the daughter of this village and
She is employed as a safai
Karamchari in the government girl's school at village Mirchpur for the
reside with her aged parents who were alone at home along with her children when this damage (tor-phor) was going on and she reached her house much later by trying to hide herself. She has also deposed that Tara Chand who had got burnt had come to her house for shelter as his house was situated in front of her house and further states that it was their neighbours, who had brought her parents out of their house before she could reach there. She has further deposed that she saw the son of Pale and he was the one who had set the house of Tara Chand on fire and Kulwinder who had broken the door of her house and come inside and broken her water tank. According to her witness, her medical was conducted after a number of days of incident in village Mirchpur and has identified her thumb impressions on her MLR which is Ex.PW32/A at point A. She has also admitted having received a sum of Rs.10 thousand as compensation. Thereafter since the witness had told the court that she is unable to identify the other accused by naming them but could identify them after seeing them, all the accused were put to her one by one and despite the same she has only identified Rajender S/o Pale and Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar earlier named by her. In her cross-examination by the by Ld. Defence counsel the witness has stated that she had never gone to Tanwar Farm House and is continuing to reside at village Mirchpur from where she is reporting on her duty in the school. She has deposed that she normally leaves for her duty by 6-7 AM and returns by 2 PM but according to her she some times returns early. She has explained that she is on part time duty and attends the school daily between 8 AM to 2 PM and has denied that in case if she comes early during the day before the office hours the pay for
the day is accordingly deducted. She has explained that whenever she is required to leave early she only informs Rati Ram the Principal of the school who is from the 'J' community orally but not in writing. The witness Sheela has also deposed that on 21.4.2010 around four thousand police men came to the village after the houses were set on fire. According to her, Senior officers of the rank of IG, SP, DSP had also come and made inquiries from her and till date the police deployment is present in the village. She has also deposed that some doctors had also come in the village on 21.04.2010 but states that she had left the village on 22.04.2010 and returned after 3-4 days as she had to report to her duties. She has also deposed that after 21.04.2010 police never came to her for any inquiry and has voluntarily added that though the police remained present at the village but they only made general inquires if any one was scared or not but not regarding the incident. According to this witness her statement was recorded by the police on 21.04.2010. She has denied that she told the police on 21.04.2010 that she had not witnessed anything because she was present at her school at the relevant time and has denied that it was this statement which was recorded by the police and has stated that she had told the police the names of son of Pale and Kulwinder on 21.04.2010 when they made inquires from her. The witness has denied that her statement was in fact recorded on 30.4.2010 which is Ex.PW32/DX1 and that in her statement made to the police she had not named the accused son of Pale and Kulwinder whom she has now identified in the court and had only stated that since she was perplexed she could not identify anybody. Witness has been confronted with her statement Ex.PW32/DX1 which she has denied and according to her, she had told the police all that she has now
deposed before this court.
When she was confronted with
Ex.PW32/DX1 it was found that whatever she has testified in the court in her examination in chief had not been found mentioned in her statement Ex.PW32/DX1. She has admitted that Rajender S/o Pale is doing the job of sale of milk. She has admitted that on 20.4.2010 Rajender refused to supply milk to the members of 'B' Basti. She has also admitted that in the morning of 21.4.2010 the Chowkidar of the village Gulaba went to Rajender S/o Pale for fetching milk. She has further admitted that he did not give milk to Gulaba even on 21.4.2010 and has voluntarily added that rather Gulaba was beaten by him but has denied that the boys belonging to the 'B' community had stopped Rajender and Karampal who were going to their fields in their boogies and were beaten on which sudden quarrel took place and matter got aggravated and has voluntarily added that only a rumor had spread in the village that Rajender had either killed or abducted. She has admitted that thereafter there was stone pelting from both sides and has voluntarily added that the boys belonging to 'J' community gathered in large number and surrounded them and pelted stones and more stones were pelted from the sides of the 'J' community. She has denied that there was no such instigation by the boys belonging to 'J' community. Witness has further deposed that the entire incident of stone pelting lasted for about three hours. She has denied that no boy belonging to 'J' community had indulged into any kind of stone pelting, arson, looting, damage, etc. She has denied that since she was on duty and not present at the spot, it is for this reason that she had never named the accused previously in her statement given to the police. She has denied that she had now falsely implicated Rajender S/o
Pale and Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar at the instance and tutoring of other persons from her community only the strengthened their case. She has further denied that she is deposing falsely at the instance of prosecution and the investigating officer. PW33 Mrs. Rani aged 25 years a resident of the village Mirchpur is the wife of Sanjay (PW44) and is a mother of four children i.e. three daughters and one son and at the time of her deposition was residing at the farm house of Ved Pal Tanwar. Though she has deposed about the incident dated 19.4.2010 but she is not an eye witness to the same and has deposed on the basis of hearsay. In so far as the incident dated 21.4.2010 is concerned at the time of said incident she was pregnant and had gone outside the village to attend the call of nature and while she was returning she witnessed the quarrel going on between the members of 'J' and 'B' community and stone pelting. According to this witness, being alarmed out of fear she started to run and fell down on the road as a result of which she hurt herself on the forehead. She has also admitted her MLR Ex.PW33/A but later in her cross-examination she is not consistent with her statement regarding the preparation of MLR and has stated that she is not sure whether it is prepared or not. She admits that she received a compensation for a sum of Rs.25,000/- from the Government. Though initially she stated that she had been medically examined on the day next to the incident but on being reminded by the Special Public Prosecutor she has admitted that a team of the doctors had visited the village on 30.4.2010 when she was medically examined. Further in her examination in chief during the quarrel which tool place on 21.4.2010 initially there was mar pitai and then persons from the 'J' community brought jellies, gandases, lathies and brought stones and
brick in a rehri to the 'B' Mohalla, through the main gali and set about 20-25 houses belonging to the members of 'B' community on fire amongst which there were houses of Satey, Tara, Dupa and Mahender. Suman D/o Tara and Tara himself were burnt alive. She has also deposed that the persons from the 'J' community entered their houses and threw the house hold articles out of the houses and damaged them. This witness has not named any of the assailant in her examination in chief but when the accused were specifically put to her, she identified accused Karambir S/o Tara Chand, Rajender S/o Dhoop Singh, Balwan S/o Inder and Rajender S/o Pale by pointing out towards them. She also identified the accused Karambir S/o Tara Chand and accused Balwan S/o Inder as the persons who were having lathi in his hands and has informed the court that they were carrying sticks/ lathis in their hands and were running after them. She has identified Rajender S/o Dhoop Singh as the person who was indulging into stone and brick pelting. She has identified accused Rajender S/o Pale as the person who was throwing bricks. She has stated that it is this accused Rajender S/o Pale from whom she was trying to save herself as he was running after her with bricks in which process she fell down. In her cross examination by Ld. defence counsel she has stated that she along with 200-250 persons belonging to 'B' community were residing at Tanwar farm house including ten persons from her family. She has denied any tutoring at Tanwar farm house or at Lampur where she was staying before her deposition or that the MLR had been got prepared by her only to claim compensation from the Government. According to her, around 10-15 police men had come to the village on 21.4.2010 who had gone to the water tank along with the persons from
the 'J' community and did not meet her nor made any inquiries from her regarding the incident and had only asked her if she had got injured and had received medical treatment or not. She is inconsistent with regard to the recording of her statement and the date when it was recorded. Witness has further deposed that she is residing near the house of Karan Singh which is situated in the main gali and has explained that it is in the adjoining gali but has denied the suggestion that her house is situated in the Rathi wali gali. Further, when the witness Rani was confronted with her statement made to the police under Section 161 Cr. P.C. dated 30.04.2010 which is Ex.PW33/DX1, she has admitted that she did not tell the details of the incident dated 19.04.2010. On being further confronted with the said statement she has admitted that she did not state to the police that on 21.04.2010 initially there was mar pitai and then the persons from the 'J' community brought jellies, gandases, lathies and brought stones and brick in a rehri to the 'B' Mohalla, through the main gali. She has also admitted that she did not tell the police that these persons from the 'J' community set about 20-25 houses belonging to the members of 'B' community on fire amongst which the houses of Satey, Tara, Dupa and Mahender and that Suman D/o Tara and Tara himself were burnt alive nor she told the police that the persons from the 'J' community entered their houses and had thrown out their household articles and damaged them. She has further admitted that she also did not tell the police that she was going to attend the call of nature, she was pregnant at that time and out of fear she started running away on which she fell down and she got hurt on her forehead and also on her knees.
Page No. 106
This witness has admitted that the accused Rajender S/o Pale is doing the work of distribution of milk in the village which he gets from the dairy but is not aware if on 20.04.2010 Rajender did not distribute milk in the 'B' Basti because he did not get the delivery of the same from the dairy. She has explained that she is not aware of it because she gets her supply of milk from elsewhere. She has denied that on 21.04.2010 early morning when Rajender and Karam Pal were going to their fields in the buggi and were passing through the main gali boys belonging to the 'B' community stopped them and beat them up as a result of which the dispute got aggravated and there was stone pelting from both the sides that is boys belonging to the 'B' community and the 'J' community and has voluntarily added that boys belonging to 'B' community did not throw any stone and were in fact trying to save themselves. According to the witness, the stone pelting started in the morning at about 8 AM and continued till about 3 PM. According to the witness, at the time of the incident there was a crowd of 1000-2000 persons and has stated that the persons from the 'J' community were much more than the persons from the 'B' community and has denied that the crowd comprised the persons from all the communities and included women, children and old persons. This witness has admitted that they are using cow dungcakes (uplas) and dry sticks (thansras) which are highly inflammable as fuel and has stated that these uplas and thansras are stored in virtually almost all houses in the village as they are used as common fuel but she has denied that the fire caused to the various houses belonging to the members of 'B' community was accidental because of the highly inflammable material stored in the houses and the hukkas which keeps
burning through out the day and has voluntarily added that the fire had been set to the houses belonging to the members of 'B' community. Witness has denied that many houses in the village are kacha houses having kacha roofs made of bamboo sticks and dried grass and has explained that only the cattle sheds have kacha roofs but the members of the 'B' community in the village do not possess any cattle and are only rearing pigs and goats. She has admitted that the accused Karambir S/o Tara Chand, Rajender S/o Dhoop Singh, Balwan S/o Inder and Rajender S/o Pale were not arrested in her presence and that police never called her for purposes of identification of the accused either in the police station, or in village or in jail. She has denied that she had seen the accused Karambir S/o Tara Chand, Rajender S/o Dhoop Singh, Balwan S/o Inder and Rajender S/o Pale for the first time in the court and has voluntarily added that she had seen them at the time of incident. PW34 Raj Kumar aged 50 years S/o Kapoora is a resident of village Mirchpur and is a daily wager/ labour having three sons and one daughter of whom two sons are married. I may observe that though this witness has deposed with regard to the incident dated 19.4.2010 but it is evident from his testimony that he was not present at the spot on that day and was in fact present at his house and his testimony to the extent of incident dated 19.4.2010 is on the basis of hearsay due to which reason no reliance can be placed on his testimony to that extent. Further, this witness has admitted that there was an incident of arson in the village on 21.4.2010 but has turned hostile with regard to the identity of the accused and his statement made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.PW34/PX1 wherein he had named the accused Baljeet S/o Inder Singh who came with jellie in his hand,
Rajender S/o Pale who came with lathi in his hand, Raj Kumar with a lathi in his hand along with Dinesh S/o Prem Singh, Naresh S/o Prem Singh, Viren S/o Yashpal along with 250-300 belonging to the 'J' community attacked the 'B' Basti and that Baljeet Singh had hit him with a jellie on his right arm which jellie hit him on his right finger and Rajender hit him with a lathi on both his legs. According to the deposition of this witness he was at his house on 21.4.2010 and having his tea around 8-9 AM when there was a hue and cry and quarrel and on which he went out to the main gali where he saw that a large number of men from the 'J' community armed with lathies, jellies, stones/bricks were indulging into stone pelting and were beating people belonging to the 'B' community. He has deposed that he was also hit by two to three bricks as a result of which he also got hurt on his arms and hands and he was brought back to his house and put on the cot (charpai). The witness has deposed that he could not see the faces of these boys as they were muffled and he is not aware as to what happened thereafter except that he was taken to the government hospital Hissar in police vehicle where he was given medical treatment on the same date (21.04.2010) and his MLR which is Ex.PW34/A was prepared. He has admitted having received Rs.25 thousand as compensation from the Government for his injuries. According to PW34 Raj Kumar the police had made inquiries from him after two to three days of the incident and he had told them the details but he did not give the names of any person to the police during the interrogation but he had told them that persons from the 'J' community had set their houses on fire. He has further deposed that he had told the police that in this arson when the houses of 'B' community
were set on fire, Tara Chand and his daughter Suman had also burnt as a result of which they had expired. He has admitted having made a statement to the police on 23.04.2010 which is Ex.PW34/PX1 but has denied having told the police that he is not in a position to name these assailants including women but he can identify them. He has denied the suggestion that he has been won over by the accused due to which reason he has deliberately not identified them. In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence counsels the witness has denied the suggestion that since the persons/ assailants were in muffled faces due to which reason he is unable to tell to which community they belonged and has explained that they were all from the 'J' community. He has also denied the suggestion that he has been tutored and told the name the persons from the 'J' community as the assailants. PW35 Ashok son of Maha Singh aged about 24-25 years is a resident of village Mirchpur doing a private job at Jind. At the time of his deposition before the court, he was employed in Hissar court parking and residing in a rented accommodation at Hissar itself. I may observe that though this witness has deposed with regard to the incident dated 19.4.2010 but it is evident from his testimony that he was not present at the spot on that day and was in fact present at Jind where he was employed and therefore his testimony in respect of the incident dated 19.4.2010 which is based upon hearsay cannot be relied upon to that extent. In so far as the incident dated 21.4.2010 is concerned, this witness has supported the case of the prosecution but has turned hostile
on the aspect of the identity of the accused and also on the role of the SHO Vinod Kumar. Though this witness has admitted having made a statement dated 18.05.2010 to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.PW35/PX1 but he has denied having named the accused Rajender S/o Pale, Rishi S/o Satbir, Monu S/o Suresh, Balwan S/o Jella, Balar @ Langra S/o Inder Singh, Charan S/o Sadhu Ram, Dalbir S/o Tara Chand and has deposed that out of the said boys he did not knew any one except Rajender S/o Pale but he had not seen Rajender at the time of incident. According to him, on 21.04.2010 at about 10-10:30 AM about 300-400 persons belonging to the 'J' community came towards the 'B' Basti and he heard the voices coming from them that Jala do, aag lago do dheda ne (burn the members of 'B' community) and thereafter they started pelting stones. He has also deposed that at that time he was with his father at his house along with his children which house is situated in the middle of the 'B' Mohalla on the corner of the main gali. The witness has also deposed that about 40-50 stones were thrown towards his house and he was hit on his legs and back. According to him, first there was stone pelting after which the assailants started setting the houses of the members of the 'B' community situated on the outer side of the main gali on fire on which the persons belonging to the 'B' community got scared and started running towards their houses to save their children. The witness has further deposed that he could not see any of the assailants as they were in muffled faces. According to him, he was given medical treatment after about 10-15 days at Hissar vide MLR dated 02.05.2010 which is Ex.PW35/A. He has admitted having received a compensation to the tune of Rs.25 thousand from the
Government for the injuries received by him. According to him, police made inquiries from him firstly on 18.05.2010 and secondly he was also interrogated by police on 27.05.2010 and his statements were recorded. He has admitted his statement dated 27.07.2010 which is Ex.PW35/PX2 is in the handwriting of some police officer. He has deposed in the court that he is not known to Vinod Kumar Kajal, SHO but since everybody was giving their statements, he had also mentioned his (Vinod Kumar) name by copying out the statement which was being also written by some body else. The witness has denied that on 18.05.2010 in his statement made to the police which is Ex.PW35/PX1 he has specifically named Rajender S/o Pale, Rishi S/o Satbir, Monu S/o Suresh, Balwan S/o Jella, Balar @ Langra S/o Inder Singh, Charan S/o Sadhu Ram, Dalbir S/o Tara Chand and now he is deliberately not naming them being won over by them. He has also denied that on account of the fact that his family is still residing in the village out of fear and feeling apprehensive he is deliberately trying to save the accused who belong to the dominant class of the village. PW36 Sanjay S/o Raja Ram aged 30 years is a resident of village Mirchpur having a family comprising of three sons, one daughter and his parents. He is the husband of Rani who has been examined as PW33 and at the time of deposition was residing at Tanwar Farm House along with his family for three to four months. Though he claims that he is a Mason by profession yet in his cross-examination he has admitted that he had criminal cases registered against him at district Jind in connection with pick pocketing and has also faced criminal
prosecution for sale of illicit liquor. There are also allegations against him and he is in a habit of making purchases from the villagers and not making the payments thereafter and hence his testimony is required to be analyzed in this background and weighed with caution. Though PW36 Sanjay has made a casual reference to the incident dated 19.4.2010 but in his cross-examination has admitted that it is on the basis of hearsay since he was not present in the village at the time of the incident and therefore, his testimony to that extent is inadmissible. In respect of the incident dated 21.4.2010 he has deposed that there was a dispute in the village at about 9-10 AM when there was stone pelting. According to him, the boys belonging to the 'J' community initially gathered at their Chaupal that is the 'J' Chaupal where they were scheming and thereafter they surrounded the 'B' Basti and started stone pelting and arson where they burn houses belonging to the members of the 'B' community in the Basti. He has further deposed that first they burnt the house of Tara where his daughter Suman was burnt to death and Tara himself was burnt. According to him, then he saw that they had burnt the houses of Satta, Sube Singh, Pala Ram, Chander, Dhoop Singh, Rajmal and states that the Police was present there when the houses were being burnt. He has stated that they requested the police officers to restrain these boys and stop them but all the policemen ran away towards the water tank. He has stated that he got injured in the stone pelting when he received a brick injury on his shoulder on the back side and on the collar bone and his wife who was pregnant and was coming back after attending the call of nature when she started to run on seeing the incident and fell down and received injuries. He has deposed that he immediately took his children and went to the roof of Veer Bhan to save
themselves and from there he witnessed that these boys started indulging into damaging the property and household articles (tor phor). According to him, had the senior persons from the village intervened, the damage would not have been to that extent. He has further deposed that on the day next to the incident the medical team had come to the village and his medical examination was conducted vide MLR Ex.PW36/A after which he along with his family went to Jind to his father's house and returned only after about 10-15 days. He has also deposed that on the same day the police made inquiries from him and he told them what had happened and admits that he had also received a compensation from the Government and initially Rs. 50 thousand which was collectively for him, his wife and other family members and states that he further received a sum of Rs 25. thousand thereafter. This witness in his testimony has identified some of the assailants by name that is Rajender S/o Pale, Ramphal S/o Prithvi, Lillu grand son of Partap, father's name he is not sure, Daya whose father's name he does not know as the persons who were indulging into stone pelting and burning of houses of the members of 'B' community. He has also deposed that he could identify the other persons if put to him. I may observe that there was an objection on the part of the defence regarding specifically putting the accused to the witness as he had not told the police in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that he could identify the assailants by faces if shown to him, which objection was overruled by the Court and the accused were put to the witness after which he has duly identified Rajender S/o Pale both by name and by pointing out as the person who had set the houses on the fire; Rishi S/o Satbir both by name and by pointing out as the person who had set the houses on fire;
Jogal @ Dogar S/o Hawa Singh both by name and by pointing out as the person who was indulging into stone pelting and damaging house hold articles and properties by entering the houses; Anil @ Neel S/o Prem both by name and by pointing out as the person who was indulging into stone pelting and damaging house hold articles and properties by entering the houses; Pardeep S/o Jaibir by pointing out towards him as the person who was indulging into stone pelting and damaging house hold articles and properties by entering the houses; Dharmveer S/o Tara whom he has stated is commonly known as Fauji in the village both by name and by pointing out, as the person who was indulging into burning of houses; Balwan S/o Jai Lal by pointing out towards him as the person who was having jellie, gandases and lathi and was indulging into beating persons from the 'B' community under the influence of alcohol; Sunil S/o Jaibir Singh by pointing out towards him as the person who was indulging into stone pelting; Rajbir S/o Mahi Chand whom he has identified as the person commonly known as Nanha in the village by pointing out towards him, as the person who was indulging into stone pelting and damaging house hold articles and properties by entering the houses; Roopesh S/o Tek Ram both by name and by pointing out as the person who was indulging into stone pelting and damaging house hold articles and properties by entering the houses; Daya S/o Ajeet both by name and by pointing out as the person who was indulging into burning of houses of the members of 'B' community; Sanjay S/o Daya Nand both by name and by pointing out as the person who had entered the house of Dhoop Singh and broken his arm and thereafter burnt his house; Sattey S/o Karan Singh both by name and by pointing out as the person who was indulging into stone pelting and damaging house hold articles
and properties by entering the houses; Jasbir S/o Raja Ram as the person who is commonly known as Leelu in the village both by name (Leelu) and by pointing out as the person who was having a lathi in his hand and was first indulging into stone pelting and then was roaming around in the galies with lathi in his hand while they had climbed on their roofs; Pardeep S/o Satbir by naming him as the son of Satbir and pointing out towards him as the person who was indulging into stone pelting and was having a lathi in his hand; Baljeet S/o Inder both by name and by pointing out as the person who was having jellies in his hand and was running towards him and other persons from the 'B' community when he ran to his roof out of fear; Satyawan S/o Rajender by pointing out towards him as the person who was indulging into stone pelting; Bobal S/o Tek Ram both by name and by pointing out towards him as the person who was intoxicated after consuming alcohol and was roaming around along with other boys of the 'J' community who were indulging into stone pelting, arson and burning of houses etc.; Dharmavir S/o Mai Chand whom he has stated is also known as Illa in the village by pointing out towards him as the person who was indulging into stone pelting and damaging household articles and properties by entering the houses; Rajender S/o Belu Ram father of the previous accused Satyawan whom he had identified as above both by name and by pointing out as the person who was indulging into stone pelting; Kulwinder S/o Shri Ram Mehar by pointing out towards him as the person who was indulging into stone pelting and Karampal S/o Satbir by pointing out towards him as the person who was indulging into stone pelting.
Page No. 116
In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence counsels the witness has denied the suggestion that Rajender S/o Pale had a general merChandise (parchun) shop at village Mirchpur till the year 2009 from where he used to make regular purchases of all his household merChandise and grocery items from the shop of Rajender S/o Pale on credit and was having a credit of Rs.7 hundred on him in respect of the purchases made by him from the shop of Rajender in the year 2009 and that he had been assuring him of making the payment. The witness has been specifically cross-examined with regard to an incident of the year 2009 when Rajender asked him for his money, he under the influence of alcohol abused him on which Rajender told him not to abuse and that he could make the payment whenever he had the money but he continued on which Rajender gave him a beating which incident was witnessed by a large number of villagers. According to the witness, Rajender S/o Pale had no parchun shop and hence the question of making any purchase from his shop on credit does not arise. He has denied the suggestion that the accused Rajender S/o Pale, Rishi S/o Satbir, Jogal @ Dongar S/o Hawa Singh, Anil @ Neel S/o Prem Singh, Pradeep S/o Jaibir, Dharmabir S/o Tara, Balwan S/o Jai Lal, Sunil S/o Jaibir, Rajbir S/o Mahi Chand, Roopesh S/o Tek Ram, Daya S/o Ajit, Sanjay Handa S/o Daya Nand, Sattye S/o Karan Singh, Jasbir S/o Raja Ram, Pradeep S/o Satbir, Baljeet S/o Inder, Satyawan S/o Rajender, Bobal S/o Tek Ram, Dharambir S/o Mahi Chand, Rajender S/o Belu, Kulwinder S/o Rem Mehar and Karampal S/o Satbir whom he had named and identified in the court has been done at the instance of Ved Pal Tanwar on account of political hostility.
Page No. 117
He has admitted that he was interrogated by the police on the same day when his medical was conducted on 30.4.2010 but he is not aware if the police recorded his statement in writing or not. He has denied the suggestion that he had told the police that since his wife was pregnant he was taking care of her as she had fallen down while running and that he could not identify any of the assailants and thereafter he told the police that he had heard his statement which was correct. When confronted with his statement Ex.PW36/DX1 where it was found so recorded which he denied. Though the witness has stated that he had told the police all the facts which he has now deposed in his examination in chief yet when confronted with his statement Ex.PW36/DX1 the facts regarding the boys belonging to 'J' community gathered at the 'J' Chaupal where they were scheming and thereafter surrounded the 'B' Basti and started stone pelting and arson where they burn houses belonging to the 'B' community in the basti; the fact that first these boys burnt the house of Tara where his daughter Suman was burnt to death and Tara himself was burnt and that he also saw them burning the houses of Sata, Sube Singh, Pala Ram, Chander, Dhoop Singh, Rajmal; the fact that the police officer that at that time police was present in the village when the houses were being burnt but when they requested these police officers to restrain these boys and stop them they all ran way towards the water tank; that he had got injured in the stone pelting and had received a brick injury on his shoulder on the back side and on the collar bone; the fact that he took his children and went to the roof of Veer Bhan to save themselves and he saw that these boys started indulging into damaging the property and house hold articles (tor phor) and the fact that on the day next to the
incident he along with his family went to Jind to his father's house, were not found so recorded. He has further denied the suggestion that on 21.4.2010 the accused Rajender and Karampal were passing through the main gali on their boogie for going to their fields when they were stopped by boys belonging to the 'B' community as they were aggrieved for non supply of milk on 20.4.2010 and these boys beat up Rajender and Karampal as a result of which the dispute got aggravated and there was stone pelting from both the sides and voluntarily added that these boys had come in a large numbers whereas the numbers of persons of 'B' community was very less. He has further deposed that the stone pelting continued for about two to three hours but has denied the suggestion that the stone pelting was from both the sides. According to him, after the incident senior police officers of the rank of DSP, SP and IG had come to the village and explained that the police was already present in the village previously as well. It has been observed by this court that this witness is inconsistent with regard to the date of his medical examination since on the one hand he has deposed that his medical examination was conducted on 30.4.2010 but in his cross-examination he has stated that his medical examination was conducted on 21.4.2010 when his wife and children were also medically examined. The witness has further deposed that the doctor who had examined him had asked him, his name, fathers name and other details He has deposed that he had told the police officers already present in the village what had happened but he is not aware if they had written down what had told them on 21.4.2010 and has denied the suggestion that he had told the police on 21.4.2010 that he was not aware of what had
happened. According to him, on 21.4.2010 the police did not apprehend or arrest any of the accused in the village who have been so named and identified by him in the court and states that he was never called by the police to identify any of the accused either in the village or in the police station or in the jail. The witness has denied the suggestion that he was shown the accused persons and asked to identify them in the court and that he has identified them on the asking of investigating agency. He is unaware if there are any snatching cases against his father Raja Ram and chacha/ uncle Sattey. The witness has denied that the crowd in the village Mirchpur in the incident dated 21.4.2010 was of about 1000 persons which included women, old persons and children and has voluntarily stated that there were hardly 500-600 persons all of whom were young persons from the 'J' community who did not think before acting or doing something. The witness has admitted that the police never took him to the place where the quarrel had taken place nor prepared any site plan of the place of incident on his pointing out nor any person from the other communities had come to the police station to identify the accused in his presence. The witness has denied the suggestion that all the houses belonging to the members of 'B' community are adjacent to each other at village Mirchpur and has explained that some of the houses are far from each other. He has also denied the suggestion that persons belonging to the 'B' community were having kaccha houses which were not in habitable conditions due to which reason the member of 'B' community themselves set their houses on fire only to claim compensation from the Government. The witness has further denied the suggestion that he has been tutored by Ved Pal Tanwar into naming the accused persons or that
on 21.4.2010 he was not in the village but was in district Jind. He has also denied the suggestion that he procured a false MLR only to secure a compensation from the government or that on account of jealousy he has falsely implicated the accused Rajender S/o Pale, Rishi S/o Satbir, Jogal @ Dongar S/o Hawa Singh, Anil @ Neel S/o Prem Singh, Pradeep S/o Jaibir, Dharmabir S/o Tara, Balwan S/o Jai Lal, Sunil S/o Jaibir, Rajbir S/o Mahi Chand, Roopesh S/o Tek Ram, Daya S/o Ajit, Sanjay Handa S/o Daya Nand, Sattye S/o Karan Singh, Jasbir S/o Raja Ram, Pradeep S/o Satbir, Baljeet S/o Inder, Satyawan S/o Rajender, Bobal S/o Tek Ram, Dharambir S/o Mahi Chand, Rajender S/o Belu, Kulwinder S/o Rem Mehar and Karampal S/o Satbir. PW37 Meena Kumar aged 32 years son of Satpal is a resident of village Mirchpur and is a daily wager working in the fields of the persons from the 'J' community. He has a family comprising of his parents, wife and five children who at the time of his deposition in the court were residing at Ved Pal Tanwar Farm House Hissar for the last two an a half months on account of the alleged threats given to them in the village by the persons belonging to the 'J' community. This witness has supported the case of the prosecution. According to the witness on 19.04.2010 some boys from the 'J' community were passing in front of the house of Karan Singh being under the influence of alcohol on which the she-dog of Karan Singh started barking at them. These boys threw a dalla/ brick on her which entered the house of Karan Singh to which the son of Karan Singh objected. The witness has deposed that a dispute arose between the son of Pale whose name he is not aware and Karan Singh and there was a
quarrel on this issue. After some time Karan Singh and Veer Bhan were called in front of the house of Pale by these persons belonging to the 'J' community where Karan Singh and Veer Bhan were beaten and had to be hospitalized at Hansi. He has deposed that on 20.04.2010 they came to know in the village that these boys belonging to the 'J' community would again come and create a problem due to which reason they called Karan Singh and Veer Bhan back to the village. According to him, on 21.04.2010 at about 9-10AM while he was standing at the main gali he saw about 400-500 persons belonging to the 'J' community duly armed with jellies, gandases, a rehri/ boogie containing bricks and stones and with cans of oil coming from the side of the 'J' Chaupal towards 'B' Mohalla who thereafter surrounded the 'B' Mohalla from all the four sides and started setting the houses belonging to the members of 'B' community on fire. He has deposed that they firstly put fire to the house of Satyawan Fauji and thereafter to the houses of Mahender, Tara Chand, Gulab Singh and both his sons Dhoopa, Chander, Pale Ram, Rajender, Manohar and others. He has also deposed that when the house of Tara Chand was set on fire his daughter Suman who was inside the house lost her life along with Tara Chand who was also burnt. The witness has further deposed stated that there was stone pelting from all the sides towards the houses belonging to the members of 'B' community and some of these boys started dancing naked. According to him, while he was standing in the main gali he was hit with a brick on his back towards the right shoulder on which he entered his house situated in the main gali and his medical examination was conducted after about a week vide MLR Ex.PW37/A bearing his thumb impression at point A. He has admitted having received a compensation for a sum of Rs.25 thousand
from the government for the injuries which he had received. He has also deposed that from the crowd he could recognize Illa S/o Mahi Chand who was having a lathi in his hand and was attacking persons from the 'B' community and indulging into stone pelting; Nanha S/o Mahi Chand who was indulging into stone pelting and was having a lathi in his hand with which he was attacking persons from their community; son of Pale whose name he is not aware but he can identify who was first indulging into burning houses belonging to the members of 'B' community and thereafter indulging into stone pelting; Satta whose father's name he is not aware but whom he can identify who initially was burning houses belonging to members of 'B' community and thereafter indulging into stone pelting and many others whom he can identify by faces but not by name. Thereafter, when all the accused were specifically put to this witness, he could only identify Rajender, S/o Pale, Dharamvir @ Illa S/o Mahi Chand, Satey S/o Karan Singh and Rajbir @ Nanhe S/o Mahi Chand but he is unable to identify any other accused in the court. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel witness has deposed that before the incident there were about 10-15 police persons in the village as there was an apprehension of breach of peace but after the incident large number of police personnels numbering about about 5060 had come to the village. According to him he stayed in the village even after the incident for about one week. He has deposed that the doctors had also come to the village in two vehicles and a group of 10-12 medical personnel's had come to the village and treating the injured. He has denied that the doctors had told him that he had not received any injuries and has stated that he is not aware if his MLR was prepared on
21.04.2010 but states that his name was entered in some paper where he had put his thumb impression. There was an objection by the counsel for the accused with regard to the date of the medical examination of the witness and it was observed by the Court that there was no MLR of the witness dated 21.4.2010. In his further examination the witness has admitted that his medical examination was not conducted on 21.04.2010 and has deposed that it was after a week and has explained that though the doctors had come to the village on 21.04.2010 but he did not submit for his medical examination and has denied the suggestion that it was only to seek compensation from the government that he got his medical done on 30.04.2010 though he had not received any injuries. According to this witness Meena Kumar he had personally witnessed the incident on 19.4.2010 and also admits that the police had recorded his statement but is unaware of its contents. He has stated that his statement was recorded on the same day on which his medical was got done (that is on 30.04.2010). He has denied the suggestion that he had not told the police anything regarding the incident dated 19.04.2010 or 20.04.2010 but when confronted with his statement Ex.PW37/DX1 the facts regarding the incident dated 19.4.2010 and 20.4.2010 as now deposed by the witness in his examination in chief were not found so recorded. Further, this witness has also been confronted with his statement Ex.PW37/DX1 on the aspect of the incident dated 21.4.2010 and it has been observed that the witness has told the police about this incident and facts so mentioned before the court in his deposition but in a different manner. Witness has further denied the suggestion that he had named Rajender, S/o Pale, Dharamvir @ Illa S/o Mahi Chand, Satey
S/o Karan Singh and Rajbir @ Nanhe S/o Mahi Chand. because he has been instructed to say so by Ved Pal Tanwar and other persons belonging to his community or that he had deliberately and falsely implicated Rajender, S/o Pale, Dharamvir @ Illa S/o Mahi Chand, Satey S/o Karan Singh and Rajbir @ Nanhe S/o Mahi Chand on the tutoring of interested persons only to strengthened the case of prosecution. He has further deposed that he did not make any complaint to the police regarding the threats received in the village from the persons belonging to the 'J' community on account of which he had left the village and gone to the farm house of Ved Pal Tanwar but admits that till after one week of the incident senior police officers of the rank of IG and SP were present in the village. He has denied the suggestion that he had not left the village on account of threat but on the asking and instructions of Ved Pal who entertains political ambitions or that he did not inform any police officer about the threat because there was no such threat. The witness has further denied that on 19.4.2010 it was Deepak, Satish and Pardeep all residents of Mirchpur along with one Tinku resident of Petwar were passing in front of the house of Karan Singh when his pet dog had caught hold of the pant of Deepak and he in order to free the same gave a chappal blow to the she-dog and Rajender was not present and has voluntarily added that Rajender S/o Pale was also present but they had hit the dog with the dalla/ brick in order to free the pant of Deepak when the dalla/ brick entered the house of Karan and there was a quarrel. The witness has admitted that Rajender S/o Pale was doing the work of supply of milk in the village and had not supplied the milk to the members of 'B' community on 20.04.2010 though he has denied that
this was because there was no supply from the Lakshay dairy. Witness has explained that Rajender had said that he would supply the milk on 21.04.2010 and states that Rajender used to have the milk supply at all times. He has denied the suggestion that on 21.04.2010 some boys belonging to the 'B' community had stopped Rajender S/o Pale and Karam Pal S/o Satbir who were going to the fields on their boogie through the main gali and they (Rajender and Karam Pal) were beaten as a result of which the quarrel got aggravated and there was stone pelting from both the sides. The witness has voluntarily added that the assailants had come in large numbers and started throwing stones and some stones were also thrown by the members of the 'B' community but it was in self defence and states that this entire incident lasted for about two to two and a half hours. He has denied that the accused Rajender, S/o Pale, Dharamvir @ Illa S/o Mahi Chand, Satey S/o Karan Singh and Rajbir @ Nanhe S/o Mahi Chand did not indulge into any arson/ burning of houses, stone pelting or that the incident of arson had been caused by some other mischievous persons from 'B' community or that accused persons were not even present at the spot or that he has deliberately improved upon his statement make to the police on tutoring. He has admitted that about 130 families were staying in the Tanwar Farm House and has denied the suggestion that he has been tutored by the persons/ witnesses who have already been examined and are still housed at Lampur. PW38 Mahajan S/o Satpal aged 30 a resident of village Mirchpur having a family comprising of his parents, three other brothers out of which two are married and one is unmarried, wife and two children. He is totally illiterate and on the date of the incident was a
daily wages labour doing the work of mason with the jamindars belonging to the 'J' community and the time of his deposition he along with his family had been residing at Ved Pal Tanwar Farm House for about more than two months. This witness has supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the incidents dated 19.4.2010, 20.4.2010 and also 21.4.2010. According to this witness on 19.4.2010 at about 9-9:30 PM some boys belonging to the 'J' community one of whom was Rajender S/o Pale were passing in front of the house of Karan Singh in an intoxicated state. The she-dog of Karan Singh was lying on the road and one of the boys hit the dog with a dalla/ brick when a portion of the dalla/ brick hit the dog and other portion entered the house of Karan Singh who protested pursuant to which there was a quarrel and these boys belonging to 'J' community stated to Karan Singh abhi to kutiya ne mara hai dalla, tumko bhi marenge (right now the dog has been hit, but we will hit you as well). Thereafter these boys went back and after some time one of the boy belonging to the 'J' community whom he witness has later identified as the accused Ajeet Singh S/o Sukhbir Singh came and called Veer Bhan and Karan Singh and took them to the house of Pale (a member of 'J' community) on the pretext of a settlement/ compromise where Veer Bhan and Karan Singh were beaten. He has further deposed that Veer Bhan received injuries on his head whereas Karan Singh was hit with a lathi and when they came back to their houses they were in the injured condition and went to the hospital but he was not sure whether they went to Hissar or Hansi. The witness has further deposed that on the next day that is 20.4.2010 there was a talk in the village that the boys belonging to the 'J'
community that they were going around the village threatening that they would burn the houses of the chooras (members of 'B' community) and would throw them out of the village by saying choora ne kada ge, choora ne ghara ne aag lageye gai (they will remove the members of the 'B' community, they will burn the houses belonging to the members of 'B' community) and on hearing this Veer Bhan who was in the hospital came back to the village. Thereafter on 21.4.2010 at about 9-9:30 AM Rajender S/o Pale passed through the main gali in his boogie while coming back from his fields and threatened some of the boys of the 'B' community sitting in the gali stating that abhi dekhege tare ko, ektha ho kar angeye, aag lanageye (now we will see you, we will collect and put fire). He has also deposed that after about half an hour about 500600 persons from the 'J' community having stones, bricks, lathies, containers of oil in their hands came to the 'B' Mohalla in the main gali and started pelting stones on the members of 'B' community of the village and burning the houses of the persons belonging to the 'B' community. According to him, first the assailants burnt the house of Mahender, then they burnt the houses of Sanjay, Tara Chand, Gulabo, Dhoopa, Chander, Ram Phal, Ram Niwas, Pala, Satta all belonging to the 'B' community. He has further deposed that they also gave beatings (mar pitai) to many persons from 'B' community, committed robbery (loot pat) and caused damage (tor phor). The witness has testified that in this incident Tara and his daughter Suman lost their lives and were burnt. He has further deposed that he also sustained injuries on his forehead as he was hit with a brick when he was standing in the main gali while he was trying to save himself and on receiving the said injuries he immediately rushed to his house where he remained till such time the police brought
him out and took him to the hospital at Narnaund for treatment and thereafter to the Hissar hospital and his MLR Ex.PW38/A bears his thumb impression at point A. He has further deposed that the police had come after two hours and that he had received a compensation to the tune of Rs 25 thousand on one occasion and Rs 10 thousand after a few days for his injuries. According to this witness Mahajan he had seen many of the boys who had committed this assault, arson, looting and stone pelting and states that they were all belonging to 'J' community and were residents of their village. He has stated that he could identify Rajender, S/o Pale, Ram Phal S/o Unknown, Bobal S/o Unknown, Illa S/o unknown, Lillu S/o Raja, Jugal S/o unknown and Baljeet S/o Inder and many others whom he could identify after seeing them. He has also deposed that some of these boys had come to his house and damaged (tor phor) his property whose names he cannot tell but could identify them. According to the witness, police had come to him and made inquires after 2-3 days of the incident and he had told them that he could identify the boys involved in the incident and also told them of their names but is not aware whether the police had recorded their names or not. Ld. Special Prosecutor for the victims has with the permission of the Court put leading questions to this witness wherein he deposed that he could not tell whether the police had made inquiries from him on 23.04.2010 and had also recorded his statement or not and has explained that he was suffering from head injuries and was hospitalized on the day when the police made inquires from him. He has denied the suggestion that he had told the police that Rishi S/o Satbir, Pardeep S/o Balwan, Kuldeep S/o Ram Mehar, Monu and Vikas, both
S/o Dr. Suresh, Rajpal S/o Sue Chand, Sumit S/o Satyawan, Ramesh S/o Karan Singh, Soni S/o Jaiveer, Dalbir S/o Daleep, Roshan S/o Ram Swaroop, Sonu S/o Pappu, Vipin S/o Partap, Jasbir S/o Ishwar, Ajeet S/o Dalip, Mahesha S/o Dalip, wife of Pale, wife of Dilbagh driver, Rajender S/o Sindhu, Jogender S/o Bhim Singh, Joginder @ Joggar S/o Inder Singh, Ghagar S/o Tara Chand, Dharamvir S/o Tara Chand, Suresh S/o Balbir, Moti W/o Ghagar, Sunil S/o Daya Nand, Karampal S/o Satbir, Mandeep S/o Prema, Hathi S/o Balu Ram, Kuldeep S/o Balbir, Rajender S/o Bellu Ram, Daya S/o Jeet, Ajeet Singh S/o Sukhbir and has voluntarily added that he had only given the names of Rupesh S/o Tek Ram, Pawan S/o Ram Mehar, Nanha S/o Mahi Chand, Bobal @ Langra S/o Tek Ram, Jaiveer S/o Balbir and has further explained that earlier he had forgotten the names of these boys which he has now recollected and states that he could also recognize many of the assailants by faces whose names he cannot tell. When this witness was confronted with his statement Ex.PW38/PX1 he denied that he had given the name of Dalbir S/o Dalip, Roshan S/o Ram Swaroop, Ajeet S/o Dalip Singh, Joginder Singh S/o Bhim Singh, Nanha S/o Mahi Chand as persons who had come to his house and indulged into causing damaged to the property and looting though the names of the said accused find a mention in his statement Ex.PW38/PX1 at portions X2 to X3. After all the accused were put to the witness he correctly identified accused Dharambir @ Illa, S/o Mahi Chand by pointing out towards him and also by name as the person who was indulging into stone pelting and tor phor/damage to property; accused Jugal @ Doggar S/o Hawa Singh by pointing out towards him as the person who was indulging into tor phor/damage the property; accused Baljeet S/o Inder by pointing out
towards him and also by name as the person who was indulging into arson and burning houses belonging to the members of 'B' community; accused Sattu @ Satish S/o Randhir Singh by pointing out towards him as the person who had entered into his house and also indulged into loot pat/ looting the property; accused Kulvinder S/o Ram Mehar by pointing out towards him and by name as the person who was indulging into arson and burning the houses belonging to the members of 'B' community; accused Monu S/o Suresh by pointing out towards him as the person who was indulging into stone pelting; accused Rupesh S/o Tek Ram by pointing out towards him and by also by name as the person who was indulging into burning houses belonging to the members of 'B' community along with the accused Kulvinder; and also the accused Ajeet S/o Sukhbir Singh by pointing out towards him as the person who had called Veer Bhan and taken him to the house of Pale on 19.04.2010 but has explained that he did not see Ajeet S/o Sukhbir Singh in the crowd which had indulged into stone pelting, arson rioting etc on 21.04.2010. He has also identified accused Jasbir @ Lillu S/o Raja Ram both by name and by pointing out towards him as the person who was indulging into beating persons from the 'B' community with a lathi; accused Rajender S/o Pale both by name and by pointing out towards him as the person who was indulging into burning the houses belonging to the members of 'B' community and has explained that it was Rajender S/o Pale who was involved in the incident dated 19.04.2010. The witness has further identified the accused Deepak S/o Krishan Kumar by pointing out towards him as the person who was indulging into burning of houses belonging to the members of 'B' community.
Page No. 131
In his cross examination by the Ld. Defence counsels the witness has deposed that after his medical treatment he returned to the village and has voluntarily added that he came back from the hospital and was discharged after 16 days. He has denied the suggestion that he did not receive any grievous injuries or that he was not admitted in the hospital for 16 days. According to him, while he was being taken to the hospital he did not tell the police what had happened and states that he was grievously injured at that time. He has denied having told the police on the way to the hospital on 21.4.2010 itself as to what had happened or that he had also told the police that he did not know who had thrown the stones with which he was injured. The witness has stated that the question of his telling the police does not arise as he was unconscious on that day. He has further deposed that the stone pelting incident continued for about three to three and a half hours and has denied that persons from all communities were involved in the arson and rioting and states that it was only persons from the 'J' community who had attacked the members of 'B' community and that the members of 'B' community only tried to defend themselves. Further, in his cross-examination the witness has stated that he told the police in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that it was one boy from the 'J' community who had taken Veer Bhan and Karan Singh towards the house of Pale for settlement/ compromise but Karan Singh and Veer Bhan were beaten when they sustained injuries and had been taken to the hospital; that on 20.04.2010 boys from the 'J' community were moving around the village threatening that they would burn the houses of the chooras and would throw them out of the village choora ne kada ge, choora ne ghara ne aag lageye gai; that
on hearing this Veer Bhan who was in the hospital came back to the village. When confronted with his statement Ex.PW38/PX1 both these aspects were found to be not specifically recorded. He has further deposed that he had told the police that he did not know the names of the many of the boys and that he could identify these boys if shown to him but on confrontation with his statement Ex.PW38/PX1 this aspect was not found to be specifically recorded. He has also deposed that that he had told the police about the specific roles of all the accused as stated by him in the court but when confronted with his statement Ex.PW38/PX1 the said aspect was not found to be so specifically recorded. He has also deposed of having told the police that boys belonging to the 'J' community had entered into his house and had looted the house hold articles but when confronted with his statement Ex.PW38/PX1 only the aspect of tor damage (tor phor) was found to be recorded but not of looting. This witness in his further cross-examination has stated that he regained consciousness after three to four days and does not remember the date when he was discharged from the hospital and states that his statement was recorded before his discharge from the hospital. He has denied the suggestion that he had not given the names of any of the persons to the police including those whom he had named in the court that is Ramphal S/o unknown, Rajender S/o Pale, Bobal S/o Sh Tek Ram, Dharambir @ Illa S/o Sh. Mai Chand, Jogal @ Dogar, S/o Hawa Singh, Baljeet S/o Inder, Satish @ Sattu Singh S/o Randhir Singh, Kulvinder S/o Sh. Ram Mehar, Monu S/o Suresh, Rupesh S/o Tek Ram, Ajeet S/o Sukhbir Singh, Leelu @ Jasbeer S/o Raja Ram Pawan S/o Ram Mehar, Rajbir @ Nanhe S/o Mai Chand
and Jaiveer S/o Balbir. He has further denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot of the incident on 19.04.2010 when the dispute of the she-dog took place and therefore could not have specified the details to the police. He has admitted that he did not tell the doctors his name, his father's name and other details when he was admitted in the Hissar hospital and has explained that on account of the head injury his head was swollen and he could not speak and states that it was the person who was accompanying him who gave the details. He further deposed that the doctor did not make any inquiry from him when he was taken to the hospital and states that he had told the doctor at Hissar hospital how he had received injuries but not tell the doctor the name of the assailants. He has denied the suggestion that he did not tell the names because he was not aware of the person who had inflicted injuries on him and states that he was fully conscious at the time of the incident. He has denied having deposed regarding the incident dated 19.04.2010 and given the names of the accused in the said incident on the basis of what was told to him by the other villagers. The witness is unaware if Rajender S/o Pale is distributing milk in the area after taking the supply from Lakhsya Dairy and has denied that on 21.4.2010 while Rajender S/o Pale and Karampal were going to their fields in the boogie they were stopped and surrounded and beaten by the boys belonging to the 'B' community as these boys were aggrieved by the fact that Rajender could not supply any milk to them on 20.4.2010 and it was for this reason that the quarrel got aggravated and there was stone pelting from both the sides. According to this witness the clothes which he was wearing at the time of incident were also soaked with blood but the police did not take them into possession or seize them despite his telling them that they
were the same clothes which he was wearing. He has stated that he had shown the place to the police where the quarrel had taken place on 19.4.2010 and also where he was standing on 21.4.2010 when he was hit with a brick on his head and has clarified that he had told this to the police on his return from Hissar on 16.5.2010 but admits that no site plan was prepared by the police in his presence nor the police asked him to identify any of the accused either in the village or in the police station or in the court or in the jail. He has admitted that it is for the first time that he has identified the accused Ramphal S/o unknown, Rajender S/o Pale, Bobal S/o Sh Tek Ram, Dharambir @ Illa S/o Sh. Mai Chand, Jogal @ Dogar, S/o Hawa Singh, Baljeet S/o Inder, Satish @ Sattu Singh S/o Randhir Singh, Kulvinder S/o Sh. Ram Mehar, Monu S/o Suresh, Rupesh S/o Tek Ram, Ajeet S/o Sukhbir Singh, Leelu @ Jasbeer S/o Raja Ram Pawan S/o Ram Mehar, Rajbir @ Nanhe S/o Mai Chand and Jaiveer S/o Balbir in the court and has explained that all the accused are known to him being residents of the same village but has denied that he has identified them on the tutoring of Ved Pal Tanwar who has formed a Gair Jat Sangathan and is regularly contesting the elections from the area having asked all of them so residing at his Farm House to support him. He has further deposed that the first payment of Rs.25,000/- was received by him when he was at the hospital and now he had received a sum of Rs.10,000/- at the farm of Ved Pal Tanwar. He has further denied the suggestion that Ved Pal had told him that Rs.10,000/- has been because of his help and that if he deposed against the accused, he would get more money. The witness has also denied the suggestion that some mischievous persons belonging to the 'B' community had set kacha houses belonging to the members of 'B'
community on fire and the accused belonging to the 'J' community have no role in the same. PW39 Sube Singh son of Bhura Ram, aged 70 years is a resident of village Mirchpur having a family comprising of five married sons. He has studied till class 4 th and has stated that he can read little bit of Hindi and can also sign in Hindi. I may observe that though this witness has in his testimony made a casual reference to the incident dated 19.4.2010 but according to him, it is on the basis of what he had heard in the village and therefore being a hearsay his testimony to that extent is inadmissible. According to this witness, on 20.04.2010 both Karan Singh and Veer Bhan had been brought back from the hospital so that the disputes could be amicably settled. He has deposed that on 21.04.2010 at about 10-11 AM all the persons of the 'J' community residing in the village got together in their Chaupal and from there they carried lathies, jellies, dandas, gandase and came to their ('B') Basti where they started shouting choorya ne dedha ne phook do, mar do (burn the chooras, kill them). Witness has further deposed that thereafter these persons started setting the houses belonging to the members of 'B' community on fire and at that time he was sitting in his house when he saw that lot of houses were being put on fire. He has deposed that first his house was set on fire and in order to save himself he climbed on the roof of the house of Tara from where he saw that his house was being set on fire. Thereafter these assailants came towards the house of Tara and set it on fire and therefore in order to save himself he went to the adjoining house of Tara towards the chabutra (room on the roof) and from there he saw that the adjoining house of Tara was put on fire where Tara and his
daughter Suman were burnt to death. Witness has further deposed that ten to twelve of these boys then came to him on the roof as the kunda (bolt) was open and started kicking the door of the room where he was hiding and broke the latches and picked up the empty cylinder from the room and threw it on the ground and thereafter sprinkled oil. He pleaded to them with folded hands to spare him as he was an old man when one of the boys from the group asked the others to leave him saying dada baith jayo (grandfather sit down) on which all the boys thereafter left by bolting him in the room from outside and went ahead to set the other houses in the same lane on fire. According to the witness all these boys were also indulging into stone pelting due to which his other children went into hiding at other places but he did not receive any injuries. He has stated that he could recognize many of these boys who had come to his house and he remembers seeing the son of Ram Mehar who is commonly known as Baniya in the village, Karambir, Son of Hoshiyara called as Handa in the village, Rajender S/o Pale and others whom the witness says he can identify after seeing being the residents of the same village. With due permission of the court Ld. Special Prosecutor for the victims has put leading questions to the witness on which the witness has deposed that the police had made inquires from him on the same day of the incident (21.04.2010) and he had also told them the names of the boys whom he had seen at the time of the incident but he did not tell the police that Mahesha S/o Dalipa, Bobbal @ Langra S/o Teka, Joginder @ Joggar S/o Inder Singh, Dharambir S/o Tara Chand, Suresh S/o Balbir, Nanha S/o Mahi Chand, Mandeep S/o Prema, Hathi S/o Ballu Ram, Rajender S/o Dhupa, Daya S/o Jeet Singh, Kulwant S/o Chander Singh,
Sukhbir S/o Manphool, Surender S/o Jag Dev, Jaiveer S/o Manphool, Viren S/o Yashpal, Naresh S/o Prem Singh, Dinesh S/o Prem Singh but has voluntarily stated that he had given the names of Rajender S/o Sadhu, Ghaggar S/o Tara Chand as the boys who had come to the 'B' Basti and indulged into arson, burning of houses and damage (tor phor). According to the witness he had not given the names of Ajeet S/o Dalip, Rajender S/o Dhoopa, Balwan S/o Inder Singh, Satyawan S/o Tara Chand, Ajeet S/o Sukhbir as the boys who had sprinkled oil on his house and Balwan S/o Inder Singh and Satywan S/o Tara Chand as the boys who had set his house on fire and has voluntarily stated that he had given the name of the son of Hoshiyara as the boy who had come to his house but he was not sure if his name is Vijender and has clarified that he is called Handa in the village. The witness has further explained that these boys whose names he had not given to the police previously in his statement Ex.PW39/PX1 were actually present at the spot and indulging into stone pelting and arson and has stated that he had told the police that he could identify these boys as they were all from their village but could not tell their names. Witness has denied the suggestion that he had given the names of these boys to the police and now he has forgotten the same on account of passage of time and due to old age but has voluntarily said that he was perplexed that is why he could not tell the names of all the boys to the police. According to this witness he had never identified the boys who he has named in the statement because on the same day evening his son had taken him away to the Barwala. When all the accused were put to the witness one by one he correctly identified the accused Karam Veer S/o Tara Chand as the person who had come into his house and set it on fire; accused Ramesh
S/o Dalip Singh by pointing out towards him as the person who was indulging into stone pelting and burning of houses; accused Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar by pointing out towards him as the boy who is commonly called as baniya in the village who was indulging into stone pelting and burning of houses and damaged to the property by breaking TV sets of his house and also of the other houses and accused Rajender S/o Pale by name and by pointing out towards him as the person who was indulging into burning of houses. In this regard, I may observe that despite having named Rajender S/o Sadhu, Ghaggar S/o Tara Chand and son of Hosiyara that is Vijender he has not been able to identify them in the court when they were specifically put to him. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsels the witness has admitted that he had been working in a Government hospital for about 33-34 years but states that after his retirement he had never gone to his place of work except for his treatment. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was in the hospital on 21.04.2010. He has admitted that in the gali where his house is situated on one side there are the houses of the members of 'B' community including his house whereas on the other side of the gali the houses of persons from the 'J' community are situated. According to this witness their houses are 50-55 years old and states that all these years they were having a very conducive atmosphere in the village. He has denied that the crowd which had gathered on 21.04.2010 consisted of men, women, children and aged persons and has explained that there were no children and elders but there were only four to five ladies along with the boys from the 'J' community had also called some persons from outside. He has denied that since he was inside his house he cannot tell the community to which
the assailants belong and has stated that that they were from the 'J' community as he had seen them when they came to his house. The witness has further deposed that the police did not make any site plan in his presence because he had left the village feeling scared but states that he had told the police and shown the place where the incident had taken place and had also told the police the places where the accused whom he had named and also identified in the court were standing. The witness has admitted that the police did not arrest any of the accused in his presence and states that they were arrested much later after he had left the village. He has further stated that he was never called by the police to the police station or to the village or to the court or to Jail to identify the accused who were involved in the incident. Witness has denied the suggestion that he had named and identified the accused Karambir S/o Tara Chand, Ramesh S/o Dalip Singh, Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar, Rajender S/o Pale, Vijender S/o Hoshiyara, Ramesh S/o Dalip and Rajender S/o Pale on the behest and tutoring of the prosecution. The witness has clarified that that he was using the spectacles for the last 15-16 years but has denied the suggestion that in the month of April, he had got his eyes operated and has voluntarily explained that his eyes were operated in the Narnaund Hospital in the month of March, 2010. He has denied the suggestion that on the day of the incident his eyes were bandaged and has voluntarily added that the cloth was put on his eyes only for one day when they were operated after which he was wearing dark goggles and has explained that he had gone to the Sood Hospital in April to get medicines for his eyes. The witness has denied the suggestion that on the date of the incident he was still using dark goggles or that he was in the Narnaund hospital at Mirchpur
for the whole day on 21.04.2010 and has also denied the suggestion that the fire caused to his house was accidental due to hukka/biri. He has also denied the suggestion that he had been tutored by the prosecution and has stated that he has deposed on the basis of what he had seen. This witness has been duly confronted by the Ld. Defence counsel with his earlier statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.PW39/PX1 on the aspect regarding the manner in which the incident dated 21.4.2010 took place and it has been observed by the court that the witness has not completely narrated the facts to the police in the form in which he has deposed before the court. He has further deposed that he had told the police that ten to twelve of these boys then came to him on the roof as the kunda (bolt) was open and started kicking the door of the room where he was hiding and broke the latches and picked up the empty cylinder from the room and threw it on the ground and thereafter sprinkled oil; that he pleaded to them with folded hands to spare him as he was an old man, when one of the boys from the group asked the others to leave him saying dada bath jayo and thereafter they left by bolting him in the room from outside and went ahead to set the other houses in the same lane on fire and that his other children went into hiding at other places. When confronted with the statement Ex.PW39/PX1 these facts were not found so recorded. The witness has however admitted that he did not tell the police the specific roles attributed to all the accused as named and identified by him in the court and has stated that Karna (Karan Singh) and Veer Bhan had given the details to the police and also what all these boys were doing.
He has denied the suggestion that Rajender S/o Pale is having a business of distributing milk in the village which he was getting from Lakshay dairy and has deposed that he cannot tell if on 20.04.2010 Rajender could not distribute milk in the village as he did not get the supply from the dairy on account of which some boys belonging to the 'B' community being aggrieved stopped him on 21.04.2010 in the morning along with Karam Pal when they were going on their boogie to the fields and beat them up which dispute got aggravated. Witness has further deposed that the entire incident of stone pelting arson etc continued for more than two hours. Witness has denied the suggestion that stone pelting took place from both the communities and has voluntarily added that it was the boys from the 'J' community who threw stones. He has denied the suggestion that he was not present in the village and it is for this reason that he is not aware of any incident. The witness has further deposed that the house of Tara Chand is adjoining his house and there was no wall in between and the way was being used as a rasta (passage) and has voluntarily added that the house of Tara Chand is not even 30 feet from his house and he had gone to his house by crossing the rasta. He has denied the suggestion that he did not go to the house of Tara Chand and did not see the incident from there or that he was deposing on the basis of hearsay since he was residing with his son at Barwala village on 21.04.2010. PW40 Vijender S/o Surta aged 28 years a resident of village Mirchpur where he used to reside along with his family comprising of himself, wife and two children. He is a daily wages labour and at the time of the incident was working with jamindars belonging to the 'J' community as Mason. According to his witness, his larger family
comprises of his parents and seven brothers and sisters some of whom are still residing at village Mirchpur whereas he himself has shifted to the Farm House of Ved Pal Tanwar about two to two and a half months prior to his deposition before this court. I may observe that in his testimony the witness has deposed about the incident dated 19.4.2010 but in his cross-examination he has clarified and admitted that he had not personally witnessed this incident and had deposed on the basis of what he had heard. This being so, his testimony to the extent of incident dated 19.4.2010 is inadmissible in evidence. According to this witness, on 20.04.2010 there was a talk of some compromise in the village between the two communities that is 'B' and the 'J' and therefore Karan Singh and Veer Bhan were called back on that day but the boys of the 'J' community were consuming alcohol while sitting at the diggi/water tank. In so far as the incident dated 21.4.2010 is concerned the witness has deposed that at about 9-10 AM about 700-800 persons and armed with bricks and gandases and started setting the houses belonging to the members of 'B' community on fire and that they first set the house of Sanjay on fire and thereafter set the house of Tara Chand on fire in which Tara and his daughter Suman were burnt and they all got scared and climbed the roofs of their houses. According to this witness, he was standing on the roof of his house and sustained a brick injury on his foot. He has deposed that these boys armed with gandases thereafter started hitting persons from the 'B' community while some of these boys from the 'J' community started dancing naked while others were indulging into arson and stone pelting. The witness has further deposed that these boys
entered his house and started breaking his house hold articles and they damaged his cots, chairs, tables, containers of grains, color TV. He has further deposed that he had seen these boys from his roof and he could identify them and has further stated that he had seen Bobbal @ Langra and Illa S/o Mahi Chand who had both entered his house. He has further stated that he could also identify the other boys who were indulging into stone pelting, burning of houses etc having seen them from his roof. According to him, he had told the doctors who had come to the village on 21.04.2010 that he had sustained brick injuries but they did not treat him. He has further stated that he had received a sum of Rs.10 thousand from the government on one occasion and Rs.15 thousand on other occasion as compensation. Leading questions were put by Ld. Special Prosecutor with the permission of the court on which the witness has admitted that the police had made inquires from him on 21.04.2010 and also recorded his statement and has clarified that he had given the names of three to four boys whom he had seen indulging into violent activities at the time of the incident including that of Rajender S/o Pale and Rajesh S/o Dhupa. He has however denied the suggestion given by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor that he had given the names of Rishi S/o Satbir, Pawan S/o Ram Mehar, Pardeep S/o Balwan, Rajender S/o Sadhu, Ghaghar S/o Tara Chand, Dharamvir S/o Tara Chand, Hoshiyar S/o Mangal, Surender S/o Jagdev, Dinesh S/o Prem Singh, Satyawan S/o Tara Chand, Dalbir S/o Dalip, Dinesh S/o Amarlal, Joginder S/o Bhim Singh, Roshan S/o Ram Swaroop, Rajesh S/o Om Parkash, Deepak and Suresh both sons of Ajmer, Pardeep S/o Ram Phal as the boys who had come to the 'B' Basti with dandas lathies and containers of oil and indulged into arson, stone
pelting and rioting and when confronted with the statement Ex.PW40/PX1 the said names fond a mention. He has admitted having given the names of Rajbir @ Nanha S/o Mahi Chand and Ramphal S/o Prithvi to the police but has denied the suggestion of the Special Public Prosecutor that he had named Surender S/o Jagdev, Ajeet S/o Dalip Singh as the boys who had sprinkled oil and Jaiveer S/o Manphool, Satyawan S/o Tara Chand and Hoshiyar S/o Mangal Singh who had set fire to his house which names are however found mention in the statement Ex.PW40/PX1 on confrontation. Witness has also denied the suggestion of the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor that he had shown these boys to the police and that is why their names have been mentioned in his statement or that he is deliberately not naming these boys as he has been won over by them and their families and because the livelihood of his family members residing in the village are dependent on their families. When the accused were put to the witness one by one, he has correctly identified the accused Juggal @ Dogar S/o Hawa Singh by name and also by pointing out, as the person who was setting the houses on fire; Daya S/o Ajeet who according to him also known as Chini in the village both by name and by pointing out as the person who was having jellie in his hand and was attacking persons from his community ('B'); accused Dharambir @ Illa S/o Mahi Chand both by name and by pointing out as the person who was having oil containers in his hand and sprinkling the same on houses; accused Bobbal @ Langra S/o Tek Ram both by name and by pointing out as the person who was having stones and bricks in his hand and throwing the same on them ('B') and was also exhorting saying choora ne dedhya ne mar do phook
do (kill and burn the choora/ dehdya); accused Satish @ Sattu Singh S/o Randhir by pointing out towards him as the grand son of Moga as the person who was indulging into stone pelting; accused Ajeet S/o Dalip both by name and by pointing out as the person who was having a lathi in his hand and was running and beating the members of 'B' community; accused Ram Phal @ Petla S/o Prithvi Singh both by name and by pointing out as the person who was indulging into burning houses belonging to the members of 'B' community and has clarified that it was Ramphal who had set the house of Tara on fire. He has further identified the accused Rajesh S/o Dhoop Singh who according to him also known as Kala in the village by pointing out towards him as the person who was having a gandase in his hand and running after the members of 'B' community stating maro inhe (kill them). The fact that he is known as Kala has been denied by the accused Rajesh. Witness has also identified accused Rajender S/o Pale who according to him is the main person due to whom the dispute had arisen in the village and has identified him as the boy who had set the house of Tara Chand on fire. During his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel witness has denied the suggestion that the compensation had been awarded to him courtesy Ved Pal Tanwar and has voluntarily stated that it was given by the government and by the Chief Minister Hooda. Witness has further deposed that a sum of Rs. Ten thousand were received by him twenty to twenty five days back when he was at the farm house of Ved Pal Tanwar and has deposed that he had received Rs. Fifteen thousand after about one and a half month of the incident. He has denied that initially he was trying to procure a fabricated MLR but
on failing to do so Ved Pal Tanwar promised him to get the compensation for him if he deposed as per his dictates and has stated that he has deposed on the basis of what he had seen. According to the witness he had told the police that on 20.04.2010 there was a talk of compromise in the village between the two communities and therefore Karan Singh and Veer Bhan were called back and he had also told the police that on that day all these boys of the 'J' community were consuming alcohol while sitting at the diggi/water tank and when confronted with statement Ex.PW40/PX1 this aspect was not found to be so recorded. He has also deposed of having stated to the police that on 21.04.2010 at about 9-10 AM 700-800 persons armed with bricks and gandases and started setting the houses belonging to the members of 'B' community on fire and that they first set the house of Sanjay on fire followed by the house of Tara Chand wherein Tara and his daughter Suman were burnt and when confronted with statement Ex.PW40/PX1 it was not found to be so recorded. He has further deposed that he had told the police that they all got scared and climbed the roofs of their houses and when he was standing on his roof he sustained a brick injury on his foot; that these boys armed with gandases thereafter started hitting persons from the 'B' community and some of these boys from the 'J' community started dancing naked while others were indulging into arson and stone pelting; that he told the doctors who had come to the village on 21.04.2010 that he had sustained brick injuries but they did not treat him; that he had also given the details of the articles destroyed by these boys that is cots, colour TV, container of grains, table and chairs and when confronted with his statement Ex.PW40/PX1 all these aspects were not found so recorded.
Witness has further deposed that the stone pelting continued for about two to three hours. Witness has further deposed that he was at Lampur for the last 14 to 15 days. Witness has denied the suggestion that he had been tutored at Lampur for the last 14 to 15 days by the witnesses who have already been examined and are still present at Lampur or that boys belonging to the 'B' community stopped Rajender S/o Pale and Karampal on 21.4.2010 morning when they were passing through the main gali and were leaving for their fields and thereafter beat them up on which the dispute got aggravated and there was stone pelting from both the sides. Further, according to this witness there is a possibility of the persons from the other community who are resident of village Mirchpur, to have witnessed this incident but has voluntarily added that none of them came forward to save them. He has deposed that the police had made inquires even from the persons from other community about the incident and has denied the suggestion that the police was told by the persons from the other communities that there was stone pelting from both the sides or that the members of 'B' community had set their own houses which were not inhabitable condition on fire only to claim compensation from the Government. Witness has admitted that he was in his house at the time of arson but has clarified that he had seen the incident of fire from the roof of his house. He has denied the suggestion that due to jealousy and previous enmity with the persons of his village from the 'J' community he is falsely deposing against them. He has also denied the suggestion that he was told by Ved Pal Tanwar to depose on the basis of what was being taught to him or else he would have to face penal consequences. He has also denied that he is deposing falsely out
of fear of loosing out on the compensation which he has received from the Government. The witness has further admitted that the police had not arrested the accused whom he had identified in the court, in his presence and he had never been called by the police either to the village or to the police station or to the jail or to the court, after the arrest of the accused Jogal @ Dogar S/o Hawa Singh, Daya @ Chini S/o Ajeet, Illa @ Dharambir S/o Mai Chand, Bobal @ Langra S/o Tek Ram, Satish @ Sattu Singh S/o Randhir Singh, Ajeet S/o Dalip, Ramphal S/o Prithvi Singh, Rajesh S/o Dhup Singh and Rajender S/o Pali for purposes of their identification. PW41 Smt. Sunita aged 40 years is the wife of Surta (wrongly typed as Sultan whereas it should be read as Surta) and is a resident of village Mirchpur and is a daily wager having two children that is one son and one daughter. This witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has turned hostile with regard to the incident dated 21.4.2010 and on identification of the accused and also with regard to her statement made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.PW41/PX1 on the aspect of the identity of the assailants particularly Rajender S/o Pale, Rishi S/o Satbir, Illa S/o Mahi Cahand, Pardeep S/o Balwan, Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar, Rajpal S/o Sue Chand, Soni S/o Jai Veer, Vipin S/o Partap, Hathi S/o Ballu Ram, Rajesh S/o Dhoopa, Deepak S/o Ajmer, Satish S/o Ajmer, Baljeet S/o Inder Singh , Ajeet, S/o Sukhbir, Dalbir S/o Dalip, Monu S/o Suresh all belonging to the 'J' community whom she had named in her statement Ex.PW41/PX1 as the persons who had got together and come to 'B' Basti and set a large number of houses on fire and also damaged property and committed looting of the household articles including jewelery and
cash and inflicted life threatening injuries on persons. She has also turned hostile on the aspect that it was Rajender, S/o Pale, Rishi S/o Satbir, Dalbir S/o Dalip, Monu S/o Suresh, along with other persons came to her house and broke her household articles. According to this witness, her son Vijay aged 22 years had expired about a month prior to the incident and she had gone to her father's house where she came to know that some incident of arson had taken place at village Mirchpur but she is unable to tell who had put the houses on fire and what had happened. She has denied having made any statement to the police which is Ex.PW41/PX1 and has explained that she had only stated that her house had been got burnt by the persons from the 'J' community but she did not tell the names to the police since she had returned after one month to the village. The witness has however admitted that she had received a compensation for a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- from the Government and has stated that she initially received Rs.1 lac since her house was burnt but she is unable to tell why and under what head Rs.10 thousand were given to her. She has denied that this Rs.10 thousand were given to her since she had claimed that she was present at the time of incident and received injuries. According to her she did not give any list to the Government to the extent that her articles including two petties (trunk), three fans, two televisions, two quintal wheat, cycle, charpai (cot), bistar (bedding), utensils, five tolas gold, fridge, cooler and bed were burnt during the fire which list is Ex.PW41/A due to which reason she had got the compensation from the Government and has explained that she only had a small house which was burnt which contained two fans, two quintal wheat, charpai (cot), one cycle, rehri and other small household articles
including utensils and clothes. In her cross examination by Ld. Defence counsels the witness has stated that she had only heard that her house had got burnt by the boys belonging to the 'J' community. PW42 Vicky aged about 21 years is the son of Dhoop Singh a resident of village Mirchpur who has already been examined as PW39. He has studied till class 11th and at the time of his deposition was not doing anything. He has a family comprising of his parents and two nephews who are the sons of his deceased brother. At the very outset I may observe that in so far as the incident dated 19.4.2010 is concerned, this witness has admitted that he had not seen this incident and in his cross-examination has clarified that he came to know about the same when the injured Veer Bhan was got back at home in an injured condition and therefore it is writ large that this witness has only deposed on the basis of hearsay in respect of the incident dated 19.4.2010 and all what transpired in front of the house of Karan Singh and therefore, his statement to that extent would not be admissible in evidence. Since this witness came to know of the incident after Veer Bhan was brought back in an injured condition, his testimony to the extent of what transpired thereafter would of course be admissible. In his testimony this witness has deposed that on 19.04.2010 evening five to six boys including Sonu S/o Wakil and one Tinku all belonging to 'J' community after consuming alcohol were passing through the main gali and when they reached in front of house of Karan Singh, his she-dog started barking at them on which they picked up a stone and hit the dog, which stone went inside the house and hit the gate. On this the nephew of of Karan Singh came out and protested asking
these boys why they had thrown the stone on which they (boys belonging to 'J' community) remarked ab to kutya ne mara hai phir tere bhi marenge (at present we have hit the dog but we will also hit you). This was followed by a a quarrel after which these boys left the spot and went towards the houses of 'J' community where they gathered. Thereafter, one of the boys namely Ajeet (whom the witness has identified in the court) came to Veer Bhan and Karan Singh and called them towards the houses of the persons of the 'J' community on the pretext of getting the matters amicably resolved but about ten to fifteen boys were also present there who suddenly attacked Karan Singh and Veer Bhan who sustained injuries, so much so that the condition of Veer Bhan was serious and had to be hospitalized first at Hansi and thereafter at Hissar. Here I would like to observe that since the witness has in his cross-examination admitted that he did not see the incident of quarrel of 19.4.2010 and had only seen these boys going in the gali in a drunken state and thereafter came to know of the incident when Veer Bhan was got back at home in an injured condition, his above testimony is only admissible on the aspect of Veer Bhan having sustained injuries and on the aspect of Sonu S/o Wakil and Tinku passing through the gali in a drunken condition and no more. Further, in respect of the happenings on 20.4.2010 he had deposed that some persons of the 'J' community from the Panchyat went to Hissar hospital and requested Karan Singh and Veer Bhan not to get the FIR registered and stated that they would get the matters compromised in the evening on which Veer Bhan was brought back from the hospital while Karan Singh had already come back to his house before that. According to the witness in the evening of 20.04.2010 there
was an atmosphere of fear in the village since a large number of boys from the 'J' community had gathered and the members of the 'B' community of the village were afraid, apprehending that they might attack and therefore they (persons from the 'B' community) remained alert and awake during the night. Witness has further deposed that in the morning of 21.04.2010 at about 8 AM Rajender S/o Pale was passing through the main gali in his boogie while he was going to his house when he had some verbal altercation with some boys of the 'B' community and therefore ran away from that place raising an alarm choorya ne mar diya, choorya ne mar diya (chooras have killed, chooras have killed) and thereafter went to the main Chaupal of the 'J' community and collected large number of boys but he was not present at the time when this happened. He has further deposed that from the 'J' Chaupal all these boys came towards the houses of the members of 'B' community duly armed with dandas, gandases, stones and when they came towards their houses there was an altercation between them that is the members of 'B' and 'J' community (apas mein jhagra hua) and after some time these boys ran back towards the houses belonging to persons from the 'J' community. According to the witness, in the meanwhile Gulab Singh Chowkidar was coming from the gali and was crossing from the gali of Rajender S/o Pale where he was stopped by Rajender S/o Pale and Rishi S/o Satbir and beaten with dandas after which Gulab Singh came towards the houses of persons belonging to 'B' community and started crying stating that he had been injured on his knees and legs as he was beaten with dandas. Witness has further deposed that thereafter these
boys from the 'J' community called more persons and boys belonging from the 'J' community from out side areas (out side the village) and about thousand to fifteen hundred persons from the 'J' community gathered at the 'J' Chaupal and from there they came to the 'B' Basti duly armed with lathies, gandases, stones, oil cans and petrol and while these boys were still coming from Chaupal side, some persons from the village from the 'J' community came to them and told them to gather at their Chaupal for a settlement. Thereafter while they ('B') were at their Chaupal these boys belonging to 'J' community who were coming from their Chaupal started burning houses of persons from the 'B' community and also pelted stones on them while they were still standing in the main gali. He has deposed that these assailants surrounded their Basti from all the four the sides and burnt as many as twenty to twenty five houses of the members of 'B' community including the houses of Tara Chand, Sube Singh, Chander Singh, his own house, the house of Gulab Singh and all three sons of Gulab Singh. He has further deposed that they were surrounded from all the four sides and it became difficult for them to save their lives so much so that they did not know whether to save themselves or their children or what to do. He has further deposed that his father Dhoop Singh was unwell suffering from respiratory problem and was alone at their house along with his mother and two nephews and therefore when he saw what was happening he ran back to his house apprehending danger to the lives of his family members and during this time the assailants were in the process of setting the house of Chander on fire which is on the corner of the main gali. According to the witness, he immediately told his father to move out in view of the prevailing circumstances but since his (father's) condition was serious he could not
move and therefore in order to save his other family members his mother and two nephews escaped from the back side of the house whereas he remained in the house with his ailing father who could not move. He has further deposed that he had shut the main gates but these boys came there and while he and his father were hiding inside the house behind their four shops, he saw that the gates of their shops were broken and a large number of boys jumped inside and started setting the shops on fire amongst whom he could identify Ramphal S/o Prithvi, Sanjay S/o Daya Nand, Pardeep S/o Jaiveer, Sonu S/o Wakil (not an accused before this court), Pardeep S/o Suresh, Satyawan S/o Rajender, Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand, Bobbal S/o Tek Ram who all were sprinkling oil on the walls of their shop and setting it on fire along with many other boys whose name he does not remember but can tell after refreshing his memory and also after seeing their faces. He has also stated that many of these boys have not been apprehended till date. According to the witness, when these boys jumped and came inside his father pleaded to them with folded hands and asked them what was their fault on which the accused Ramphal hit his father with a lathi on his arm and the accused Sanjay S/o Daya Nand hit his father with a lathi on his legs thereby causing a fracture and injuring the arm of his father. Thereafter, he heard the accused Sanjay shouting to others vickey ko dundo kare hai (search for Vicky where is he) while he (witness) was hiding inside his house. On this his father fell down while the boys were still searching for him and he (Dhoop Singh his father) shouted to him from outside to run away as these boys would otherwise kill him and on getting an opportunity due to which he escaped by jumping from the terrace but two or three of these boys saw him and followed him despite
which he managed to escape. Witness has further deposed that while his house was set on fire and was burning he saw two to three police persons watching the same and these boys were also exhorting and shouting choora ne aag lage do, dedha ne aag lago de (burn the chooras, burn the dedhas). The witness has also deposed that after these boys (assailants) burnt their houses many of them were dancing naked on the streets which he saw when he climbed on the roof in order to save himself and out of them he could recognize Sumeet S/o Satyawan and Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar. According to the witness, when the police came at about 11:30 PM while the houses were still on fire and he had come back to his house to search for his father, he found Sanjay S/o Amar Lal on the back side of his house standing with a danda in his hand shouting koi choora marya ya nahi (has any choora been killed or not). He has further deposed that his uncle Jaiveer had entered the house from the back side and saved his father and when he came back to his house after the police had come he found that his father had already been removed to his grandfather's house by his uncle Jaiveer. Witness has further deposed that Ambulance had come to the village and his father Dhoop Singh had been removed to the hospital along with Tara and his daughter Suman who were burnt to death and he did not accompanied him since there were large number of other persons who also had to be removed to the hospital. The witness has further deposed that in the month of January that is on 19.01.2011 when there was a 'J' agitation after the persons from the 'J' community sat on the railway tracks protesting. He has stated that a vehicle was brought to the village Mirchpur with a
public announcement system where five to six boys were sitting making announcements that they would ensure that there brothers who are in judicial custody are set free even if fifty more persons have to die. He has further stated that this announcement was made on two occasions since this gari/ vehicle took the round of the village twice and it was only in the afternoon that the police seized this vehicle but on account of the same the persons of the 'B' community including his family felt scared and started leaving the village and ever since they are staying at Hissar, at the Tanwar Farm House. Witness has further deposed that he did not receive any injuries but his family was given compensation for their house which was burnt. He has stated that initially they were given Rs. One lac fifteen thousand but thereafter again they received Rs. One lac. He has further deposed that police had make inquires from him and recorded his statement on one occasion. Leading questions were put by Ld. Special Prosecutor for the victims with the permission of the Court on which the witness has admitted that the police had recorded his statement on 27.06.2010 which is Ex.PW42/PX1 wherein he had given the names of Illa S/o Mahi Chand, Nanha S/o Mahi Chand, Tinku Petwar, Manjeet S/o Mahender, Joginder @ Jogar S/o Inder, Kalla S/o Umed but Kalla S/o Umed has not been apprehended by the police till date, Sunil, S/o Daya Nand Master, Manbir S/o Zile Singh, Sandeep S/o Chander Fauji, Sonu S/o Dalbir who were the persons who had come to their shop and indulged into damage (tor phor) to his property and arson. When all the accused were put to one one by one he correctly identified accused Sonu S/o Dalbir, Pardeep S/o Jaiveer, Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand, Pawan S/o Hoshiayar Singh, Sandeep S/o Chander, Sanjay S/o Daya Nand,
Dharambir @ Illa S/o Mahi Chand, Pawan S/o Ram Mehar, Daya Kishan S/o Ajeet, Balwan S/o Inder, Pardeep S/o Satbir, Rupesh S/o Tek Ram, Kuldeep S/o Balbir, Parveen S/o Jagdev, Sunil S/o Daya Nand, Jasbir S/o Raja Ram, Jitender S/o Satbir, Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar, Sanjay S/o Amar Lal, Karam Pal S/o Satbir, Pardeep S/o Balwan, Jagdish S/o Lehna Ram, Ajeet S/o Sukhbir, Kuldeep S/o Om Parkash, Sonu S/o Ramesh, Rishi S/o Satbir, Bobbal S/o Tek Ram, Joginder Singh S/o Inder Singh, Jugal S/o Hawa Singh, Ramphal S/o Prithvi, Roshan S/o Ram Swaroop, Manbir S/o Zile Singh, Deepak S/o Krishan, Satyawan S/o Rajender, Jagdish S/o Barru Ram, Sumeet S/o Satyawan, Tinku S/o Sewa Singh, Rajender S/o Pale, Pardeep S/o Suresh, Baljeet S/o Inder by pointing out towards them and also by naming them. According to the witness, Sandeep S/o Chander, Rajesh S/o Tek Ram, Hitender S/o Satbir (actual name is Jitender S/o Satbir), Kuldeep S/o Ram Mehar (actual name is Kulwinder S/o Ram Meher), Sanjay S/o Amar Lal, Karam Pal S/o Satbir, Kuldeep S/o Om Parkash, Sonu S/o Ramesh, Jogal S/o Hawa Singh, Roshan S/o Ram Swaroop, Satyawan S/o Rajender, Jagdev S/o Lehna, Jagdish S/o Barru, Pardeep S/o Satbir, were the boys who were having dandas in their hands and were hitting persons from 'B' community and also indulging into tor phor and damaged to property of the members of 'B' community. He has identified Baljeet S/o Inder as the boy who was having jellie in his hand and was running after the members of 'B' community and was hitting with the same; Sumeet S/o Satyawan as the boy who was dancing naked on the roof; Ajeet S/o Sukhbir as the person who had come to call Veer Bhan and Karan Singh on 19.04.2010
and has stated that Ajeet was present in the crowd indulging into stone pelting having gandase in his hand. He has also identified Pardeep S/o Satbir, Jasbir S/o Raja Ram as the persons who had entered into his shop committed looting of the articles in his shop and damaged the property; accused Pawan S/o Hoshiyar Singh, Balwan S/o Inder, Parveen S/o Jagdev, Karam Pal S/o Satbir, Sonu S/o Ramesh as the persons who were indulging into stone pelting and exhorting by using caste abuses and the accused Deepak S/o Kishan as the person who was having a oil container in his hand and setting the houses on fire. In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsels the witness has deposed that after two to three days of the incident he had left village Mirchpur and has explained that at that time after the incident they had gone to Hissar for a Dharna and stayed there for about one month after which they returned back to village Mirchpur. He has further deposed that during this period he had also come to Delhi for Dharna where he remained for about twenty to twenty five days but continued to reside at village Mirchpur before January, 2011. According to the witness on 21.04.2010 in the morning there were only ten to fifteen police personnels but after the incident about 50-60 police personnel's came to the village right from SP to constable. He admits that he did not tell the SP what had happened but states that he had informed other police officers but is unable to tell their rank or other details. He has also stated that no police officer made any inquiry from him about the incident on 21.04.2010 and even he did not go to any police officer to tell them what had happened and it was only after two to three days that he told the SP who had come to the village all what had happened but his statement was not recorded. Witness has also deposed
that he was on dharna at Jantar Mantra, Delhi and states that they had stayed at 'B' Bhawan, Panchukiya road where Deputy Commissioner from Hissar Sh. Yudhvir Khaliya had come to meet them. Witness has further deposed that the police did not call him to the village or to the police station or to the court or to jail after the arrest of the accused persons for purposes of their identification and he does not recollect the date when his statement was recorded for the first time and states that that it was after many days of the incident and also states that he had given the names of all the assailants whom he has now named in the court when his statement was recorded by the police. He has further deposed that the accused whom he has not identified in the court had never been named by him in his statement given to the police. According to the witness he had told the police that apart from the aforesaid persons whom he had named, there were other persons also and in case if they came before him or if he remember their names he would tell and he can identify them but when confronted with the statement Ex.PW42/PX1 this fact has not been found mention. He has admitted that all the boys whom he had identified in the court were known to him previously as they were resident of the same village and he admits that he did not name them in his statement for which the explanation given by him is that it was on account of the fact that the atmosphere in the village was very tense and he was apprehensive of the welfare of his family due to which reason he could not get all the names recorded. He has admitted that he did not tell the police that he was not giving the names of all the assailants out of fear and has denied the suggestion that he did not make any statement for almost three months since he was not present at the spot on the date of the incident and had
not witnessed anything. He has also denied the suggestion that he had falsely implicated and identified the accused in the court at the instance of Ved Pal Tanwar on account of political hostility or that he was first tutored for two to three months only after which his statement was got recorded as a matter of strategy to seek compensation and also to work out the present case due to political pressure on the investigating agency. It is evident from the cross-examination of the witness that in so far as the incident dated 19.4.2010 is concerned, his entire deposition was put to him and he was specifically asked by the Ld. Defence Counsel if whatever he has so deposed in the court was stated by him to the police in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on which the witness stated he had told the police about it but when confronted with his statement Ex.PW42/PX1 these aspects so deposed were not found to be mentioned. Further, this witness was also asked if he had told to the police about the development and happenings on 20.4.2010 as he has now deposed before the court on which he has stated that he told the police all these facts but when confronted with his statement Ex.PW42/PX1 all these facts were not found to be recorded. He was further cross-examined and asked if while getting his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded he had told the police about the incident dated 21.4.2010 in the manner in which he has deposed before the court to which the witness has stated that he had told the police about it but when confronted with his statement Ex.PW42/PX1 the facts relating to the incident where these facts relating to the incident which happened in the morning on 21.4.2010 have not been mentioned as has now been narrated before the court.
The witness has further been cross-examined with regard to his deposition made in respect of the incident dated 21.4.2010 and confronted with his earlier statement made to the police Ex.PW42/PX1 and the witness has specifically told the police that when these boys jumped and came inside his father pleaded to them with folded hands and asked them what was their fault; that Sanjay shouted to the others vickey ko dundo kare hai (find Vicky where is he) when he was hiding inside the house and his father fell down and while these boys were still searching for him, his father shouted to him from outside to run away as these boys would otherwise kill him; that on getting an opportunity he escaped by jumping from the terrace and two or three of these boys who saw him and followed him but he managed to escape; that while his house was set on fire and was burning he saw two to three police persons watching the same and these boys were also exhorting and shouting choora ne aag laga do, dheda ne aag laga de (burn the chooras, burn the dedhas); that many of these boys were dancing naked on the streets which he saw when he climbed on the roof in order to save himself and out of them he could recognize Sumeet S/o Satyawan, Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar; that when the police came at about 1-1:30 PM while the houses were still on fire he came back to his house to search for his father when he found Sanjay S/o Amar Lal on the back side of his house standing with a danda in his hand shouting koi choora marya ya nahi (has any choora been killed or not); and that his uncle Jaiveer had entered the house from the back side and saved his father and when he came back to his house after the police had come when he found that his father had been removed to his grandfather's house by his uncle Jaiveer. The witness when confronted with his statement
Ex.PW42/PX1 it was found that these facts had not been so mentioned. This witness has been further asked whether he had told the police that while these boys were still coming from Chaupal side some persons from the village from the 'J' community came to them and told them to gather at their 'B' Chaupal for a settlement; that while they were still at their 'B' Chaupal these 'J' boys who were coming from their 'J' Chaupal in the meanwhile started burning houses of the persons from the 'B' community; that they ('J' boys) also started pelting stones on them while they ('B') were still standing in the main gali and surrounded their Basti from all the four sides; that they burnt twenty to twenty five houses belonging to the members of 'B' community including the houses of Tara Chand, Sube Singh, Chander Singh, his house, the house of Gulab Singh and all three sons of Gulab Singh and it became difficult for them to save their lives. When confronted with his statement Ex.PW42/PX1 these facts were not found to have been mentioned. He was further asked if he had told the police that his father Dhoop Singh was unwell as he was suffering from respiratory problem and was alone in their house along with his mother and two nephews and when he saw what was happening he ran back to his house apprehending danger to the lives of his family members and at that time these boys were in the process of setting the house of Chander on fire which is on the corner of the main gali when he told his father to move out in view of the prevailing circumstances but as his condition was serious his father could not move. Witness has further deposed that he had also told the police that in order to save his other family members his mother and two nephews escaped from the back side of their house whereas he himself remained inside with his ailing father who could not move out and they shut the main gates but while he and
his father were hiding inside their house behind their four shops, these boys came there and he saw that the gates of their shops were broken and a large number of boys jumped inside and started setting their shops on fire. When confronted with his statement Ex.PW42/PX1 these facts were not found to be so mentioned. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was not present in the village on 21.4.2010. He has also denied that on that day when Rajender and Karampal were going to the fields in their boogie (bullock cart) they were stopped and beaten by the boys from the 'B' community on account of which the dispute got aggravated and there was stone pelting from both the sides and has voluntarily added that he had only seen the stone pelting which started later and continued for about one to one and half hours. He has also denied the suggestion that there was stone pelting from both the sides when there was a dispute between Rajender and the boys belonging to the 'B' community and has voluntarily added that there was only verbal altercation at that time which lasted for five to ten minutes. According to the witness, as per his knowledge the police had recovered some dandas and other weapons used in the incident in the house of Kulvinder and has denied the suggestion that there was no recovery of any weapon of offence because no weapon had been used in the incident. The witness has also denied that there was no incident where kerosene and petrol was used and sprinkled on houses or that fire was put on them or that the fire had accidentally spread on account of storing of inflammable material like uplas (cow dung cakes) and thansras (dried sticks) in the houses. He has admitted that no site plan was made at his instance nor he had shown the spot of incident to the police.
This witness has admitted that his father (PW39 Dhoop Singh) used to sell liquor in the village but has denied that he had been booked or arrested for sale of illicit liquor. He has also denied that he (witness) had been arrested by the police in a case of quarrel in the school and has voluntarily explained that there was an incident of quarrel wherein some of these boys belonging to the 'J' community who are also accused before this court were involved but he (witness) was inadvertently lifted by the police on mistaken identity as there was a boy of the same name involved in the said incident and therefore he was immediately left by the police. This witness has been specifically crossexamined on the incident when his brother Dilbagh had purchased a colour TV through the accused Jogal and states that since his brother Dilbagh has expired about four to five years ago he is not aware if his brother Dilbag had purchased the colour television through accused Jogal and has denied that after the death of his brother Dilbagh, Jogal had insisted upon the payment of the remaining installments of the TV due to which reason he (witness) has falsely implicated him. Witness has denied the suggestion that he improved upon his earlier statement on tutoring of the prosecution only to improve the case. Witness has denied the suggestion that he has falsely implicated the accused Sonu S/o Dalbir, Pardeep S/o Jaiveer, Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand, Pawan S/o Hoshiayar Singh, Sandeep S/o Chander, Sanjay S/o Daya Nand, Dharambir @ Illa S/o Mahi Chand, Pawan S/o Ram Mehar, Daya Kishan S/o Ajeet, Balwan S/o Inder, Pardeep S/o Satbir, Rupesh S/o Tek Ram, Kuldeep S/o Balbir, Parveen S/o Jagdev, Sunil S/o Daya Nand, Jasbir S/o Raja Ram, Jitender S/o Satbir, Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar, Sanjay S/o Amar Lal, Karam
Pal S/o Satbir, Pardeep S/o Balwan, Jagdish S/o Lehna Ram, Ajeet S/o Sukhbir, Kuldeep S/o Om Parkash, Sonu S/o Ramesh, Rishi S/o Satbir, Bobbal S/o Tek Ram, Joginder Singh S/o Inder Singh, Jugal S/o Hawa Singh, Ramphal S/o Prithvi, Roshan S/o Ram Swaroop, Manbir S/o Zile Singh, Deepak S/o Krishan, Satyawan S/o Rajender, Jagdish S/o Barru Ram, Sumeet S/o Satyawan, Tinku S/o Sewa Singh, Rajender S/o Pale, Pardeep S/o Suresh, Baljeet S/o Inder. PW43 Dilbagh Singh aged 28 years is the son of Gulab Singh (PW48) and the brother of Sanjay (PW44). He was residing at village Mirchpur along with his family comprising of his wife and two children. At the time of incident he was employed at the brick kiln of Suresh (a member of 'B' community) as a daily wager but at the time of his deposition was staying at the Farm House of Ved Pal Tanwar at Hissar. I may observe that though this witness has made a casual reference to the incident dated 19.4.2010 but it is evident from his testimony that he is not an eye witness to the said incident and was told of the same by his wife and therefore his testimony to the extent of incident dated 19.4.2010 is inadmissible in evidence being a hearsay. Further, the witness has turned partly hostile on the identity of the accused and does not support his statement made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.PW43/PX1 to this extent wherein he had named the accused Rishi S/o Satbir, Pardeep S/o Balwan, Rupesh, S/o Tek Ram, Monu and Vikash both sons of Dr. Suresh, Illa S/o Mahi Chand, Sumeet and Amit both Sons of Satyawan, Ramesh S/o Karan Singh, Soni S/o Jai Veer, Sonu S/o Pappu, Pawan S/o Ram Mehar, Vipin S/o Partap, Jasbeer S/o Ishwar, Mahesha D/o Dalip, Rajender
S/o Sandhu,Jogender @Jogar S/o Inder Singh, Dharmvir S/o Tara Chand, Suresh S/o Balbir, Sunil S/o Daya Nand, Baljeet S/o Inder, Nanha @ Rajbir S/o Mahi Chand, Dharampal S/o Sandeep, Mandeep S/o Prema, Hathi S/o Baru Ram, Kuldeep and Jaiveer both sons of Balbir, Rajender S/o Belu Ram, Rajesh S/o Dhoppa, Daya S/o Jeet Singh, Ajeet S/o Sukhbir, Joginder S/o Bhim Singh, Roshan S/o Ram Swaroop, Dalbir S/o Dalip Singh, Rajes S/o Om Parkash, Baljeet S/o Inder Singh, Pardeep S/o Ramphal, Dinesh S/o Amar Lal, Deepak S/o Ajmer, Satish S/o Ajmer, Ajay S/o Sukhbir, Vijender S/o Hoshiyar Singh, Hoshiyar Singh S/o Mangal Singh, Ajeet S/o Dalip Singh, Kulwant S/o Chander Singh, Rajender S/o Dhoopa, Ram Mehar S/o Gulab Singh, Sukhbir S/o Manphool, Satyawan S/o Tara Chand, Jaiveer S/o Manphool, Surender S/o Jagdev, Balwan S/o Dharamvir, Dinesh S/o Prem Singh, Naresh S/o Prem Singh, Viren S/o Yashpal. According to this witness, on 21.4.2010 at about 11-11:30 AM he was in the village when he saw that in the main gali a large number of persons from the 'J' community carrying stones, many of whom were dancing naked. He has deposed that these assailants started pelting stones towards the houses belonging to the 'B' community and started raising a hue and cry (shor sharaba) and surrounded the 'B' Mohalla from all the four sides after which they started burning the houses belonging to the members of 'B' community by hurling caste abuses saying jala do dheda ne (burn the dedhas) and thereafter they burnt about eighteen houses. The witness has also deposed that he along with his children and other persons from 'B' community had gathered in the middle of the mohalla to save themselves while his house which was towards the outer side was totally burnt in the said rioting. He has also
deposed that Tara Chand and his daughter Suman lost their lives when their house was burnt and he had seen two or three boys carrying the oil cans who came towards his house and set it on fire but he does not recollect their names though he can identify them by faces. He has further deposed that he did not receive any injuries but states he had received a compensation to the tune of Rs. One lac from the Government for the loss of his property. Leading questions were put to the witness by Ld. Special Prosecutor for victims with the permission of the court after which the witness admitted having told the police about the incident dated 19.4.2010 and states that he remembered that Rajpal and Bobal @ Langra, were present at the spot. In this regard I may observe that the statement of this witness with regard to the incident dated 19.4.2010 being a hearsay is inadmissible in evidence and the fact that he later saw Rajpal and Bobal @ Langra at the spot does not incriminate the said accused qua the incident dated 19.4.2010. After the witness was permitted to refresh his memory from his earlier statement made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C which is Ex.PW43/PX1 he admitted having mentioned the names of Rajender S/o Pale, Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar, Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand, Bobal @ Langra, S/o Tek Chand, Karam Veer @ Gagar S/o Tara Chand (who was throwing stones from the roofs), Ramphal S/o Prithvi but denied having given the names of Rishi S/o Satbir, Pardeep S/o Balwan, Rupesh, S/o Tek Ram, Monu and Vikash both sons of Dr. Suresh, Illa S/o Mahi Chand, Sumeet and Amit both Sons of Satyawan, Ramesh S/o Karan Singh, Soni S/o Jai Veer, Sonu S/o Pappu, Pawan S/o Ram Mehar, Vipin S/o Partap, Jasbeer S/o Ishwar, Mahesha D/o Dalip, Rajender S/o Sandhu,Jogender
@Jogar S/o Inder Singh, Dharmvir S/o Tara Chand, Suresh S/o Balbir, Sunil S/o Daya Nand, Baljeet S/o Inder, Nanha @ Rajbir S/o Mahi Chand, Dharampal S/o Sandeep, Mandeep S/o Prema, Hathi S/o Baru Ram, Kuldeep and Jaiveer both sons of Balbir, Rajender S/o Belu Ram, Rajesh S/o Dhoppa, Daya S/o Jeet Singh, Ajeet S/o Sukhbir, Joginder S/o Bhim Singh, Roshan S/o Ram Swaroop, Dalbir S/o Dalip Singh, Rajes S/o Om Parkash, Baljeet S/o Inder Singh, Pardeep S/o Ramphal, Dinesh S/o Amar Lal, Deepak S/o Ajmer, Satish S/o Ajmer, Ajay S/o Sukhbir, Vijender S/o Hoshiyar Singh, Hoshiyar Singh S/o Mangal Singh, Ajeet S/o Dalip Singh, Kulwant S/o Chander Singh, Rajender S/o Dhoopa, Ram Mehar S/o Gulab Singh, Sukhbir S/o Manphool, Satyawan S/o Tara Chand, Jaiveer S/o Manphool, Surender S/o Jagdev, Balwan S/o Dharamvir, Dinesh S/o Prem Singh, Naresh S/o Prem Singh and Viren S/o Yashpal. The witness however admitted that he had given the names of Rajender S/o Pale and Pardeep S/o Balwan who had come to his house and sprinkled kerosene oil and set it on fire and Rishi and Kulwinder set his house on fire. He has deposed that he had not pointed out the boys to the police officers who had indulged into arson rioting and burning of houses when his statement was recorded on 21.04.2010 and states that he had forgotten the names of many of the boys which he gave to the police but states that he could identify them by faces. Thereafter the accused were specifically put to the witness and he identified the accused Karamvir S/o Tara Chand, as the person who was indulging into stone pelting; accused Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand both by name and by pointing out as the boy who had broken the door of his house and set it on fire; accused Kulwinder S/o Shri Ram Mehar by name and by pointing out as the person who was quarreling and was
indulging into stone pelting; accused Rishi S/o Satbir as the person who had beaten and hit his father (Gulaba Chowkidar) with the lathies; accused Rajender S/o Pale both by name and by pointing out towards him as the person who along with Rishi had hit his father (Gulaba Chowkidar) with a lathi and accused Ramphal S/o Prithvi by pointing out towards him as the boy who was setting the houses on fire and had followed him on the roof with a gandase. Here, I may observe that at the time when Gulab Singh (Gulaba Chowkidar) was allegedly beaten by Rajender S/o Pale and Ram Phal S/o Prithvi the present witness Dilbagh was not present, a fact which is evident from the testimony of Gulab Singh (PW48) and therefore the testimony of this witness to the extent of identification of Rajender S/o Pale and Ram Phal S/o Prithvi is inadmissible. In his cross-examination by the Ld. Defence counsel the witness has deposed that he used to leave for his work at the brick kiln at about 4 AM and return home by 6 PM which brick kiln /bhatta is about one kilometer away from the village. According to him, on the date of the incident that on 21.04.2010 he had not gone for work. He has deposed that the place where he and his family had gone to save their lives is in the middle of the 'B' Mohalla and is about one qilla away from the main gali. He has admitted that there were a number of houses between the main gali and the place where they had gone to save themselves and has explained that he had gone from the back gali. He has further admitted that the main gali is not visible from the place in the middle of the 'B' Mohalla where he had gone but has denied that he gave the names in his statement on the asking of the other persons. According to this witness he had climbed on the roof of the house where he had
gone to save himself from where every thing was visible. He has also deposed that this house from where he was seeing the incident is a two storied house and at a distance of about one qilla from the main gali and there are no double storied houses between the said house and the main gali and has explained that all the houses in between are of the ground floor or single storied. He has admitted that the house of Basau is also double storied but states it is on the side and has denied the suggestion that the house of Chander is three storied or that there are other houses which are two or three storied and has explained that there were only three houses which were two storied and none of the houses in the village are three storied. PW43 has admitted that the house of Nawab is also double storied but has denied the suggestion that the houses of Basau, Chander and Nawab fall between the main gali and the house from where he was seeing the incident and has explained that all these houses are situated in another gali towards the side. The witness has further deposed that on 21.04.2010 the stone pelting continued for about one and a half hour and has admitted that the stone pelting was between the members of 'J' and 'B' communities but has stated that the members of the 'J' community had started pelting the stones first. He has however denied that stone pelting resulted because the boys belonging to the 'B' community had first caused beating to Rajender S/o Pale and Karampal S/o Satbir who were coming from their fields in the morning on their boogie through the main gali or that this beating had been given because Rajender could not distribute milk in the village which milk he used to get from Lakshay Dairy. He has however admitted that when he was interrogated by the police he did not give the specific roles which he has now attributed to them in the Court and has also stated that he had never
been called to the village or to the police station or to the court or to the jail to identify the accused after their arrest. The witness has also admitted that none of the accused were arrested in his presence but has denied that he had wrongly and falsely named Rajender S/o Pale, Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar, Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand, Bobal @ Langra, S/o Tek Chand, Karam Veer @ Gagar S/o Tara Chand, Ramphal S/o Prithvi or that these boys were not present at the spot. He has further denied that he has wrongly identified Karamvir S/o Tara Chand, Rajpal S/o Seho Chand, Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar, Rishi S/o Satbir, Rajender S/o Pale and Ramphal S/o Prithvi in the court on asking of the prosecution and tutoring or that he has falsely stated that Rajender S/o Pale and Pardeep S/o Balwan who had come to his house and sprinkled kerosene oil and set it on fire and Rishi and Kulwinder set his house on fire. He has further denied that his father (Gulab Singh) did not receive any injuries or that his medical was conducted only to secure a compensation or that the fire caused to his house was accidental on account of storage of inflammable material in the house in the form of cow dung cakes and dried sticks. The witness has denied that he had been tutored by advocates while he was at Lampur before this deposition in the court or at Ved Pal Tanwar Farm House on account of political motives. I may further observe that this witness was recalled suo moto by the Court and examined on the aspect of the statement made by him before Hon'ble Justice Mr. Iqbal Singh (retired) Inquiry Commission, Mirchpur, Haryana wherein he admitted having appeared before Justice Iqbal Singh (retired) Inquiry Commission, Mirchpur on 21.1.2011 and his examination as VW-28 which statement is bearing his
thumb impressions at point A which he identified. After the court read over his deposition made by the witness before the Commission on 21.1.2011 in vernacular he admitted a part of this statement. Initially the witness stated that he did not depose before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Iqbal Singh (Retd.) Commission of Inquiry (Mirchpur), Haryana that on 19.4.2010 he was not present in the village and returned in the evening of 20.4.2010 and also did not tell the commission that he had not seen anybody putting the fire on the houses and the house of Tara Chand was 400 yards away from where he was present or that he was 400 Yards away from his house when his house was burnt and states that he also did not tell the Commission that he does not know the total number of houses in the village or that there were 150 houses belonging to the members of 'B' community or that nobody assaulted him nor he assaulted anybody and that no complaint was lodged by him against any person nor any complaint was lodged against him but on being confronted by his statement made before the Hon'ble Commission which is Ex.DW30/C where it was found that the witness had mentioned all these things which he was now denying in the court, he thereafter admitted the same and has explained that he was not given proper opportunity before the Inquiry Commission and though he wanted to explain and give the names but in the while the proceedings had been wound up for the day. PW44 Sanjay aged 29 years is the son of Gulab Singh (PW48) and the brother of Dilbagh (PW43) was residing in village Mirchpur along with his family comprises of his wife and four children i.e. two sons and two daughters but at the time of his examination was residing at Ved Pal Tanwar Farm House at Hissar. He is a daily wages labour and is totally illiterate and before the incident was working with
the persons from the 'J' community as a Mason. Though this witness has deposed about the incident date 19.4.2010 but perusal of his testimony shows that he is not a witness to this incident but in his cross-examination he has testified that he came to know about it in the evening from the villagers. Therefore under these circumstances the testimony of Sanjay is inadmissible in so far as the incident dated 19.4.2010 is concerned being a hearsay. According to the witness on 20.04.2010 there was a meeting amongst the persons from the 'J' community in the village and they decided that they would do mar pitai with the members of 'B' community. Thereafter on 21.04.2010 at about 9 AM he had gone for doing some work in the house of one Brahmin in the village and while he was still working there, he came to know that his father Gulab Singh had been injured. On receipt of this information he immediately came back to his house which is situated in the 'B' Basti towards the kacchi sarak where he saw his father lying on a khat/charpai and he had been beaten on his arms, knees and back with lathies and he could see the injuries. Outside there was a lot of hue and cry (halla) in the main gali where a large number of persons from the 'J' community numbering about three hundred to four hundred were standing in groups and were shouting maro, jala do, (beat, burn them). He has deposed that these persons were abusing using names of maa and bebe and they came from the front side and started pelting stones and burning houses belonging to the members of 'B' community and about eighteen to nineteen houses belonging to the members of 'B' community were burnt by them. He has further deposed that his small children were inside his house at the time when his house was set on fire and were hiding under the bed when the
house was set on fire and when the rioters went away after setting his house fire they ran out to save themselves. Witness has further deposed that he came to know that Tara Chand and his daughter Suman both lost their lives when their house were set on fire and the police came after about two hours. According to the witness, he had seen a large number of the assailants who were also indulging into rioting, arson, looting and beating whom he can identify by faces and states that he remembers having seen Rajender S/o Pale, Bobal and Ramphal. Witness has further deposed that his wife had sustained injuries in the stone pelting but her medical had not conducted since they were very much perplexed at the time of the incident. He has stated that he received a compensation to the tune of Rs. One lac twelve thousand for the damage caused to his property caused on account of the fire. He has also deposed that when the rioters set his house on fire he was standing outside his house and he could identify Rajender and Bobal amongst others whose he can identify after seeing their faces. On the leading questions put to him by Ld. Special Prosecutor for the victims after due permission from the court, the witness has admitted that on 21.04.2010 the police had come to the village and interrogated him and also recorded his statement wherein he had given the names of large number of boys whom he had seen and also recognized as assailants during the incident. He has admitted that he told the police in his statement Ex.PW44/PX1 that Rajender, S/o Pale, Rishi S/o Satbir, Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar, Monu S/o Dr. Suresh, Vikas S/o Dr. Suresh, Illa S/o Mahi Chand, Ramphal @ Petla S/o Prithvi along with other boys of the 'J' community had come to 'B' Basti and indulged into stone pelting and caused injuries to the large number of
persons from the 'B' community and set a lot of houses on fire after damaging the property and thereafter burnt the house of Tara Chand but has stated that he does not recollect if he had given the names of Pardeep S/o Balwan, Nanha S/o Mahi Chand, Dalbeer S/o Dalip, Hoshiyar S/o Mangal, Satyawan S/o Tara Chand, Rajender S/o Dhupe, Jaiveer S/o Manphool, Ajeet S/o Sukhbir, Ram Mehar S/o Gulab, Roshan S/o Ram Swaroop, Deepak S/o Ajmer, Dinesh S/o Amar Lal, Satish S/o Ajmer, Kulwant S/o Chander Singh, Viren S/o Yashpal, Krishan S/o Karan Singh, Naresh S/o Prem Singh, Ajeet S/o Dalip, Rupesh S/o Tek Ram, Ghagar S/o Tara Chand and Karampal S/o Satbir. Witness Sanjay has also admitted having told the police that Karampal S/o Satbir, Nanha S/o Mahi Chand and Baljeet S/o Inder had sprinkled oil on his house while Rupesh S/o Tek Ram, Pardeep S/o Balwan, Ghagar S/o Tara Chand and Ramphal S/o Prithvi had set his house on fire with a match stick and has voluntarily explained that since the incident was more than one year old therefore he had forgotten the names which he had given to the police. After the accused were put to the witness one by one he correctly identified accused Dharambir @ Illa S/o Mahi Chand by pointing out and by name as the person who was indulging into stone pelting and beating by dandas; accused Rishi S/o Satbir both by name and by pointing out as the person who was indulging into stone pelting and beating with dandas; accused Kulwinder by pointing out towards him as the son of Ram Mehar as the person who was carrying a oil can and sprinkling oil on his house; accused Ram Phal S/o Prithvi Singh both by name and by pointing out towards him as the person who was sprinkling oil and was setting his house on fire; accused Pardeep by calling him son of Satbir by pointing out as the person who was carrying
the gandase and had damaged his container of anaj/grains with the same and the accused Dalbir @ Bobbal S/o Tek Ram by pointing out and by name as the person who was the root cause of all the dispute and had damaged his property inside the house and thereafter set the house on fire. Initially he was unable to identify Rajender S/o Pale and Monu S/o Dr. Suresh despite the fact that the accused Rajender and Monu were specifically put to him but when shown to him again, he then identified Rajender S/o Pale both by name and by pointing out towards him as the person who had set his house and other houses on fire and had also beaten his father and also accused Monu S/o Dr. Suresh both by name and by pointing out towards him as the boy who was indulging into stone pelting and had has jellies in his hand and was indulging into rioting and arson. Witness Sanjay has also deposed that his wife is handicapped and is running a shop of ladies items and he destroyed the entire shop. During his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsels the witness has deposed that on the date of incident i.e. 21.04.2010 he was doing the work of mason/chennai at the house of Sadhu Brahmin whose house is on the main road that is approximately about one kilometer from the main gali. He has however denied that the house of Sadhu is about one and a half to two kilometers from the main gali. According to the witness, he was working as a labour/ mazdoor and had left his house in the morning at about 7-7:30 AM but explains that he had received this information regarding his father at about 9-9:30 AM and reached his house within ten to fifteen minutes where he found his father lying on a cot out side the house which was at a distance of hardly ten feet from his
house.
He admits that he did not take his father to the hospital
immediately and has explained that they had given him home treatment by mixing turmeric powder in milk. According to him, police was already present in the village when the jhagra/ dispute was going on and at that time there were hardly fifteen to twenty police personnel's in the village and after the incident when most of the houses had been burnt more police force that is about fifty to sixty police personnel's came. He does not recollect who had informed him about his father's injury but says that it was some body from the village who had come and given him the information when he rushed home. He has denied the suggestion that the entire incident of arson, looting and setting the houses on fire had already been completed by the time he reached back home to attend to his father. Further, in his cross-examination this witness when asked whether he had told the police that on 20.04.2010 there was a meeting amongst the persons from the 'J' community in the village and they decided that they would do mar pitai with the members of 'B' community, admitted having told the police of the same but when confronted with his statement Ex.PW44/PX1 this fact was not found to be so mentioned. He was also asked whether he had told the police that on 21.04.2010 at about 9 AM he had gone for doing some work in the house of one Brahmin of the village and while he was still working, he came to know that his father Gulab Singh was injured and he had also told them that on receipt of this information he immediately came to his house which is situated in the 'B' Basti towards the kacchi sarak and he saw his father lying on a khat/charpai as he had been beaten on his arms, knees and back with lathies and he could see the injuries on which he
admitted having told the police of the same. However, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW44/PX1 these facts were not found so mentioned. He has further admitted having told the police that there was a lot of hue and cry in the main gali where a large number of persons from the 'J' community numbering about three hundred to four hundred were standing in groups and were shouting maro, jalo do, (beat, burn them) they were abusing using names of maa and bebe; that these boys came from the front side and started pelting stones and burning houses belonging to the members of 'B' community and about 18-19 houses belonging to the members of 'B' community were burnt by them; that his small children were inside his house at the time his house was set on fire and they were hiding under the bed when the house was set on fire and after the rioters went away on setting fire to the house they ran out to save themselves and that his wife was handicapped and was running a small shop of ladies items which was damaged and burnt by the assailants. However, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW44/PX1 wherein these facts were not found to be so recorded in the detailed manner as deposed by the witness in the court. Further, in his cross-examination the witness Sanjay has stated that the stone pelting occurred between the persons of the 'J' community and the 'B' community which continued for about two and a half to three hours and has explained that it was the persons belonging to 'J' community who had started the aggression while the members of the 'B' community only retaliated. Witness has denied the suggestion that the stone pelting and dispute arose when the boys belonging to the 'B' community stopped Rajender S/o Pale and Karam Pal S/o Satbir and beat
them up when they were going to their fields in the morning on 21.04.2010 because Rajender could not distribute milk in the village on 20.04.2010 and states that there was no such incident. He has denied the suggestion that none of the accused named by him in the court had gone near the 'B' Basti or that the members of the 'B' community were the first aggressors and it was only to create a defence that a few mischievous boys from the 'B' community set the kaccha houses of the members of 'B' community on fire which fire then spread and could not be controlled. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was not present at the time of the incident since he was away to his work and he did not witnesses the incident himself. Witness admits that he was never called by the police after the arrest of the accused to identify them either at the police station or the court or the jail but has denied that Rajender, S/o Pale, Rishi S/o Satbir, Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar, Monu S/o Dr. Suresh, Dharambir @Illa S/o Mahi Chand, Ramphal @ Petla S/o Prithvi, Dalbir @ Bobal S/o Tek Ram, KaramPal S/o Satbir, Nanha S/o Mahi Chand, Baljeet S/o Inder, Rupesh S/o Tek Ram, Pardeep S/o Balwan and Gagar S/o Tara Chand have been named by him at the instance and tutoring of Ved Pal Tanwar at the Tanwar Farm House where he is staying and also by the Prosecutors at Lampur where he was housed before his deposition. According to the witness his father Gulab Singh was taken to the hospital by the ambulance first at Narnaund and then at Hissar hospital for treatment by the police but he did not accompany him. Witness has denied the suggestion that since he was not present at the spot and so he did not accompany his father. He has further deposed that he had informed the police about the roles of the various assailants whom he had identified as deposed by him and has denied the suggestion
that no such details were given by him as he was not an witness to the incident. This witness was also suo moto recalled by the Court for further/ additional examination on the aspect of affidavit filed by him and the statement made by him before Hon'ble Justice Mr. Iqbal Singh (retired) Inquiry Commission, Mirchpur, Haryana wherein he admitted having gone to Hissar to depose before Hon'ble Justice Mr. Iqbal Singh (retired) Inquiry Commission, Mirchpur, Haryana. He also admitted his affidavit Ex.DW30/A bearing his signatures at point A1 and A2 and his statement/deposition Ex.DW30/B bearing his signatures at point B1. When the contents of the affidavit Ex.DW30/A was read over he admitted that he had stated in his affidavit that in his affidavit he has stated that Mrs. Sarita Devi, NGOs of Hon'ble Supreme Court and some NGO's had come to their village and were trying to put undue influence on the members of the 'B' community by offering them money and other considerations for their own interest for reasons best known to them but denies having mentioned that all differences have come to an end and there was no tension between both the communities nor any fear of life and liberty of any person in the village or that there was total peace and tranquility in the village and they had started living together. However when confronted with para 5 of his affidavit Ex.DW30/A from point X to X1 this fact had been so mentioned. He was also confronted with his statement Ex.DW30/B and I may observe that he only admitted a part of his statement made before the Hon'ble Commission of Inquiry. He further admitted having told the Commission that he had received Rs. One lac twelve thousand as compensation and also wheat and that District Administration had provided them interim relief and that his
household articles worth Rs. Two lacs have damaged when the expert committee had visited the village to assess the loss. He has further deposed what so ever he had deposed before this court was the same as what he had told Hon'ble Mr. Justice Iqbal Singh (Retd.) Commission of Inquiry (Mirchpur), Haryana and has denied that whatever he had stated before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Iqbal Singh (Retd.) Commission of Inquiry (Mirchpur), Haryana is different to his deposition before this court and after being told that his statement before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Iqbal Singh (Retd.) Commission of Inquiry (Mirchpur), Haryana was different, he stated that he was under pressure from persons from his own community due to which reason he made a wrong statement before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Iqbal Singh (Retd.) Commission of Inquiry (Mirchpur), Haryana. PW45 Manoj aged 27 years is the son of Mahender and at the time of incident was residing at village Mirchpur along with his family comprises of his mother, two brothers, his wife and three children that is one son and two daughters. He is a mason by profession and before the incident was working on daily wages. At the time of his deposition he was residing at Ved Pal Tanwar Farm House at Hissar. At the very outset I may observe that in so far as the incident dated 19.4.2010 is concerned, this witness has in his testimony made a reference with regard to the same but when examined in detail, he has explained that he only witnessed the incident when Veer Bhan and Karan Singh were injured and he came out of his house which is in front of the house of Karan Singh and was told about the incident. This proves that at the time when the actual incident regarding the quarrel between the 'J' boys and the nephew of Karan Singh took place the witness was not present in view of which the deposition of this witness on the aspect
of the incident of quarrel dated 19.4.2010 and what transpired in front of the house of Karan Singh is inadmissible in evidence since this witness came to know of the incident only after Veer Bhan and Karan Singh were injured and they told him what had happened. However, Karan Singh (DW13) himself not having supported the version given by this witness and Veer Bhan being dropped by the prosecution, his testimony with regard to the initial incident is inadmissible in evidence. According to the witness on 20.04.2010 the panchyat of the village had intervened and tried to settle the disputes. However, on 21.04.2010 at about 10AM around two hundred fifty to three hundred boys belonging to the 'J' community duly armed with jellies and gandases came to their ('B') Basti in the main gali and started pelting stones and there was a hue and cry (rolla danga) and then stone pelting (patharbaji) which continued for a long time. The witness has further deposed that there was also a physical altercation (mar pitai) after which the assailants started burning houses while twenty to twenty five policemen from Haryana Police were standing there. According to him, first his house was burnt by these boys of the 'J' community amongst whom he saw Rajender S/o Pale, Satyawan and his son and one more boy whose name he is unable tell but whom he could recognize, who all had come and sprinkled kerosene oil on his house and burnt the same. The witness has further deposed that his children were still inside the house at that time but they manage to escape and fled towards the basti. According to him, the assailants thereafter burnt the houses of Satyawan, his brother Rajender, Suresh, Sube Singh, Tara Chand, Mahender, Gulaba, Dilbagh, Sanjay, Chander, Ramphal, Pappu, Jagpal @ Pale, Kuldeep S/o Raja Ram, Dhoopa and Sanjay S/o Bane Singh all 'B' and a
large number of persons from the 'B' community also received injuries in the stone pelting whereas Tara Chand and his daughter Suman lost their lives when their houses were burnt. He has also deposed that their properties were damaged and looted but many of the assailants managed to escape by going towards the middle of the basti. He has deposed that apart from the above boys whom he had seen at his house he had also seen Kulwinder, Pawan, Daya, Jogal, amongst many other boys whom he could identify by faces whose names he could not recollect. He has also deposed that he did not receive any injury but he had received compensation for a sum of Rs. One lac from the Government for damage to his property. According to him, the stone pelting, arson and looting continued till about 1:00 PM and when the police came thereafter in two to three buses many of the houses had already got burnt down but they started apprehending the assailants though a large number of boys fled the village. Witness has proved that the police had also come to him and made inquiries when he gave them the details of whatever damage had been done to his property and states that he also got his statement recorded on the same day of the incident (21.04.2010) but was never called thereafter for any inquiry. With the permission of the court leading questions were put by Ld. Special Public Prosecutor on which the witness admitted his statement dated 21.04.2010 which is Ex.PW45/PX1 but was not very sure if his statement Ex.PW45/PX2 was also recorded on 27.06.2010 and has voluntarily added that so far as he recollects he was only interrogated on 27.06.2010 on the aspect of the damage to the motorcycle belonging to his brother-in-law and the persons responsible for the same but he is not sure whether he has stated was also recorded.
He has admitted having mentioned to the Investigating Officer that on 19.04.2010 it was Rajender S/o Pale who was passing through the main gali who had a dispute with the son of Karan Singh and also admits having told the police that Bobal @ Langra, S/o Tek Ram, Ramphal S/o Prithvi, Daya S/o Jeet Singh, Satyawan S/o Tara Chand, had come armed with lathies, to the 'B' Basti and indulged into stone throwing and causing injuries to the persons from the 'B' community with lathies but has denied having told the police that Rajender S/o Sandhu, Jogender S/o Bhim Singh, Ghagar S/o Tara Chand, Dharamvir S/o Tara Chand, Suresh S/o Dalbir, Sunil S/o Daya Nand, Baljeet S/o Inder, Nanha S/o Mahi Chand, Karampal S/o Satbir, Mandeep S/o Prema, Hathi S/o Baru Ram, Kuldeep and Jaiveer both sons of Balbir, Rajender S/o Bellu Ram, Rajesh S/o Dhupa, Ajeet S/o Sukhbir, Ajay S/o Sukhbir, Vijender S/o Hoshiyar Singh, Hoshiyar Singh S/o Mangal, Ajeet S/o Dalip Singh, Kulwant S/o Prem Chand Singh, Rajender S/o Dhupa, Ram Mehar S/o Gulab Singh, Sukhbir S/o Manphool, Jaiveer S/o Manphool, Surender S/o Jagdev, Balwan S/o Dharamvir, Dinesh S/o Prem Singh, Naresh S/o Prem Singh, Viren S/o Yashpal also accompanied them. He has further admitted having told the police that Rajender and Bobal @ Langra had sprinkled kerosene oil on his house but has denied having told the Investigating Officer that Jogender was also with them while they were sprinkling kerosene oil or that thereafter Karam Veer and Suresh had set his house on fire with a match stick. He has also denied having told the police on 27.06.2010 vide Ex.PW45/PX2 that Rajesh S/o Dhoopa had come to his house along with Sumeet S/o Satta and fifty to hundred persons including ladies and looted his house and has voluntarily added that he had only given the
name of Sumeet S/o Satta who had come to his house. He has further admitted having told the police that it was Sumeet S/o Satta and Satta S/o Karan Singh who had set the motorcycle belonging to Sunil S/o Brij Bhan (a members of the 'B' community) who is his brother-in-law on fire but has denied having named Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand as the person who had burnt the motorcycle. He has also denied having shown the assailants to the police in the village after his statement was recorded and has explained that he had only given the names which he remembered. He has denied the suggestion that since he is not remembering the remaining names he is unable to give their names in the court due to lapse of time. This witness has also identified the burnt motorcycle which is Ex.P-1 and its photographs which are Ex.PW3/A64, Ex.PW3/A106 and Ex.PW3/A107 which photographs and motorcycle are not disputed by the Ld. Counsel fro the accused. After the accused were put to the witness one by one he could only identify the accused Amit S/o Satyawan as the person who was indulging into arson and burning of houses; accused Sumeet S/o Satyawan as the person who had set his house on fire; accused Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar as the person who broke the door of his house and entered the same and damaged his property and conducted robbery (loot mar); accused Ramphal S/o Prithvi as the person who had set his house on fire and also broke the motorcycle of his brother-in-law and burnt the same; accused Dharamvir @ Bobal S/o Tek Ram as the person who was present along with the other boys when his house was set on fire; accused Pawan S/o Ram Mehar as the person who is his neighbour who was present at the spot but did not stop the others from his setting his house on fire and has stated that it was Pawan who sprinkled kerosene oil
on his house. He has also identified the accused Satyawan S/o Karan Singh as the person who was having a gandase in his hand and damaged his trunks (petties), almirahs and other property; accused Daya S/o Ajeet as the person who was present along with the other to set his house on fire and accused Rajender S/o Pale as the main accused at whose instance the entire incident had taken place and states that it was Rajender who was in front of the crowd and leading them while others were following him while the houses were being set on fire. Thereafter when the accused were again put to the witness one by one he identified accused Rishi S/o Satbir, Dalbir S/o Tara Chand, Satish S/o Randhir Singh, Pawan S/o Rajbir, Deepak S/o Krishan Kumar, Baljeet S/o Inder, Karamvir S/o Tara Chand, Pardeep S/o Suresh, Pardeep S/o Satbir, Kuldeep S/o Om Parkash, Roshan S/o Ram Swaroop, Jugal S/o Hawa Singh, Sanjay S/o Daya Nand, Karampal S/o Satbir by pointing out towards them and not by name as the boys who were a part of the crowd indulging into stone pelting, arson and burning of other houses in the 'B' Basti. In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsels the witness has admitted that his in-laws stay at village Rodal Tehsil Narwana district Jind but has denied the suggestion that he had gone to his in-laws house on 19.04.2010 and has voluntarily added that he had gone to his in-laws house after the incident dated 21.04.2010. He has also denied the suggestion that it was on 21.4.2010 that he came back from his in-law's house at district Jind where his brother in law Sunil is a daily wages labour and has further denied that he had come back to his village on motorcycle of his brother in law and it is for this reason that when the rioting took place the motorcycle was present at his house and
has denied the suggestion that he had come back with his brother in law on his motorcycle on 21.04.2010 and is not an eye witness to the incident dated 19.4.2010 and has voluntarily added that he was already present in his house on 21.4.2010 when his brother in law had come. According to the witness, he had given the names of Rishi S/o Satbir, Dalbir S/o Tara Chand, Satish S/o Randhir Singh, Pawan S/o Rajbir, Deepak S/o Krishan Kumar, Baljeet S/o Inder, Karamvir S/o Tara Chand, Pardeep S/o Suresh, Pardeep S/o Satbir, Kuldeep S/o Om Parkash, Roshan S/o Ram Swaroop, Jugal S/o Hawa Singh, Sanjay S/o Daya Nand, Karampal S/o Satbir whom he has now identified in the court and the only explanation given by him in this regard is that he was never called by the police to the police station or the court or to jail for purposes of identifying the accused after their arrest. He has also admitted that even on 27.06.2010 he was not asked to identify the other boys involved in the incident whom he has identified in the court. The witness has further stated that even he did not ask the police if they had arrested or apprehended some assailants or that they should show the accused to him and has voluntarily added that on 27.06.2010 he only told them about the incident connected with burning of the motorcycle. According to the witness he had gone to his in-laws house after two to three days of the incident where he stayed and returned to the village only after three to four months. He has further deposed that his mother and younger brother had gone to his sister's house. He has admitted that during this two to three days of his stay in the village after the incident a large number of police officers were present but he did not tell the senior police officers or any other officers that he could identify the other assailants whose names he had not given in his statement made to them
on 21.4.2010. Witness has denied the suggestion that on 20.04.2010 Rajender S/o Pale who used to distribute milk in the village could not distribute the same in the 'B' Basti and the boys from the 'B' community being aggrieved by the same stopped Rajender and Karam Pal on 21.04.2010 while they were passing through the main gali in the morning for going to the fields or that Rajender and Karam Pal were beaten by the boys belonging to 'B' community and the matters got aggravated as a result of which there was stone pelting from both the sides. Witness has further denied the suggestion that some mischievous persons from the 'B' community taking advantage of the situation set the kacha houses of some of the members of 'B' community on fire where they had stored inflammable material like cow dung cakes (uplas) and dried sticks (thansras) which fire then spread to the neighbouring houses. Witness has further denied the suggestion that he has been tutored by Ved Pal Tanwar and the prosecution into taking the names of the accused whom he has now named in the court who have no concern either with the incident or with the burning of his house. He has also denied that the accused as named and identified in the court did not come to the place of the incident armed with jellies, gandases, stones, kerosene oil nor they had any concern with the rioting/arson, stone pelting which happened in the village. The witness has admitted that none of the accused PW46 Rajesh aged 30 years son of Dalipa @ Bhambu is a resident of village Mirchpur and is a daily wager. His family comprises of his wife and one son. I may observe that this witness has not supported the case of the prosecution on the aspect of incident dated 19.4.2010 and says that he came to know about it later. He further states
apprehended by police on 21.04.2010.
that he came to know later from the village that there was a meeting of the persons from the 'J' community on 20.4.2010 and therefore his deposition being on the basis of hearsay is inadmissible in evidence. Further, in respect of the incident dated 21.4.2010 he has admitted having made a statement to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW46/PX1 but has turned hostile on the identity of the accused except the accused Ramphal and Rajender S/o Pale. According to the witness, on 21.4.2010 he was in the fields when his wife who had came with food for him told him about the dispute (jhagra) which was happening in the village and on coming to know of it he came back to the village where he found that there was fire to a number of houses and damage (thor phor) had taken place. He also found persons from the 'J' community numbering about 500-600 carrying bricks, gandases, jellies pelting stones on the houses of the members of 'B' community and setting them on fire. On seeing this he climbed the roof of the house of Veer Bhan to save himself from where he saw the aggressors. According to him, he could see Ramphal and the son of Pale (accused Rajender) from the roof but could not identify the other boys. He has deposed that on seeing this he rushed to his house where his paralytic mother who is partially blind was lying and saw that damage (tora phori) had been done at his house and his mother informed him that the aggressors were trying to enter the house after breaking the gate but she pleaded to them and therefore the boys spared the house from burning but committed damage (tora phori). The witness has further deposed that the police came at about 12 to 1 noon and by that time the aggressors had run away but made inquiries from him on which he had given his statement. He has also deposed that he received a brick
injury on his foot and his medical examination was conduct after about five to six days. He has stated that the houses of Mahender, Rajender, Manoj, Tara, Gulaba, Sanjay, Pale and Dhoopa were burnt wherein Tara and his daughter Suman were burnt to death and the properties were destroyed in the fire. According to the witness, he does not remember what statement he had given to the police since it is more than one year old incident therefore he was permitted to refresh his memory after which the Special Public Prosecutor for the victims was permitted by the court to put leading questions to him wherein he stated that he is not sure if his statement was also recorded on 26.4.2010 but admits his statement dated 21.04.2010 which is Ex.PW46/PX1. He has admitted having told the police in his statement dated 21.4.2010 regarding the incident dated 19.4.2010 and also that he told the police the name of Rajender S/o Pale. He has however denied having given the names of Rishi S/o Satbir, Pardep S/o Balwan, Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar, Rupesh S/o Tek Ram, Monu and Vikas both sons of Dr. Suresh, Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand, Illa S/o Mahi Chand, Sumeet and Amit both sons of Satyawan, Ramesh S/o Karan Singh, Soni S/o Jai Veer, Sonu S/o Pappu, Pawan S/o Ram Mehar, Vipin S/o Partap, Jasbeer S/o Ishwar, Mahesha S/o Dalipa, Rajender S/o Sandhu, Jogender S/o Bhim Singh, Roshan S/o Ram swaroop, Dalbir S/o Dalip Singh, Rajesh S/o Om Parkash, Balwan S/o Inder Singh, Pardeep S/o Ram Phal, Dinesh S/o Aamar Lal, Deepak and Satish both S/o Ajmer, Ajay S/o Sukhbir, Bijender S/o Hoshiyar Singh, Hoshiyar Singh S/o Mangla, Dalbir, S/o Dalip, Jaiveer S/o Manphool, Surender S/o Jagde, Balwan S/o Dharamvir and has also denied having told the Investigating Officer that Dalbir S/o Dalip, Jaiveer S/o
Manphool, Surender S/o Jagdev, Balwan S/o Dharamvir and other boys belonging to the 'J' community got together and entered his house and damaged his property. He has also denied having told the police on 26.04.2010 that he had given the names of Ram Mehar S/o Gulab and Dinesh S/o Amar Lal by mistake as the persons who had come to his house to set it on fire. He has been declared hostile only on the aspect of identity of the accused mentioned in the statement Ex.PW46/PX1 and has denied being present in the village when his house was burnt and having personally seen the accused whose names have been mentioned in Ex.PW46/PX1 and has denied that he has been won over by the accused and their families for which reason he is not giving their names or identifying them. He has further deposed that he cannot identify any of the accused even if they are shown to him since there was a big crowd and a lot of hue and cry (rolla). In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsels, he has denied the suggestion that he was not present in the village at the time of the incident dated 21.4.2010 as he was working in the fields and came to know about the incident only in the evening. Witness has denied the suggestion that since he was not present in the village he never received any injuries nor his medical examination was conducted despite the fact that the medical team was present in the village. He has also denied the suggestion that he did not suffer any physical injury or damage to the property and it is for this reason that he was not given any compensation. He has denied having taken the name of Rajender and Ramphal on the basis of hearsay as told to him by the villagers. PW47 Satyawan aged 32 years is the son of Roshan Lal and was a resident of village Mirchpur at the time of the incident. He
was a daily wager working in the fields of persons from the 'J' community and on the date of his deposition was staying at Ved Pal Tanwar Farm House with his family comprising of his mother, younger brother, wife and two children whereas his mother was residing at Jind. He is educated till class 8th and his wife was previously employed at government college Jind but at the time of his deposition had left the job. According to this witness on 19.04.2010 Rajender S/o Pale and four to five other boys were passing in front of the house of Karan Singh situated in the main gali at about 9-9:30 PM in an intoxicated state when the she-dog belonging to the brother of Karan Singh namely Jai Parkash started barking at them on which the boys got irritated and threw a brick at her which entered in the house of Karan Singh to which his nephew Yogesh the son of Jai Parkash objected which was followed by an altercation (hatha pai) between Rajender S/o Pale and Yogesh and other persons came and separated them. Witness has further deposed that Karan Singh thereafter apologized to Rajender S/o Pale with folded hands so that the matter could be sorted out. After some time one person came and told Karan Singh that he was being called at the house of Rajender S/o Pale as there was a panchyat on the incident on which Karan Singh and Veer Bhan went to the spot but they were both beaten. According to the witness, at that time they were all standing in the main gali and came to know about the hue and cry on which they went to the spot and save Karan Singh and Veer Bhan and brought them back. Witness has further deposed that Veer Bhan had sustained a lot of injuries and was unconscious at that time but Karan Singh was still conscious though he had also sustained injuries and therefore they immediately shifted them first to Narnaund hospital but since the doctors
referred them to a bigger hospital therefore they were then taken to government hospital Hissar. Witness has further deposed that they were taken to the hospital by Ramesh S/o Mange Ram, since Veer Bhan was more serious therefore he was then shifted to Jindal hospital, Hissar. Thereafter on 20.04.2010 the 'J' Panchayat met in the village and it was decided that the matter should be compromised in the village and on account of the same Veer Bhan was brought back from the hospital after getting him discharged and Karan Singh also came back with him. On 21.04.2010 at about 7AM the panchayat of the village came to the house of Veer Bhan and asked him to compromise the dispute to which Veer Bhan agreed but while the panchayat members were still sitting at the house of Veer Bhan, Gulab Singh the chowkidar of the village who had gone to collect milk and lassi was beaten by Rajender S/o Pale and the other boys from the 'J' community but he had some how managed to come back to the 'B' Basti and told the persons residing in the 'B' Basti as to what had happened with him and told them that these boys had started gathering in the village in large numbers. According to the witness, on this they also got together and made a call to the Narnaund police station and informed them about Gulab Singh had told them and also requested the SHO to come to the spot as they apprehended that the matters could get aggravated. He has deposed that initially the SHO only sent four to five police personnel's to the village. However, in the meanwhile at about 9 AM a large number of persons from the 'J' community gathered and came towards the 'B' Basti. Initially they were about 100-150 persons which number later on swelled to about 300-400 on which he again called up the SHO from his mobile and told him that the matters would going out of hand and that a large number of boys from the 'J'
community had gathered and had come to the 'B' Mohalla. He also requested the SHO to come to the village personally on which the SHO that is the accused Vinod Kajal then came to the village along with one gypsy when he along with the officials who had come with him and also other police personnel's who were already present in the village went to these boys. After some time accused Vinod Kajal (SHO) came back and told them that there would be no problem as he has suitable advised these boys and told them that they should all go to their Chaupal whereas he asked the members of 'B' community to collect at their Chaupal and that he (Vinod Kajal) would get a compromise affected between them. According to the witness, on this all the males of the village belonging to the 'B' community went to the 'B' Chaupal but in the meanwhile these persons from the 'J' community who had collected in the village surrounded the 'B' Mohalla and suddenly they heard the cries of their ladies informing them that the mohalla had been surrounded by the members of 'J' community. On this they all ran from the Chaupal and found that the entire mohalla had been surrounded by these persons from the 'J' community who were throwing stones and while he (witness) was coming out from the 'B' Chaupal, he told the SHO (accused Vinod Kajal) SHO sahab ye kya kara diya (SHO Sahab what have you got done) on which the SHO (accused Vinod Kajal) told him mein kya karo bhai (what can I do brother) on which he (witness) again told him ki apne to hame marva diya (you have got us cornered) on which the accused Vinod Kajal (SHO) told him mein ke karo, jessi bhaga Jata ho to bhag ley (what can I do, if you can run away then run). According to the witness, they all pleaded with the SHO and police officials present there to save them but they (police personnel's) started running away from the
village from the kaccha rasta going towards Rakhi village and the SHO (accused Vinod Kajal) said jab mera hi bachna muskil hai to tumhe kya bachau (when it is difficult to save myself how can I save you) after which he also ran away from the village. The witness has further deposed that in order to save themselves they ('B') also started throwing stones and there was stone pelting from both the sides and thereafter these boys started (assailants from the 'J' community) started setting the houses belonging to the members of 'B' community on fire. They first set the house of Sanjay S/o Satpal situated on the main road on fire which he saw because he had climbed the roof of the house of Jaswant in order to save himself from where all this was visible. Thereafter, they went to the house of Tara Chand where Tara Chand and his daughter Suman lost their lives in a fire and in the meanwhile the smoke filled the galies/ streets and came to the place where he was standing (i.e. on the roof of the house of Jaswant) on which he came down and went inside his house to save himself where his small children were also present. Witness has further deposed that from his telephone he called up Sh. Subhash Yadav the Superintendent of Police Hissar and could directly speak to him on which he told him (the Superintendent of Police) about the incident and also told him that 'B' Mohalla had been surrounded by the persons belonging to 'J' community who were setting the houses of the members of 'B' community on fire and pleaded him to save them on which the Superintendent of Police Hissar promised to come to the spot and help them. He has further deposed that Sh. Subash Yadav the Superintendent of Police, Hissar could reach the spot at about 12:30-12:45 PM but by that time these boys had already inflicted injuries to large number of persons with the help of
jellies, lathies etc and also indulged into robbery (loot pat), rioting, arson and burning of houses belonging to the members of 'B' community. He has further deposed that some of these boys also started dancing naked by removing their clothes and when the Superintendent of Police Sh. Subhash Yadav came to the spot about fourteen to fifteen persons of 'B' community including his family members were standing on the roof of the house of Chander which was a two storied house and had been put on fire. According to the witness, the ground floor was already on fire and the smoke was reaching the top floor and it was Sh. Subhash Yadav the Superintendent of Police who saved the lives of those persons or else everybody would have been charred to death. He has further deposed that a large number of police officers had come along with the Superintendent of Police Hissar and he (Sh. Subhash Yadav the Superintendent of Police Hissar) apprehended a large number of these boys at the spot itself who were assailants and were moving about in the village along with jellies and gandases. He has testified that it was only after the police had come to the spot that they all came out from their houses and found that a large number of houses had been set on fire and the fire brigade was present and to drowsing the same. According to the witness, he had seen the accused Rajender S/o Pale, Ram Phal @ Petla and Bobal @ Langra when they had set the houses of Sanjay and Tara Chand on fire and though initially he stated could identify other boys by faces but later on denied and stated that he could not identity the other boys because thereafter he has gone inside his house. In fact when he was examined by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor he admitted having made a statement to the police on 21.4.2010 which is Ex.PW47/PX1 but denied that he had given the names of Rishi S/o Satbir, Pardeep S/o
Balwan,Rupesh S/o Tek Ram, Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar, Monu and Vikas both Sons of Dr. Suresh, Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand, Illa S/o Mahi Chand, Sumeet and Amit both sons of Satyawan, Ramesh S/o Karan Singh, Soni S/o Jai Veer, Sonu S/o Pappu, Pawan S/o Ram Mehar, Vipin S/o Partap, Mahesha S/o Dalip, Rajender S/o Sandhu, Jogender Jogar, S/o Inder, Ghagar S/o Tara Chand, Dharamvir S/o Tara Chand, Suresh S/o Balbir, Sunil S/o Daya Nand, Hathi S/o Balu Ram, Rajender S/o Belu Ram, Rajesh S/o Dhoopa and Daya S/o Jeet Singh stating that he did not give any names to the police and the police had recorded of its own. He also denied having told the police that Roshan S/o Ram Swaroop, Karamvir S/o Tara Chand, Dalbir S/o Dalipa and Vijender S/o Hoshyiar and other boys had come to their house and indulged into damaging the property (tor phor). The witness has stated that he was interrogated on 21.04.2010 itself which interrogation according to him continued for a number of days during which period DSP Hansi used to come and take his statement. He has further deposed that though he was aware that his statement was being recorded but he used to say something and the police used to record something else. He has further deposed that his house was also damaged on account of the damage (tor phor) done by these boys but states that they all escaped unhurt. He has admitted having received a compensation to the tune of Rupees Fifteen thousand on one occasion and Rupees Ten thousand on another occasion. In his his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsels the witness has deposed that he does not recollect the name of the police officer who had recorded his statement on 21.04.2010 but has voluntarily added that DSP was present at the time when his statement was recorded
and also states that a large number of senior officers were present including the Deputy Commissioner but he cannot tell their ranks. He has stated that he went to Tanwar Farm only on 22.12.2010 but has denied having deposed after being tutored by Ved Pal Tanwar or by the prosecutors and counsels at Lampur where he had stayed prior to his deposition in the court. In his cross-examination he has been asked if he had told the investigating officer that the boys whom were passing in front of the house of Karan Singh were intoxicated to which he admitted but when confronted with his statement Ex.PW47/PX1 where this fact was not found specifically mentioned. He has been specifically questioned if he had told the Investigating Officer that Yogesh son of Jai Parkash and nephew of Karan Singh came out and there was an altercation between Rajender S/o Pale and Yogesh followed by physical altercation (hatha pai) when other persons also came and separated them; that Karan Singh had apologized to Rajender S/o Pale with folded hands so that the matter could be sorted out and after some time some body came and told Karan Singh that he was called at the house of Rajender S/o Pale as there was a panchyat on the incident and that Karan Singh and Veer Bhan went to the spot but they were both beaten, which the witness has admitted having told the Investigating Officer. However, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW47/PX1 the said facts were not found recorded in the manner in which the witness has deposed in the court. The witness further in his cross-examination has admitted having told the Investigating Officer that at that time he along with the others were standing in the main gali and they came to know that Karan
Singh and Veer Bhan were beaten when there was a hue and cry and they all went to the spot to save them and brought them (Veer Bhan and Karan Singh) back and they saw that Veer Bhan had sustained a lot of injuries and was unconscious at that time though Karan Singh was still conscious despite having sustained injuries on which they immediately shifted them to the hospital; that the injured were first taken to Narnaund hospital but since the doctors referred them to a bigger hospital after which they were taken to government hospital Hissar by Ramesh S/o Mange Ram and since Veer Bhan was more serious he was then shifted to Jindal hospital, Hissar. However, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW47/PX1 the above facts were not found so mentioned. The witness also admitted having told the Investigating Officer that on 20.04.2010 the 'J' Panchayat met in the village and it was decided that the matter should be compromised in the village on account of which Veer Bhan was brought back from the hospital after getting him discharged and Karan Singh also came back with him. However, when confronted with his statement Ex.PW47/PX1 the said facts were not found so mentioned. This witness has also admitted having told the Investigating Officer that on 21.04.2010 at about 7AM the panchayat of the village came to the house of Veer Bhan and asked him to compromise the disputes to which Veer Bhan agreed and while the panchayat members were still sitting at the house of Veer Bhan, Gulab Singh the chowkidar of the village who had gone to collect milk and lassi was beaten by Rajender S/o Pale and the other boys from the 'J' community but he (Gulab Singh) had some how managed to come back to the 'B' Basti and informed the persons residing in the 'B' Basti as to what had happened
with him and also informed them that these boys had started gathering in the village in large numbers on which they ('B') also got together and made a call to the Narnaund police station and informed them what was told to them by Gulab Singh and also requested the SHO (accused Vinod Kajal) to come to the spot as they apprehended that the matters could get aggravated but initially the SHO only sent four to five police personnel's to the village and in the meanwhile at about 9 AM when a large number of persons from the 'J' community gathered and were coming towards the 'B' Basti that he again called up the SHO (accused Vinod Kajal) from his mobile and told him that the matters were going out of hand and that a large number of boys from the 'J' community had gathered and come to the 'B' Mohalla and that he (accused Vinod Kajal) should come to the village personally on which SHO (accused Vinod Kajal) then came to the village along with one gypsy. He has also stated that he told the Investigating Officer that the SHO (accused Vinod Kajal) along with the police personnel's who had come with him and other police officials who were already present in the village went to these boys ('J' boys) and after some time he (SHO Vinod Kajal) came back and told them that there would be no problem as he had suitably advised these boys and told them that they should all go to their Chaupal ('J' Chaupal) whereas he (SHO) asked the members of 'B' community to collect at their Chaupal ('B' Chaupal) and told him that he (Vinod Kajal) would get a compromise affected between them; that on this all the males of the village belonging to the 'B' community went to the 'B' Chaupal but in the meanwhile these persons from the 'J' community who had collected in the village surrounded the 'B' Mohalla and suddenly they heard the cries of their ladies informing them that the mohalla had been surrounded by the
persons from 'J' community; that on this they all ran from the Chaupal and found that the entire mohalla had been surrounded by these persons from the 'J' community who were throwing stones and while he (witness) was coming out from the 'B' Chaupal, he told the SHO (accused Vinod Kajal) SHO sahab ye kya kara diya (SHO Sahab what have you got done) on which the SHO (accused Vinod Kajal) told him mein kya karo bhai (what can I do, brother) on which he (witness) again told him ki apne to hame marva diya (you have got us cornered) on which the accused Vinod Kajal (SHO) told him mein ke karo, jessi bhaga Jata ho to bhag ley (what can I do, if you can run away then run) and that they all pleaded with the SHO and police officials present there to save them but they (police personnel's) started running away from the village from the kaccha rasta going towards Rakhi village and the SHO (accused Vinod Kajal) said jab mera hi bachna muskil hai to tumhe kya bachau (when it is difficult to save myself how can I save you) after which he also ran away from the village. However, the witness when confronted with his statement Ex.PW47/PX1 all the said facts were not found so recorded. Witness Satyawan has admitted that the house of Karan Singh is situated in main gali and that his (witness) house is situated in the bye-lane which starts from main gali. He has further admitted that the house of Tara Chand is situated in the second gali and has voluntarily added that it is in the next gali from his house. The witness has also admitted that the houses of Karan Singh, Tara Chand and Sanjay are at a distance from his house but states that on 21.04.2010 he had witnessed the incident from the roof and on 19.04.2010 he was present at the spot when the entire incident and talk of apology took place. He has denied
the suggestion that he was not present at the spot on 19.04.2010 and has deposed on the basis of what was told to him by the villagers. According to him, the person who had come to call Karan Singh and Veer Bhan did not tell the names of the persons present in the Panchayat who had called them. He is unable to tell the time when the said person had come but states there was a hue and cry in the area and the said person came after about half an hour of the quarrel. The witness has further testified that the house of Rajender S/o Pale is hardly ten to fifteen houses away from the house of Karan Singh and states that he did not go along with them. According to him, they were standing in the gali when they heard the hue and cry coming from the side of house of Rajender when they came to know that something had happened. He has denied the suggestion that no such incident had happened as above due to which reason he did not mention about the same to the Investigating Officer when his statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. was recorded. He has however admitted that he did not go along with the injured to the hospital but he knew where they were been taken because he was in constant touch with the one son of Veer Bhan namely Sandeep who was present in the village and was on constant touch with his brother on mobile phone. The witness has further deposed that Rajender S/o Pale is having a milk dairy and previously he was having a Parchoon Shop and STD booth and prior to the date of incident he used to distribute milk in the village but has denied the suggestion that on 20.04.2010 Rajender did not distribute milk in the village and has voluntarily added that Rajender never distributed milk rather they used to go and purchase from him but after the dispute on 19.04.2010 they did not take milk from Rajender on 20.04.2011. According to the witness, Gulaba did not go to the shop of
Rajender to take milk and states that Gulaba was a sweeper in the Chaupal who used to do Chowkidari in the village and had gone to other persons in the village to fetch milk and lassi. Witness has further deposed that the stone pelting continued for about two to three hours on 21.04.2010 but has denied the suggestion that they ('B') were the aggressors and started stone pelting or that some kaccha houses belonging to the members of 'B' community where cow dung cakes (Uplas)and dried sticks (thansras) were lying stored, were set on fire by some mischievous boys belonging to 'B' community which fire spread and could not be controlled. The witness Satyawan has further deposed that his mobile telephone number was 9813587925 but he did not call the police on 19.4.2010 or 20.04.2010 and has denied that he did not inform the police regarding the incident of 19.04.2010 or 20.04.2010 on telephone because he had no personal knowledge of the said incidents. According to him, the telephone number of the Police Station Narnaund was 0166233222 but he does not recollect the number of the then Superintendent of Police, Hissar Sh. Subhash Yadav. He has admitted that the Superintendent of Police, Hissar had also interrogated him along with other boys of 'B' community but he did not tell the Superintendent of Police, Hissar that on 19.04.2010 Deepak, Satish, Pradeep of village Mirchpur and Tinkoo of village Petwar were passing through the main gali when the she-dog of Jai Prakash caught hold of the pant of Deepak and in order to free himself, Deepak gave a chappal blow. He has denied the suggestion that Rajender S/o Pale, Ramphal @ Petla and Bobal @ Langra were not involved in the incident of 19.04.2010 or 21.04.2010 and he had falsely implicated them. The witness has further
denied that he did not call the SHO from his mobile phone or spoke to him or that SHO Vinod Kajal came to the village much later with his force after having come to know of the incident and not in the morning as claimed by him. He has also denied that the SHO did not ask them to collect at the 'B' Chaupal stating that he was going to get a settlement effected since there was no occasion for him to do so or that the SHO and his force did not run away from the village. The witness has also denied the suggestion that he had improved upon his earlier version given to the investigating officer on the tutoring of Ved Pal Tanwar and the prosecution only to substantiate the version of the investigating agency. PW48 Gulaba aged 70 years son of Jai Lal is the father of Dilbagh Singh (PW43) and Sanjay (PW44) and is a resident of Village Mirchpur. At the time of the incident he was working as a Chowkidar in the village and had three sons namely Sunil, Sanjay and Dilbagh (who all are residing separately) and three daughters all of whom are married. At the very outset I may observe that this witness has not deposed anything about the incident dated 19.4.2010 and 20.4.2010 though in his statement Ex.PW48/PX1 he had made a reference to the alleged incidents. Further, he has also not completely supported his statement made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.PW48/PX1 wherein he had named the accused Pratap S/o Balwan, Kuldeep S/o Ram Mehar, Rupesh S/o Tek Ram, Monu and Vikas both sons of Dr. Suresh, Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand, Sumit and Amit both S/o Satyawan, Ramesh S/o Karan Singh, Soni S/o Jaibir, Sonu S/o Pappu, Pawan S/o Ram Mehar, Vipin S/o Pratap, Jasbir S/o Ishwar, Mahesha S/o Dalipa, Wife of Dilbagh driver (who is working
in the roadways), Rajender S/o Sandhu, Jogender @ Jogar S/o Inder Singh, Ghaggar S/o Tara Chand, Dharamvir S/o Tara Chand, Suresh S/o Balbir, Sunil S/o Dayanand, Nanha S/o Mai Chand, Manbir S/o Prema, Hathi S/o Baru Ram, Kuldeep S/o Balbir, Jaibir S/o Balbir, Rajinder S/o Billu and Dhupa S/o Mange. According to the witness on 21.4.2010 at about 8.00AM he was coming back to his house which is on the main road and in one hand he was having his walking stick while in the other hand he was carrying the lassi when he saw the wife of Satbir (a member of 'J' community) having an oil can (container) in her hand and when he went ahead he found an oil container in the hand of wife of Kapoora and when he came ahead and reached the house of Rajender S/o Pale he found Rajender S/o Pale, Karampal S/o Satbir, Ramphal S/o Prithvi along with ten to fifteen other boys standing there unarmed at that time. When he passed Rajender S/o Pale caught hold of his collar while Karampal snatched his Lathi/ walking stick and hit him on his back and when he fell down Ramphal hit him on his head after which he was lifted by the persons from the Mohalla and taken to his house and put on a cot/charpai. After about one to one and a half hours of his coming back to his house, he heard the cries of Phook do dedhan ne, Chooraya ne phoonk do (burn the dedhan, burn the chooras). The witness has further deposed that his house is on the main road from where he had seen a large number of persons who may be more than four hundred to five hundred belonging to the 'J' community both from the village and the outsiders called by them ('J') most of whom appeared to have been called from outside colleges etc. who suddenly came and started setting the houses belonging to the members of 'B' community on fire. According to the witness, the
assailants came to his house and burnt the same and all his household articles were burnt whereas his wife who was present in the house at that time sustained injuries on her head on account of stone pelting and in order to save their grand children she ran away with them and went to the other house of his cousin brother in the neighbourhood. According to him, the medical examination of his wife was not conducted since she had been taken by his daughter to her house at village Dablain, TehsilNarvana after the incident. He has further deposed in the said incident houses of Tara were burnt where he and his daughter Suman lost their lives and also the houses of Chander, Rajmal, Ramphal, Jagpal, Dhupa were burnt and the assailants also indulged into arson, rioting, dancing naked after removing their clothes, damage (tor-phor). The witness has further deposed that he had seen these boys carrying gandases, iron rods, Jellies, Rodas (stones and bricks) which they were throwing at the 'B' and states that he can identify the assailants from their faces since they are all from the same village and he is not in a position to identify them by names. According to him, when his house was burnt there was also looting and Rs.20,000/- cash which was kept in the house could not be found apart from his two gold rings and three tabeez. Witness has further deposed that he was taken to the hospital in an ambulance on 21.04.2010 and his medical was conducted. According to him, they first went to Narnaund Hospital and thereafter he was referred to Hissar Hospital. He has duly proved his MLR which is Ex.PW48/A bearing his thumb impression at point A. In his deposition the witness has also stated that he had seen Rajender S/o Pale, Karampal S/o Satbir and Ramhpal @ Petla S/o Prithvi as persons who had come to his house along with the container (Peepi) of oil and set his house on fire and it
was the accused Rajender who had set the house on fire whereas Ramphal and Karampal had sprinkled oil in his house. Witness has further deposed that while he was admitted in Hissar Hospital his statement was recorded by the police which was after three to four days of the incident. With the permission of the court leading questions were put to the witness by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor for the victims wherein he has admitted that his statement might have been recorded by the police on 23.04.2010 but states that it was recorded while he was admitted in hospital at Hissar. According to him, he had not informed the Investigating Officer about the incident of 19.04.2010 and has stated that he was not present at the spot since his house is away from the house of Karan Singh and he was at his house at that time but he had heard about this incident. Witness has denied the suggestion that he had told the investigating officer the details of the incident dated 19.04.2010. Confronted with the statement Ex.PW48/PX-1 from point X to X-1 where the incident is mentioned but has admitted having told the investigating officer that the tension in the village was increasing and therefore Karan Singh and Veer Bhan were got discharged from the hospital and on the way back to the village they informed the SHO of the incident after which five to seven police personnel's also came to the village but he did not tell the Investigating Officer that these police officers had advised and pacified the parties. He has admitted having told the investigating officer that he could identify Rishi S/o Satbir, Illa S/o Mai Chand, Bobal @ Langra S/o Teka, Baljeet S/o Inder, Daya S/o Jeet Singh from the crowd and that he had given the name of wife of Pale and wife of Kapoora since he had seen them with the containers of
oil but he had not given their name as one of the assailants since she had gone away after giving the container to these boys. Witness has denied the suggestion that he had also given the names of Pratap S/o Balwan, Kuldeep S/o Ram Mehar, Rupesh S/o Tek Ram, Monu and Vikas both sons of Dr. Suresh, Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand, Sumit and Amit both S/o Satyawan, Ramesh S/o Karan Singh, Soni S/o Jaibir, sonu S/o Papu, Pawan S/o Ram Mehar, Vipin S/o Pratap, Jasbir S/o Ishwar, Mahesha S/o Dalipa, Wife of Dilbagh driver (who is working in the roadways), Rajender S/o Sandhu, Jogender @ Jogar S/o Inder Singh, Ghaggar S/o Tara Chand, Dharamvir S/o Tara Chand, Suresh S/o Balbir, Sunil S/o Dayanand, Nanha S/o Mai Chand, Manbir S/o Prema, Hathi S/o Baru ram, Kuldeep S/o Balbir, Jaibir S/o Balbir, Rajinder S/o Billu, Dhupa S/o Mange. When all the accused were specifically put to the witness he identified the accused Karampal S/o Satbir, Rishi S/o Satbir, Rajender S/o Pale, Daya S/o Ajit, Dharambir @ Illa S/o Mai Chand, Baljeet S/o Inder, Ramphal S/o Prithi Singh and Bobal @ Langra S/o Teka and also identified the accused Pradeep S/o Satbir, Balwan S/o Inder, Manbir S/o Jile Singh, Sunil S/o Daya Nand, Nasib S/o Prem Singh by pointing towards them as the persons who were indulging into arson, burning of houses, stone throwing and rioting. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel the witness has deposed that he had told the Investigating Officer in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that on 21th April 2010, at about 8.00 AM, he was coming back to the village when in one hand he was having his walking stick and in the other hand he was carrying the lassi and he was coming back to his house which is on the main road when he saw that
wife of Satbir (a member of 'J' community) was having an oil can (container) in her hand when he went ahead he found an oil Peepi (container) in the hand of wife of Kapoora; that when he came ahead and reached the house of Rajender S/o Pale he found Rajender S/o Pale, Karampal S/o Satbir, Ramphal S/o Prithvi along with ten to fifteen other boys who were standing there; that Rajender S/o Pale caught hold of his collar, Karampal snatched his Lathee/ walking stick and hit him on his back on which he fell down Ramphal hit him on his head and that thereafter he was lifted from there by persons from the Mohalla and taken to his house and put on a cot/charpai and after about one to one and a half hours of his coming back to his house, he heard the cries of Phook do dedhan ne, Chooraya ne phoonk do (burn the dedhas, burn the chooras). However, when confronted with the statement Ex.PW48/PX1 all the above facts were not found so mentioned. According to the witness, he had also told the Investigating Officer that the boys who had come were all from the 'J' community and a large number of other outsiders have also been called by them but he cannot tell they were from which caste and that they appeared to have been called from outside colleges etc. and they suddenly came and started setting the houses belonging to the members of 'B' community on fire. However, when confronted with the statement Ex.PW48/PX1 the said facts were not found so mentioned. The witness has further deposed that on 21.4.2010 senior officers of the police had also reached the spot including the Superintendent of Police Hissar and has voluntarily added that Inspector General of Police came later but they did not make any interrogation from him since he was taken for medical examination on that day. He
has denied that he was interrogated by the Superintendent of Police on 21.4.2011 in the presence of Inspector General of Police but he did not make any statement to them since he was not aware of the incident and it was later on 23.4.2010 that he gave the statement on tutoring after fabrication. He has also denied that he has no personal knowledge of the incident and it was for this reason that his statement was not recorded on 21.4.2010 or that he had deposed on the basis of tutoring by his counsels, Prosecutor and Ved Pal Tanwar in whose farmhouse he was residing at Hissar. The witness has further denied that on 21.4.2010 he had gone to the house of Rajender S/o Pale to fetch milk which he did not get as he (Rajender) did not get the supply as a result of which he (witness) went back to the village and told the boys of 'B' community regarding the same or that being aggrieved by the same Rajender S/o Pale and Karampal S/o Satbir who were going to the fields in boogie were stopped by young boys of 'B' community who gave them a beating and the matter got aggravated as a result of which there was stone pelting from both the sides. The witness has further denied the suggestion that some mischievous boys from the 'B' community set the kaccha houses of the members of 'B' community where cow dunk cakes (uplas) and died sticks (thansras) were lying stored on fire which fire thereafter spread to the neighbouring houses and could not be controlled. According to him, the stone pelting started at about 9 AM and continued till about 11/11:30 AM but has denied that stone pelting continued from both the sides and even the 'B' indulged into stone pelting. He has denied the suggestion that the accused Karampal S/o Satbir, Rishi S/o Satbir, Rajender S/o Pale, Daya S/o Ajit, Dharambir @ Illa S/o Mai Chand, Baljeet S/o
Inder, Ramphal S/o Prithi Singh and Bobal @ Langra S/o Teka, Pradeep S/o Satbir, Balwan S/o Inder, Manbir S/o Jile Singh, Sunil S/o Daya Nand, Nasib S/o Prem Singh were not present at the spot on 21.4.2010 and he had deliberately taken their names to falsely implicate them. Witness has denied the suggestion that he had deposing falsely only to strengthen the case of the prosecution. PW49 Pardeep aged 20 years is the son of deceased Tara Chand and was a resident of village Mirchpur at the time of the incident. He is the son of Smt. Kamla (PW50) and step brother of Amar Lal who has been examined as CW1. At the time of his deposition in the court he was working as a Clerk in the SDM Office, Hissar which job was given by the government after the incident when his father and sister were burnt alive and prior to this he was studying in the first year at government college Jind. He has a family comprising of his mother and three brothers out of whom one brother is married. Before proceeding to examine the testimony of this witness on merits, I may observe that in his testimony the witness Pradeep has specifically identified the accused Vipin as one of the assailants but during the recording of the evidence the name of his father has been shown as Ishwar and not Joginder which is an inadvertent error since Vipin S/o Ishwar being a juvenile is facing trial before the Juvenile Court and is not facing trail before this court. There is only one accused with the name Vipin who is facing trial before this court who is the son of Joginder and therefore the witness Pradeep having specifically identified him in the court by pointing out towards him there is no place for any doubt and the statement of the witness Pradeep in respect of accused Vipin has to be read as such (i.e. as son of Joginder and not son of
Ishwar). This discrepancy was noticed at the time of final arguments and the Ld. Defence counsel has fairly conceded to the error which was accordingly corrected. According to him, on 19.04.2010 at about 5-6 PM there was a dispute in the village between Yogesh S/o Jai Pal (a member of the 'B' community) nephew of Karan Singh and Rajender S/o Pale (a member of 'J' community) on a she-dog belonging to Karan Singh during which Rajender S/o Pale, Karam Pal S/o Satbir, Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar, Rishi S/o Satbir along with other 'J' boys had a physical altercation (hata pai) with Yogesh but after some time these boys went away. He has deposed that thereafter persons from the 'J' community had a meeting on 19.04.2010 in the village to the effect that they would teach a lesson to the members of the 'B' community/ chooras. He has further deposed that on 20.04.2010 Karan Singh and Veer Bhan went to the persons from the 'J' community to settle and compromise the dispute and seek pardon for whatever had happened but they were injured and had to be hospitalized. Thereafter the persons from the 'J' community got together and had a meeting and after the meeting collected at water diggi where they consumed alcohol and thereafter passed through the main gali of the village while abusing the 'B' while they were in an intoxicated condition. He has further deposed that on 21.04.2010 at about 8 AM Gulab Singh chowkidar who is a member of 'B' community was beaten by the boys from the 'J' community when he was passing through the village and at about 8-9AM large number of boys and persons belonging to the 'J' community collected and came towards the 'B' Basti and attacked the 'B' and started pelting stones on them. He has further deposed that in order to ward off
the attack some of the 'B' also retaliated by throwing stones and while the stone pelting was going on, the police officials from Police Station Narnaund came to the spot when he saw the SHO that is the accused Vinod Kajal who had come with the police force was mixing up with the members of 'J' community and thereafter he (witness) saw him going towards these boys from the 'J' community who had collected in the village and talking to them. Thereafter the accused Vinod Kajal came towards the 'B' and asked them to collect at the Chaupal stating that he would get a compromise effected in respect of the dispute between both the communities. On this some of the persons from the 'B' community went to their Chaupal but in the meanwhile the persons from the 'J' community surrounded the 'B' Basti from all the four sides and attacked the 'B' with jellies, gandases and lathies and also started burning the houses of the members of 'B' community while simultaneously indulging into stone pelting. Thereafter they came towards his house and set his house on fire. According to the witness, his sister Suman who was handicapped by one leg was inside the house and his father was also inside the house. On hearing the noise his father Tara Chand and sister Suman came out but the assailants from the 'J' community who were also accompanied by the ladies of the same community sprinkled petrol on them and set them on fire and pushed them inside the house. The witness has stated that at that time he was standing in the gali near the house and when he tried to save them stones were thrown on him as a result of which he could not go ahead to save them. Witness has further deposed that after some time the ladies of the 'J' community went away and his father Tara Chand who was still alive at that time rushed out of their house and entered the house of their neighbour Dewan Singh S/o
Muthra in a burnt condition while his sister was burnt to death inside their house. Witness has further deposed that some of these boys from the 'J' community also removed their clothes and started dancing naked in front of ladies belonging to the 'B' who were standing in the gali and abused them. He has further deposed that Superintendent of Police, Hissar Subash Yadav came to the village while the stone pelting, arson, rioting was still going on in the village and on seeing him these boys from the 'J' community ran away. Fire brigades also came to the village to drowse the fire. According to the witness, amongst the houses put on fire by the assailants there were houses belonging to Satyawan, Rajender, Manoj, Bani Singh, Chander, Jagpal, Dhoop Singh and many more and states that amongst the assailants he had seen Rajender S/o Pale, Pawan S/o Ram Mehar, Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar, Vipin S/o Joginder, Suresh S/o Balbir, Vikas S/o Suresh, Monu S/o Suresh, Dharambir S/o Tara, Gagar S/o Tara, Rishi S/o Satbir, Karampal S/o Satbir, Ramphal @ Petla, Rinku S/o Daya Nand, Pardeep S/o Jaiveer, Monu @ Sumeet S/o Daya Nand, Sumeet and Amit both sons of Satyawan, Vikas S/o Sunehra and many more boys whose names he does not recollect but he can identify them by faces. He has also stated that there were some ladies also who were involved with these boys in the incident amongst whom was the wife of Pale, wife of Pappu, wife of Satyawan who had come to his house and set it on fire and were a part of the crowd who were indulging into arson and rioting. The witness has further deposed that all the articles lying in their house were completely burnt including the motorbike which was in the bethak and the handicapped rickshaw of his deceased sister. He has also stated that the assailants also committed robbery (loot pat) in their
house and all the other houses which were burnt and nothing remained. According to him, on account of loosing his sister and father he had lost his senses on the date of the incident and therefore was interrogated after the date of the incident when he told the police about the details. With the permission of the court leading questions were put by the Ld. Special Prosecutor for the victims wherein the witness has denied that Karan Singh and Veer Bhan had received injuries on 19.04.2010 after which they had to be hospitalized and has voluntarily added that both of them had gone to settle the disputes and seek pardon from the persons from the 'J' community when they were beaten. Witness has admitted that on 21.04.2010 the police had seized the burnt motorcycle and the handicapped rickshaw of his sister but he does not recollect if he was interrogated. He has however proved the seizure memo of the motorcycle which is Ex.PW49/A and the seizure memo of rickshaw and also the ashes which is Ex.PW49/B dated 21.04.2010 and has admitted his signatures at point A but does not recollect when his signatures were taken. He also does not recollect if his statement Ex.PW49/PX1 was recorded by the police on 21.04.2010 wherein he had given the names of many other assailants apart from the one he had named in the court . After the witness was permitted to refresh his memory with regard to his statements dated 21.04.2010, 27.06.2010 and 27.07.2010 which he did by reading the statements himself being educated, he has denied having made the statement Ex.PW49/PX1 dated 21.4.2010 and also Ex.PW49/PX2 dated 27.07.2010 but admits having made the statement dated 27.06.2010 Ex.PW49/PX3. He has duly identified the burnt motorcycle which is Ex.P2 and the handicapped rickshaw along
with the ashes (in polythene bags) which is Ex.P3 collectively. Further, when all the accused were put to the witness one by one he has identified the accused Sonu S/o Ramesh by pointing out towards him but whose name he was unable to tell; accused Pardeep S/o Jagbir, Pardeep S/o Suresh Kumar, Dharamvir @ Dalbir S/o Dalip Singh, Jogender S/o Inder Singh, Naveen @ Tina S/o Rajbir by name and also by pointing out apart from the accused Rajender S/o Pale, Pawan S/o Ram Mehar, Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar, Vipin S/o Joginder, Suresh S/o Balbir, Vikas S/o Suresh, Monu S/o Suresh, Dharambir S/o Tara, Gagar S/o Tara, Rishi S/o Satbir, Karampal S/o Satbir, Ramphal @ Petla, Rinku S/o Daya Nand, Pardeep S/o Jaiveer, Monu @ Sumeet S/o Daya Nand, Sumeet and Amit both sons of Satyawan and Vikas S/o Sunehra who had been named by him. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel the witness has deposed that police did not come to the village on the day when the dispute on the she-dog took place on 19.04.2010 and for the first time the police came to the village on 20.04.2010 after Karan Singh and Veer Bhan had been injured but he is unable to tell the time nor is he aware how many persons had come from the police station and states that he was at home at that time. He has further deposed that he did not come to know that police had come to the village and states that he only knew that Karan Singh and Veer Bhan were the injured. Witness has further deposed that he had seen the police on 21.04.2010 when the rioting was still going on and at the time when his house was set on fire and his father and sister were burnt, police was not present at the spot and has voluntarily added that the police officers who were present had run away from the village. He has further deposed that he had told the police
personnel's standing in the village that the atmosphere of the village was getting worse but there was no hearing and further states that he did not make any call to the senior police officers when he saw that atmosphere in the village getting worse. According to the witness, he did not go to the police station when the incident was taking place and the matters were getting worse and voluntarily states that he could not do anything to save his father since the assailants had come in large numbers and were armed with petrol, stones, jellies and were hitting out at them with stones. He has also deposed that he did not receive any injury and has denied that he was not present at the spot due to which reason he did not receive any injury and did not attempt to save his father and sister. The witness has further deposed that the Superintendent of Police, Hissar had come at the time when the house of Chander was put on fire and there were people inside and states that it was the Superintendent of Police, Hissar who saved these persons or else they would have been burnt. He is unable to tell the designation of the officers senior to the Superintendent of Police, Hissar who had come to the spot and states initially Superintendent of Police, Hissar had come with about twenty to twenty five persons but later more police personnel's came to the village but he is unable to give their number. He has also deposed that Superintendent of Police, Hissar had caught a large number of persons but has voluntarily added that many boys were released later but he is unable to tell the number of assailants who were apprehended by the police at the spot and also how many police officials ran after the assailants. The witness has denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot at that time and has voluntarily added that he had seen his father reaching the house of his neighbour in half burnt condition and
when his sister was removed from his house in a burnt condition, he was in the house of his neighbour at that time. Further, when cross-examined as to whether he had told the investigating officer that SHO Vinod Kajal had asked the 'B' to collect at the Chaupal after he had spoken to the boys from the 'J' community on the pretext of getting a settlement effected, he has stated that he does not recollect the same. According to the witness his brother Amar Lal had accompanied his father and sister but has denied the suggestion that he did not accompany them because he was not present at the spot and offered an explanation for the same stating that the condition of his mother (Smt. Kamla PW50) was very bad and he had to stay back with her. He has further deposed that he did not take his mother to the hospital and has stated that she had become unconscious on seeing the condition of his father and sister. According to the witness, he knew Tara Chand S/o Swaroop Singh, Dilbagh S/o Gulab, Sanjay S/o Bani Singh, Ram Niwas and Ram Phal both sons of Rajmal, Subey Singh S/o Bhura Ram, Rajender and Manoj both sons of Mahender, Jagpal S/o Beer Singh, Dhup Singh S/o Ratnu, Gulab S/o Jai Lal, Chander S/o Laxman, Satyawan S/o Bhale Ram, Sanjay S/o Gulab, Sanjay S/o Satpal, Dilbagh S/o Sube Singh who all belonged the 'B' community. He has denied the suggestion that he along with the above persons told the Superintendent of Police in the presence of the IG Hissar that on 19.04.2010 there was a dispute between the persons of the 'B' community and 'J' community over a she-dog and on 20.04.2010 Rajender S/o Pale who has a shop where he distributes milk could not distribute milk since he did not get the supply and therefore being aggrieved by the same some of the boys of 'B' community stopped Rajender and Karam Pal on 21.04.2010 when
they were going to their fields in their boogie. The witness has also denied that they all including the persons from other communities told the Superintendent of Police that Rajender and Karampal were beaten by boys belonging to 'B' community and the matter got aggravated as a result of which there was stone pelting from both the sides. According to him, the stone pelting went on for about one to one and a half hour. Witness has denied that some mischievous boys from 'B' community set the kaccha houses of the members of 'B' community where cow dung cakes (Uplas) and dried sticks (thansras) were stored on fire which fire then spread in the neighbouring houses and could not be controlled. According to him, at that time of incident he was a first year student at government college Jind and had given his last exam on 18.04.2010. He has further denied that on 21.04.2010 he had given his papers in the college and was not present at the spot and has voluntarily added that his exams finished on 18.04.2010 on which day he had his History paper. The witness has denied the suggestion that he was in Jind on 21.04.2010 and started for his house only after receiving information of the burning of his house and the incident with his father and sister or that he has deposed falsely in the court only to support and strengthen the case of the prosecution. Witness has denied the suggestion that he has falsely implicated and named Sonu S/o Ramesh, Pardeep S/o Jagbir, Pardeep S/o Suresh Kumar, Dharamvir @ Dalbir S/o Dalip Singh, Jogender S/o Inder Singh, Naveen @ Tina S/o Rajbir, Rajender S/o Pale, Pawan S/o Ram Mehar, Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar, Vipin S/o Joginder, Suresh S/o Balbir, Vikas S/o Suresh, Monu S/o Suresh, Dharambir S/o Tara, Gagar S/o Tara, Rishi S/o Satbir, Karampal S/o Satbir, Ramphal @ Petla, Rinku S/o Daya Nand, Pardeep S/o
Jaiveer, Monu @ Sumeet S/o Daya Nand, Sumeet and Amit both sons of Satyawan, Vikas S/o Sunehra on tutoring and that these boys were not present in the village at the time of incident. I may observe that this witness Pradeep is the only witness who has stated that Veer Bhan and Karan Singh were beaten on 20.4.2010 which is contrary to the case of the prosecution. This is despite the fact that the Special Public Prosecutor had put him a specific suggestion to this aspect but he denied that the incident of beating of Veer Bhan and Karan Singh took place in late night of 19.4.2010. This apparently proves that Pradeep is not an eye witness to the incident dated 19.4.2010 or of what had transpired on 20.4.2010 and therefore his testimony on the aspects narrated by him in respect of the incidents dated 19.4.2010 and 20.4.2010 is required to be rejected. PW50 Kamla Devi aged about 60 years, wife of Late Tara Chand and the mother of Pradeep (PW49) and step mother of Amar Lal (CW1) is a resident of village Mirchpur and claims herself to be an eye witness to the incident dated 21.4.2010. I may observe that Kamla in her testimony has made a casual reference to the incident dated 19.4.2010 but it is evident from her cross-examination that she is not an eye witness to the incident and states that she had been informed about it by her deceased daughter Suman and this being so her testimony to that extent is inadmissible in evidence being hearsay. According to Kamla, there was a dispute in the village on a she-dog of Karan Singh, between the son of Pale on one side and Veer Bhan and Karan Singh on other side wherein Veer Bhan and Karan Singh received injuries as they were beaten and on the next day in the morning
Gulaba Chowkidar had gone to take lassi from the village when he was surrounded by these boys and beaten. She has deposed that thereafter on the day next to this incident Rajender S/o Pale called the other boys from the 'J' community and collected stones and bricks and started pelting stones on the houses of the members of 'B' community and were shouting choore dheda ne maro (hit the choora dhedas). She has also deposed that after sometime police personnel's from Police Station Narnaund came to the village and the SHO Vinod Kajal also came with whom they pleaded to save them. According to her, the accused Vinod Kajal took their ('B') children to the Chaupal whereas all the ladies were left behind and she pleaded to save her husband and children but the accused Vinod Kajal told the 'J' boys dheda ne ek ghante mein aag laga do (burn the dhedas within one hour). The witness has also deposed that their men folk had been taken to the Chaupal by that time and the assailants started setting their houses on fire and son of Sishu (a member of 'J' community) instigated the other 'J' boys to burn the houses belonging to the members of 'B' community on fire by saying na daro choorya sae aag laga do (don't fear from the dhedas, set them on fire) and further said jo kar sansi neikale tha nu choorya ne neikal do (the manner in which we removed the Sansis from the village in the same manner remove the chooras). She has further deposed that the police personnel's from Police Station Narnaund did not help them and her house was set on fire due to which her husband Tara Chand and her daughter Suman were burnt to death. According to the witness, her husband was beaten by dandas outside the house and kerosene was poured on him and after setting him on fire he was pushed inside the house by Pawan, Kulwinder, Hoshiyara Rajender and SHO Kajal.
She has further deposed that Bharpai the wife of Pale along with the wife of Pappu whose name she does not know but whom she can recognize by face, sprinkled kerosene on her daughter Suman, set her on fire and pushed her inside the house after which they also looted their property. She has stated that all through this she was hiding behind the small boundary wall of the house of her husband's nephew (son of her jeth) out of fear and could see the entire incident from there as it is just adjoining her house. She has further deposed that these boys ('J' boys) were armed with jellies, gandases, lathies etc. and many of them thereafter removed their clothes and started dancing naked before their girls. She has also deposed that she remembered having seen Dr. Suresh and both his sons in the crowd committing rioting, arson, looting etc. According to her after the incident her sons have been given a government job but she is not aware of the compensation. With the permission of the court Ld. Special Public Prosecutor put specific questions to the witness wherein she has deposed that it could be possible that the incident of Gulaba being injured by the boys took place on the same day of the incident of stone pelting and rioting and has explained that she does not recollect the dates on account of the tragedy which happened with her but she had seen that Gulaba had been injured on his head. She has further admitted that the police had met her on the date of incident (i.e. 21.04.2010) and had interrogated her but she does not recollect if they had recorded her statement which is Ex.PW50/PX1 and has voluntarily added that she was not in her proper senses at that time. She has further deposed that at that time she had only given three or four names of the assailants to the police but had told the Investigating Officer that she could identify the assailants as they
were all residents of the same village. She has further admitted that she had told the police that there were around three to four hundred persons in her gali alone and that there were more than three to four hundred persons present outside that gali. She however does not recollect if she had given the name of Rishi S/o Satbir and Pardeep S/o Balwan Bhim Singh S/o Jogender Virender S/o Yashpal, Surender S/o Jagdev, Rajender S/o Dhupa and Baljeet S/o Inder but has deposed that she had also named the elder son of Tek Ram whom she had seen with kerosene oil container (tel ki pipi) and had also named the accused Dharamvir S/o Tara Chand, Pawan S/o Ram Mehar, Karambir @ Ghagar S/o Tara Chand, Balwan S/o Dharamvir, son of Hoshiyara who is called Handa in the village and both the daughter-in-laws of Hoshiyara were also present along with oil container and has stated that she had further taken the name of son of Kapoora and Bharpai. She has admitted that her husband had kept Rs. Four lacs for the marriage of her daughter along with jewelery in her house which had been looted. After the accused were put to the witness one by one she has duly identified the accused Ved Pal (accused on bail), Ajit S/o Sh. Sukhbir, Ajit S/o Sh. Dalip, Amit S/o Sh. Satyawan, Anil @ Neela S/o Sh. Prem Singh, Anup S/o Sh. Dharma, Balwan S/o Sh. Inder Singh, Balwan S/o Sh. Jeela, Bobal @ Langra S/o Sh. Tek Ram, Dalbir S/o Sh. Dalip Singh, Dalbir S/o Sh. Tara, Daya Singh S/o Sh. Ajeet Singh, Deepak @ Sonu S/o Sh. Krishan @ Pappu, Dharambir S/o Sh. Tara Chand, Dharambir @ Illa S/o Sh. Mai Chand, Dinesh S/o Sh. Prem, Hoshiar Singh S/o Sh. Mangal, Jagdish @ Hathi S/o Sh. Baru Ram, Jagdish @ Jangla S/o Sh. Lahna Ram, Jaibir S/o Sh. Balbir, Jaibir S/o Sh. Mnaphool, Jasbir S/o Sh. Ishwar, Jasbir @ Lillu S/o Sh. Raja
Ram, Jitender S/o Sh. Satbir, Jogal @ Doger S/o Sh. Hawa Singh, Joginder @ Jogar S/o Sh. Bhim Singh, Jokhar @ Joginder S/o Sh. Inder Singh, Jora Singh S/o Sh. Balwan, Karambir S/o Sh. Tara Chand, Karampal S/o Sh. Satbir, Krishan S/o Sh. Karan Singh, Krishan Kr. @ Dhaula S/o Sh. Satyawan, Kuldeep @ Midda S/o Sh. Balbir, Kulvinder S/o Sh. Ram Mahar, Manbir S/o Sh. Jile Singh, Monu S/o Sh. Suresh, Nasib S/o Sh. Prem Singh, Naveen @ Tina S/o Sh. Rajbir, Pappu S/o Sh. Pyara, Pardeep S/o Sh. Ramphal, Pardeep S/o Sh. Balwan, Pawan S/o Sh. Hoshiar Singh, Pawan S/o Sh. Rajbir, Pawan S/o Sh. Ram Mahar, Pawan @ Tinku S/o Sh. Sewa Ram, Pradeep S/o Sh. Satbir, Pradeep S/o Sh. Jagbir, Pradeep S/o Sh. Suresh, Praveen S/o Sh. Jagdev, Rajbir @ Nanha S/o Sh. Mai Chand, Rajesh S/o Sh. Dupa, Rajinder S/o Sh. Pali, Rajinder S/o Sh. Balu, Rajinder S/o Sh. Dhup Singh, Rajinder Kr. S/o Sh. Sadhu Ram, Rajpal S/o Sh. Sheo Chand, Rakesh @ Kala S/o Sh. Satyawan, Ramesh S/o Sh. Karan Singh, Ramesh @ Mahesh S/o Sh.Dalip Singh, Ramphal S/o Sh. Prithvi, Rishi S/o Sh. Satbir, Roshan Lal S/o Sh. Ram Swarup, Sandeep S/o Sh. Mahinder Singh, Sandeep S/o Sh. Raj Kumar, Sandeep S/o Sh. Rattan Singh, Sandeep @ Langra S/o Sh. Chander, Sanjay @ Sanjeep S/o Sh. Amar Lal, Satta Singh S/o Sh. Karan Singh, Sattu Singh @ Satish S/o Sh. Randhir Master, Satyawan S/o Sh. Tara Chand, Satyawan S/o Sh. Rajinder, Sheela @ Sunil S/o Sh. Bira, Sonu @ Monu S/o Sh. Ramesh, Sunil S/o Sh. Daya Nand, Sunil @ Sonu S/o Sh. Jaibir, Surender S/o Sh. Jagda, Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Balbir, Vedpal S/o Sh. Dayanand, Vedpal @ Bedoo S/o Sh. Karan Singh, Vijender @ Handa S/o Sh. Hoshiar Singh, Vikash S/o Sh. Sunehera @ Sumer Singh, Vinod S/o Sh. Ram
Niwas, Vinod S/o Sh. Jagdeep and Viren S/o Sh. Yashpal. However, she has not identified the accused Sandeep S/o Ram Swaroop, Kuldeep S/o Om Parkash, Charan Singh S/o Sadhu Ram, Shamsher S/o Rajender, Balwan S/o Dharam Singh, Rakesh S/o Amar Lal, Sonu S/o Dalbir, Sumeet S/o Satyawan, Pardeep S/o Jai Veer, Pawan S/o Sewa Singh, Roopesh S/o Tek Ram, Vinod S/o Ram Niwas, Sanjay S/o Daya Nand, Vipin S/o Joginder Singh, Sandeep S/o Joginder, Amir S/o Tara Chand and Baljeet S/o Inder Singh. According to Kamla the accused whom she has identified were a part of the crowd who were indulging into rioting, arson, looting and burning of houses. She also has stated that the SHO (accused Vinod Kajal) was also present at the spot and she had personally requested him to intervene. However, when the accused Vinod Kajal was put to her she failed to identify him in the court and stated that it is on account of her failing eye sight (it was observed by the Court after questioning her that she could not see by one eye) and she further requested that the accused Vinod Kajal should be put to her again and she would identify him. However, when the accused Vinod Kajal was again put to her along with six other accused she pointed out towards him as the person to whom she had pleaded. In her cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel she has admitted that the police had never called her to the police station or to the court, or to the jail for identification of the accused after their arrest and has voluntarily added that the accused have been shown to her for the first time in the court. She has admitted that she is the second wife of Tara Chand and has explained that his first wife was her cousin sister and Tara Chand had three children from her that is one son namely Amar Lal and two daughters who are already married. She has further deposed that
she has two sons, Pradeep and Ravinder and her deceased daughter Suman from Tara Chand. She has denied the suggestion that she was residing with Pradeep and Ravinder separately from Tara Chand. She has further deposed that she did not tell the police that all the boys who were involved in burning of their houses, could be identified by her because the police never asked her. She has also denied the suggestion that she did not give the names of all the accused whom she has identified in the court to the police. She has admitted that she did not receive any injuries and has denied the suggestion that she had deposed on the basis of what she had heard later. She has admitted that she did not accompany her daughter or husband to the hospital and has denied the suggestion that she did not receive injuries and also that she did not accompany her deceased daughter and husband to the hospital and also had not given the name of the boys so identified by her in the court to the police because she was not present at the spot. According to the witness she is not aware if doctors had treated Gulaba at the village and has stated that she had seen Gulaba when he had passed through her gali in an injured condition and blood was coming out from his head. She has denied the suggestion that she is not aware as to who caused injuries to Gulaba but has admitted that Rajender had not caused injuries to Gulaba in her presence. Here I may observe that the testimony of Kamla does not find any support either from the medical evidence on record showing that Gulaba did not receive any injury on his head and therefore her oral testimony to this effect is liable to be excluded. (Section 92 Indian Evidence Act 1872) Witness has further deposed that she did not tell the police that she had pleaded with the SHO Vinod Kajal to save her and her son
and has voluntarily added that there was no occasion for the same as the police never come to her or questioned her on that aspect. She is unable to tell the details of the senior officers of the police who had come to the village. She states that she is aware that the police from Hissar had come to the village and has explained that she is aware of the same because the fire brigades had come to the village to drowse the fire. Witness has denied the suggestion that police had come to her and interrogated her and her family on a number of occasions but she did not tell them all what she has now stated before this court because no such incident had happened and the allegations made against the SHO Vinod Kajal have been now made on tutoring because she want to falsely implicate him. She has denied the suggestion that she has deliberately identified the accused on asking of the prosecution and the investigating agency and in order to to seek revenge for her family. She has denied the suggestion that the house of Chander Bhan is two killas away from her house and states that it is adjoining her house. She has further stated that she had shown the place to the police where she was hiding and also the place where the incident took place with her husband and daughter. She has denied the suggestion that the accused had not come with gandases, dandas, jellies, oil containers to the village and has voluntarily added that they had also got kulharies. She has denied the suggestion that she had been visiting the farmhouse of Ved Pal Tanwar and has explained that she had only gone once to the Tanwar farm only when the last rites of her daughter were being performed there. prosecution. The witness has denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely only to strengthen the case of the
Page No. 228
Medical Evidence/ witnesses:

PW51 Dr. Sandeep Kumar, Medical Officer, PHC, Mirchpur, has deposed that on 21.04.2010 he was posted as Medical Officer at CHC Narnaund and on that day at about 9:30 PM he examined Gulaba Ram, S/o Jai Lal and found simple injuries on his body details of which are given on the MLR already Ex.PW48/A and he had informed the SHO on the same day with regard to the admission of Gulaba Ram in the hospital which is Ex.PW51/A. During his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsels witness admits that the MLR reflects simple injury i.e. abrasions. Witness admits that the injuries on the knees could be on account of a fall and the abrasion on the back could also on account of a fall but on query from the court he has explained that this injury was possible on account of being hit by a danda. PW52 Dr. Puneet, MO, General Hospital, Hissar, has deposed in the court that on 21.04.2010 he was posted as Medical Officer at General Hospital, Hissar and on that day Tara Chand, S/o Sawaroop Singh had been brought to General Hospital, Hissar at 2:30 PM at that time he was conscious and oriented. His ME Ex.PW52/A was prepared by Dr. Dinesh who is no longer employed in the hospital but he can identify his signatures at point A having seen him signing in official discharge of his duties as he was his colleague (I may observe that Dr. Dinesh could be traced and has been later examined as PW68). He has proved the bed head ticket of Tara Chand which is Ex.PW52/B and has also deposed that postmortem was carried out on the dead body of Tara Chand, S/o Swaroop Singh on 22.4.2010 by him on which the following injuries were observed:St. Vs. Dharambir Etc, FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaund (Haryana) Page No. 229
1.
Superficial to deep burns were present all over the body except
both axillary region and inguinopubic region. Red line of demarcation was present between healthy and burnt tissue. 2. 3. Membranes of brain were oedematous and congested. In thorax both lungs were congested and oedematous. On cut lungs were containing soot particles and were
sections, both the 4.
congested and were oedematous. Whole body organs were congested. Witness has further deposed that the postmortem report is Ex.PW52/C which was signed by Dr. Ahlawat and Dr. Sharma in his presence. Witness has further deposed that the cause of death as per report is due to extensive burns and its complications which were antemortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature which opinion is mentioned at point mark X of the report. This witness has further proved that the postmortem was carried out on the dead body of Suman on the same day i.e. 22.04.2010 and has proved the postmortem report which is Ex.PW52/D which shows that all clothing were semi-burnt soiled with soot particles and mud. Further the following injuries were also observed:1. Superficial to deep burns were present all over the body except pubic region right upper thigh region. Whole body was oedematious. Burn fractures were present in both hands over distal phalanges. Red line of demarcation was present between burnt and unburnt area. 2. Trachea was congested and contained secretions with a mixture of black soot particles. Both lungs were congested. On cut sections soot
particles oozed out. Witness has further deposed that the cause of death was due to shock as a result of extensive burns which were antemortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature which opinion has been given at point mark Y. He has deposed that Dr. Amit is his colleague and is working at General Hospital, Hissar and he can identify his signatures and he has prepared the MLR of the injured Sunita, Shanti and Aman. Witness has further deposed that the MLR of Shanti is (Ex.PW52/D1) which does not show any injury as she has only kept under observation; the MLR of Sunita is Ex.PW21/A who had been referred for X-Ray and the MLR of Aman which is Ex.PW22/A showing simple injuries. The witness has further deposed that on 02.05.2010 he had examined Sandeep S/o Satpal whose MLR is Ex.PW28/A showing that the patient had received simple injuries. Witness has further deposed that on the same day he examined Sunil S/o Ved whose MLR is Ex.PW13/A showing that he had received simple injuries. Witness has further deposed that on 04.05.2010 Dr. Dalel had examined Angoori W/o Dalip and had prepared MLR which is Ex.PW52/E which MLR does not show any injuries and on the same day Dr. Dalel had examined Suman W/o Raghubir whose MLR is Ex.PW52/F showing that she had received simple injuries. He has deposed that on the same day Dr. Dalel also examined Pooja D/o Surta vide MLR Ex.PW19/A showing simple injuries. Witness has further deposed that on the same day Dr. Dalel also examined Isro W/o Pasha Ram vide MLR which is Ex.PW16/A showing simple injuries and Dr. Dalel examined Krishna W/o Raghubir vide MLR Ex.PW15/A
showing injuries as simple injury. During his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsels witness has deposed that the patients Sunil and Sandeep who had been examined by him gave him the history as that of assault at village Mirchpur but they did not tell him who caused the injuries. Witness has further deposed that he did not ask both the patients where they got himself treated on 21.04.2010 and has voluntarily added that he did not notice any injury on the body of Sandeep which required any immediate treatment. Witness has further deposed that Sandeep did not have any injuries and therefore no injury reflect on the MLR and Sunil had an old lacerated wound on left toe of left foot of size .5 x 1cm. Sunil only told him that he received injury on what had happened in the village Mirchpur but he did not name any person. He has denied the suggestion that he never carried out the postmortem of Suman and has voluntarily added that he was a part of the medical board which was constituted for conducting the postmortem of Suman. The witness has further denied the suggestion that he was not present at the time when the postmortem of Suman was conducted and he only signed the same. PW53 Dr. Sourabh Arora, MO, PHC, Jattanwali Tehsil, Dabwali, Sirsa, has deposed that on 21.04.2010 he was posted at General Hospital, Hansi as Medical Officer and on that day he had examined Raj Kumar S/o Kapoora, Dhoop Singh S/o Rattan Singh, Sanjay S/o Satpal, Abhishek S/o Sanjay and Sandeep @ Sanjip S/o Raj Kumar. He has proved the MLR of Raj Kumar S/o Kapoora is Ex.PW34/A showing as many as five injuries and he was kept under observation; MLR of Dhoop Singh S/o Rattan Singh which is Ex.PW29/A showing
three injuries and the patient was kept under observation; MLR of Sanjay S/o Satpal which is Ex.PW53/A showing three injuries and the patient was kept under observation; MLR of Abhishek S/o Sanjay which is Ex.PW53/B showing one injury of simple nature and the MLR of Sandeep @ Sanjip S/o Raj Kumar which is Ex.PW53/C showing two injuries and one injury was opined as simple and for the other injury he was kept under observation. The witness has further deposed that he had send the information regarding admission of Raj Kumar and Dhoop Singh to the SHO Police Station Narnaund which information is Ex.PW53/D. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsels the witness has admitted that none of the patients told him the names of the persons who had assaulted them or caused injuries to them. PW56 Dr. Vishal Goel has deposed that on 2.5.2010 he was posted as Medical Officer, General Hospital, Hissar and on that day he had examined Ashok S/o Maha Singh, Satbir S/o Risala, Chanderpati W/o Sajna, Kelawati W/o Jai Singh, Ajmer Singh S/o Balbir, Satbir S/o Bhale Ram and Sunita W/o Surta and has proved their MedicoLegal Reports. He has proved the MLR of Ashok S/o Maha Singh which is Ex.PW25/A showing two injuries both of which are Simple; MLR of Satbir S/o Bhale Ram which is Ex.PW23/A bearing two injuries both of which are Simple; MLR of Ajmer Singh S/o Balbir which is Ex.PW56/A showing three injuries all of which are Simple; MLR of Chanderpati W/o Sajna which is Ex.PW18/A showing two injuries both of which are Simple; MLR of Kelawati W/o Jai Singh which is Ex.PW20/A showing three injuries all of which are Simple; MLR of
Satbir S/o Risala which is Ex.PW56/B showing only one injury which is Simple and the MLR of injured Sunita W/o Surta which is Ex.PW56/C showing only one injury which is Simple blunt. In his cross examination witness admits that none of the injured disclosed the names of any of the assailants to him. According to the witness a doctor can only tell the approximate duration of the injury but not the exact time and states that in the present case he had mentioned the details with regard to the history as told to him by the injured and not by approximation. He has denied the suggestion that he had mentioned the alleged history of his own level and the patient had not told him about the same. Witness has denied the suggestion that the MLRs have been prepared in connivance with the patients only for the purposes of helping the patient to secure compensation from the patient. PW58 Dr. Arun Kumar, MO PHC Village Mirchpur has deposed that on 21.04.2010 he was posted as Medical Officer at CHC Narnaund, Distt. Hissar and on that day he had examined one Mahajan S/o Satpal who had been brought by the police from village Mirchpur for examination and was having injuries on his forehead. Witness has further deposed that he examined him vide MLR Ex.PW38/A and he had three injuries two of which were blunt and the third one was lacerated. Witness has further deposed that the opinion had been reserved because he had head injury and there was nasal bleeding and the patient was referred on the next day to General Hospital, Hissar for further management. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsels witness has deposed that the patient did not tell him the name of any assailant but only told him that he has sustained in the fight which was taken place at
village Mirchpur. Witness has further deposed that the police officers who accompanied injured did not tell him the name of any assailant. PW59 Dr. Pale Ram, MO, CHC, Narnaund, has deposed that on 30.04.2010 he was posted as Medical Officer at CHC Narnaund, Distt. Hissar and on that day he had examined twenty nine patients all from village Mirchpur. He has proved having gone to village Mirchpur on a telephonic message from Civil Surgeon, Hissar and has further proved that at village Mirchpur DSP Abhay Singh produced before him twenty nine persons for examinations stating that they were the injured in the incident which took place on 21.04.2010. He has has further proved that he along with his team comprising of Dr. Arun Kumar and Dr. Tarun Kumar examined these persons and has proved the Medico-Legal Reports of the patients so examined by him. Witness has proved the MLR of Sushil S/o Surta which is Ex.PW25/A and has explained that though the patient was complaining of pain but there were no signs of injury and therefore no opinion was given; the MLR of Rajbir S/o Baje Singh which is Ex.PW59/A showing that there was one injury simple in nature which was of five to ten days old; MLR of Sanjay S/o Raja Ram which is already Ex.PW36/A showing that the patient was complaining of pain but there was no apparent sign of injury and therefore no opinion was given; the MLR of Ravi S/o Mahender which is Ex.PW27/A showing that there were two partially healed wounds of seven to fourteen days old which were simple in nature; the MLR of Raju S/o Pasha Ram which is Ex.PW26/A showing that the patient was complaining of pain but since there was no apparent sign of injury therefore no opinion was given; the MLR of Monica D/o Ramesh which is Ex.PW59/B showing two
injuries five to ten days old which were simple in nature; the MLR of Bindu D/o Suresh which is Ex.PW59/C showing one injury five to ten days old which were simple in nature; the MLR of Raj Mal S/o Poker which is Ex.PW59/D showing two injuries five to ten days old which were simple in nature; the MLR of Priya D/o Jagdish which is Ex.PW59/E showing one injury five to ten days old which was simple in nature; the MLR of Rani D/o Sanjay which is already Ex.PW33/A showing that she was neither having any injuries nor complained of it as such; the MLR of Karambir S/o Balbir which is Ex.PW59/F showing one injury five to ten days old which was simple in nature; the MLR of Pali W/o Jagdish which is Ex.PW59/G showing one injury five to ten days old which was simple in nature; the MLR of Nawab S/o Laxman which is Ex.PW59/H showing one injury one to three days old which was simple in nature; the MLR of Sheela W/o Subhash which is Ex.PW32/A showing that she was neither having any injury nor complained of it as such and therefore no opinion was given; the MLR of Jai Prakash S/o Tek Ram which is Ex.PW59/I showing one injury five to ten days old which was simple in nature; the MLR of Karan Singh S/o Tek Ram which is Ex.PW59/J showing two injuries five to ten days old which were simple in nature; the MLR of Naseem S/o Karan Singh which is Ex.PW59/K showing one injury five to ten days old which was simple in nature; the MLR of Santra W/o Satyawan which is Ex.PW30/A showing that she was not having any injury nor she complained of it and therefore no opinion was given; the MLR of Yogesh S/o Jai Prakash which is Ex.PW59/M showing that he was not having any apparent injury but was complaining of pain in the right index finger due to which reason no opinion was given; the MLR of Poonam D/o
Chander Pala which is Ex.PW59/N showing one injury five to ten days old which was simple in nature; the MLR of Jagbir S/o Nawab which is Ex.PW59/O showing one injury five to ten days old which was simple in nature; the MLR of Ashok S/o Jagdish which is Ex.PW59/P showing that the patient was not having any injury and had no complaint and therefore no opinion was given; the MLR of Ram Phal S/o Risala which is Ex.PW8/A showing that the patient was having no injuries nor had any complaints and therefore no opinion was given; the MLR of Kamlesh W/o Jai Prakash which is Ex.PW59/Q showing that she was having no injuries nor she was having any complaint and therefore no opinion was given; the MLR of Meena Kumar S/o Satpal which is already Ex.PW37/A showing that the patient was having no injuries nor he was having any complaint and therefore no opinion was given; the MLR of Radha W/o Sandeep which is Ex.PW59/R showing no injury nor she was having any complaint and therefore no opinion was given; the MLR of Madho W/o Tek Ram which is Ex.PW59/S showing that the patient was having no injury nor she was having any complaint due to which reason no opinion was given and the MLR of Murti W/o Karan Singh which is Ex.PW59/T showing that she was not having any injuries nor had any complaint due to which reason no opinion was given. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsels the witness has admitted that no definite duration of the injury could be given and has voluntarily added that he had only given the duration as per his own approximation. He has also admitted that none of the patients whom he had examined told him the names of the assailants and that even the DSP who produced the patients before him did not give any
names of the persons who had allegedly assaulted them. PW63 Dr. T. P. Sharma has deposed that on 21.04.2010 he was posted as MO, at General Hospital, Hissar and on that day he had conducted the X-Ray of Raj Kumar S/o Kapoora and Dhoop Singh S/o Ratan Singh. Witness has further deposed that the X-Ray report of Raj Kumar S/o Kapoora is Ex.PW63/A showing that he did not suffer from any bony injury. He has further proved the X-Ray report of Dhoop Singh S/o Rattan Singh which is Ex.PW63/B showing that he had suffered fracture of left humerous. He has further proved that on 22.04.2010 he had conducted the X-Ray examination of Gulaba Ram S/o Jalal and Mahajan S/o Satpal whose X-Ray reports are Ex.PW63/C and Ex.PW63/D respectively. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsels the witness admits that he cannot tell the cause of injury from the X-Ray report i.e. whether it was inflicted or could have been on account of a fall. I may observe that the perusal of the X -Ray reports of Gulaba Ram which is Ex.PW63/C and Mahajan which is Ex.PW63/D show that they had not received any bone injury and it is evident that the only person who suffered bone injury in the form of fracture was Dhoop Singh. PW68 Dr. Dinesh Kumar is the Medical Officer who was posted at General Hospital, Hissar on 21.4.2010 and was on duty when Tara Chand S/o Swaroopa had been brought to the hospital with alleged history of burns sustained at Village Mirchpur, Narnaund. He has deposed that he medically examined the patient Tara Chand who was found with superficial to deep burns all over the body with skin denuded
at multiple places, bulla filled with water and burns sparing the perineal area. A red line was present between the burnt and unburnt area. He has proved that the burnt area correspondent to 99% and has deposed that the injured was kept under observation for surgeon's opinion. He has proved the MLR of Tara Chand which is already Ex.PW52/A bearing his signatures at point A and endorsement encircled at point B showing that when Tara Chand was brought to the hospital, he was conscious and oriented. He has also proved the bed ticket which is already Ex.PW52/B bearing his signatures at point A and also proved the portion written by him at points encircled X. He has further deposed that at 2:30 PM the patient Tara Chand was examined and he was unconscious and not oriented. His Blood Pressure and pulse were not recordable and at that time he was given IV fluids. He has further deposed that his duty was till 8PM but at 6 PM the patient was referred to PGIMS Rohtak. According to this witness, the Judicial Magistrate had come to the hospital and recorded the statement of the patient at about 5:155:30 PM and at that time the patient was conscious. He has deposed that before the statement of the witness was recorded, the fitness was given by him on Ex.PW55/A at point already mark B bearing his signatures at point D and also at point encircled C bearing his signatures at point E. He has further deposed that the said fitness was given by him before and after recording of the statement by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate. He has also deposed that the police had also recorded the statement of the patient and prior to the same he had given the fitness to the police on the application of SI Bane Singh already Ex.PW64/B at point already encircled B bearing his signatures at point X. He has also identified his signatures on the statement of the patient recorded by the police which is
already Ex.PW64/C at point D and has proved the police information already Ex.PW64/A bearing his signatures at point X1 and endorsement encircled at point X2. He has further clarified that Tara Chand was shifted from the hospital only at 6PM and not prior to that. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel witness has deposed that the endorsement encircled X1 on Ex.PW52/B has not been written by him and has voluntarily added that it is in the handwriting of Dr. Sunita Garg (DW44). He has further admitted his handwriting and signatures at point X1 on the police information Ex.PW64/A and has also the signatures of the chowki incharge whose name he does not recollect at point X2. The witness has been further cross-examined at length on the police information Ex.PW64/A and he has clarified that his document is only an information sent to the police along with the MLR and that the patient is never sent along with this information to the police as suggested by the Ld. Defence counsel. He has further deposed that the time 2:45 PM is in the handwriting of the chowki incharge. He has further deposed that Ex.PW64/D is not in his handwriting and has voluntarily stated that it is in the handwriting of Dr. Vishal Goyal whose handwriting he can identify. Witness has further denied the suggestion that the injured has been sent to the PGMS Rohtak at 2:45 PM and was again received back dead at 8PM and has voluntarily added that he was referred at 6 PM but he is unable to tell when his body was received back since he was not on duty at that time. Witness has denied the suggestion that he had handed over Ex.PW52/B to the Investigating Officer during the investigations and not on the date of the incident or that he had manipulated the endorsement of 6PM subsequently at the instance of the Investigating Officer. He has admitted that at 2:30 PM the injured Tara
Chand was not in a position to speak being unconscious and his BP and pulse being not recordable and has stated that he did not record anywhere on the bed head ticket Ex.PW52/B when Tara Chand had regained consciousness and was fit to make a statement. Witness has denied the suggestion that Tara Chand had never regained consciousness so as to be able to make the statement or that once BP and pulse are not recordable a patient cannot be conscious and fit to make a statement and has explained that consciousness is different from recording the Blood Pressure and pulse. He has also admitted that he had not recorded the fitness of Tara Chand in the MLR and voluntarily states that it was given on the application and also the statement recorded before him. Witness has further denied the suggestion that the fitness has not been given on the MLR EX PW 52/A because Tara Chand was never fit for statement and it was only as a cover up for the investigations that he made this endorsement on the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer and by the Judicial Magistrate at the instance of the investigating agency. Witness has further denied the suggestion that statement of Tara Chand was not recorded in his presence and he had only attested the same at the instance of the Investigating Officer. On a specific query from the Court he has stated that when the statement of Tara Chand was recorded by the Investigating Officer his son Amar Lal was present but when the Judicial Magistrate recorded his statement Amar Lal was sent outside the room.
Police/ official witnesses:

PW1 ASI Raghubir Singh is a formal witness who had taken the pullandas to FSL Madhuban which aspect he has proved in his
testimony recorded by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.). The witness has been cross-examined but nothing much has come out of the same. PW2 EASI Manohar Lal is a formal witness who had been handed over three envelopes which he delivered to his senior officers that is Illaka Magistrate, Deputy Superintendent of Police Hansi and Superintendent of Police Hissar as directed which aspect he has proved by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.). This witness has been cross-examined at length with regard to the affidavit and the manner in which it was prepared. He has also been cross-examined on merits wherein he has stated that he was not ware of the contents of the envelopes which were closed though not sealed. He has proved having made an entry regarding his departure and return in the Roznamcha (daily dairy register). According to the witness, the envelopes were given to him in the Police Station Narnaund at about 8.45-9.00PM pursuant to which he made the Ravangi in the police station vide DD No. 39 (which is in the handwriting of Chittha Munshi) and he reached the house of the Illaqa Magistrate which is at a distance of 25 kilometers from the Police Station at about 10.30-11.00 PM. He has further proved that thereafter he delivered the envelope at the house of Deputy Superintendent of Police Hansi which is situated near Hansi Bus stand and thereafter he went to the house of Superintendent of Police at Camp Chowk, Hissar where he reached at about 12.30AM (midnight). He has further proved that he reached back at Narnaund Police Station at 2.30AM and made made an entry in the rozanamacha vide DD no.3 dated 22.4.2010 (which is the hand of DD writer). He has further proved
that his statement was recorded on 27.04.2010. PW3 ASI Miyan Singh is a formal witness being the photographer posted at SP Office Hissar since 1986 who had taken 109 photographs from his digital camera which are Ex.PW3/A-1 to Ex.PW3/A-109 and also having prepared the CD of the said photographs which CD is Ex.PW3/B which fact he has proved in his examination in chief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW3/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.). In his cross-examination the witness has deposed that he had taken the photographs with a digital camera having a memory card which memory card he did not handover to the investigating officer since it was not required as more photographs were required to be clicked from the same camera. According to this witness the photographs clicked by him were from the digital camera which had been officially issued to him and were also taken from another camera issued in the name of other photographer namely Ct. Anil. He has proved that he left the SP Office at about 12 12:30 noon on 21.4.2010 and a departure had been made by him in this regard as a combined entry of CIA Staff. He has proved that village Mirchpur is about 60 kilometers from the SP Office Hissar where he had gone along with the other force which had gone from the Civil Line Police Station. He has further proved having handed over the copies of the photographs to the investigating officer but has explained that he did not mention the identity of the houses whose photographs had been taken by him and has explained that he had only taken the photographs of those places and houses which he was instructed to take by the SP and has stated that he did not take any photograph of his own. He has stated that he remained at the spot till evening and took the photographs till
6:00 pm but is unable to recollect if DSP Abhay Singh the first investigating officer also remained at the spot till 6 pm. He has further deposed that though he was in the village on 22.4.2010 also but he did not take any photographs on the said day. He has further proved that he had delivered the photographs to DSP Abhay Singh on 25.4.2010. PW4 Ct. Devi Lal is a formal witness who had prepared the video CD which CD is Ex.PW4/A and was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW4/B which he has proved in his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex.PW4/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.). In his cross-examination the witness has proved having prepared the video recording from a Handicam which had been officially issued in his name and has further proved that he had made the video recording on 22.04.2010 in the mortuary of Civil Hospital, Hissar and on 23.04.2010 at the cremation ground at Village Mirchpur. He has stated that he had made the departure entry in the rozanamacha on 22.04.2010 and has stated that the return (wapsi) was made by him on 23.04.2010 though he is unable to tell the DD numbers. He has admitted that he did not handover the memory card of his handicam to the investigating officer and only handed over the CD to the investigating officer on 25.04.2010 at DSP Office, Hansi. PW5 Ct. Anil Kumar is a formal witness who has proved having prepared the Video CD which is Ex.PW5/A which was seized vide memo Ex.PW4/B which aspect he has proved in his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex.PW5/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.).
Page No. 244
In his cross-examination the witness has proved that the video recording was done with the handicam officially issued in his name which handicam possessing a hard disk and an internal memory and states that he did not handover the memory card to the investigating officer and has explained that it was not required since the CD had been prepared and handed over to the investigating officer. He has further proved that he left the Police Station Civil Lines at about 1212:30 noon on 21.4.2010 and has stated that no separate departure or return had been made by him separately since he had gone to village Mirchpur along with the force. The witness has testified that he met DSP Abhay Singh at village Mirchpur and made the video recording at village Mirchpur till about 3.45 - 4.00PM. According to him, DSP Abhay Singh was present in village Mirchpur till that time i.e. 4.00PM and he left village Mirchpur around 10.00PM but he does not recollect if DSP Abhay Singh was still present till that time. He has further deposed he had made the video recording at the directions and instructions of a Head Constable and not of his own. According to the witness, he had delivered the CD to DSP Hansi at his office at Hansi on 25.4.2010 but is unable to tell whether he had made the departure entry at Police Station Civil Lines, Hissar on 25.04.2010 with regard to his visit at DSP Office, Hansi and the corresponding return (wapsi) on the same day. PW6 EASI Bir Bhan is a formal witness being the MHCM Police Station Narnaund at the time of incident who has proved having made the entry no.510 and 511 in register no.19 copy of which is Ex.PW6/A which aspect he has proved in his examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex.PW6/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.). At the time of examination of this witness one page of the
register no.19 containing column no. 5, 6, 7 and 8 was observed to be torn and therefore an endorsement was made by this Court with a red pen in the register no.19. In his cross-examination the witness has denied the suggestion made by the Ld. Defence Counsel that the entries at column No.5, 6, 7 and 8 had been manipulated by him due to which reason one page in the register has been torn. According to him, the page was already torn but he did not make any endorsement either in the register or any of the official record nor did he tell the investigating officer that one page was already torn from the register. He has admitted that the entries made in column no.1 and 2 are in a different ink and the entries in column no.3 and 4 are in different ink but has stated that the ink is different because the refill of the pen had finished. PW54 HC Subhash Chand is the formal witness being the Draftsman who had gone to village Mirchpur on 27.04.2010, 28.04.2010, 29.04.2010 and on 30.04.2010 and prepared the scaled site plans on the pointing out of the victims of the area where the houses were burnt and properties were damaged which site plans are Ex.PW54/A1 to Ex.PW54/A33. He has further proved having prepared the consolidated scaled site plan of the village along with the marginal notes which is Ex.PW54/B . This witness has been duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsels but nothing has come out of the same. PW55 Sh. Harish Goyal, J.M.1st Class, Ambala has appears in the court and proved that on 21.04.2010 he was posted as Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hissar and had gone to General Hospital Hissar where he recorded the statement of the deceased Tara Chand. According
to the witness on 21.4.2010 Investigating Officer ESI Bani Singh had moved an application Ex.PW55/A before him at 5:15 pm for getting the statement of Tara Chand recorded on which he proceeded towards general hospital, Hissar where he reached at 5.30 pm. There he met Dr. Dinesh Kumar Prajapat, Medical Officer and proceeded towards bed no.6 where Dr. Dinesh Kumar Prajapat gave the certificate regarding the fitness of Tara Chand to make his statement on which he recorded the statement of Tara Chand which is Ex.PW55/B bearing the fitness certificate of Dr. Dinesh Kumar Prajapat at point Mark B and also at point Mark C which certificate he had given after he completed the recording of Tara Chand. He has also proved his certificate which is Ex.PW55/C . In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsels the witness has deposed that the forwarding letter present on record is dated 23.4.2010 but has explained that since the proceedings had completed on 21.4.2010 in the late evening hours after 5:00 pm he had therefore handed over the sealed proceeding to his Ahlmad on the next working day which were forwarded to the concerned Magistrate his signatures on Ex.PW55/DX1 at point A. Witness has denied the suggestion that all the other documents accompanying the forwarding letter Ex.PW55/DX1 were also written on 23.4.2010 and has voluntarily stated that they were all written on 21.4.2010 but dispatched on 23.4.2010 in accordance with rules. Further, in his cross-examination the witness has admitted that the Dying Declaration was not sealed on 21.4.2010 and has voluntarily explained that it remained in his possession till such time it was sealed by the Ahlmad in his presence on 23.4.2010. He has denied the suggestion that he recorded the statement of Tara Chand in routine
without observing the necessary safe-guards. PW57 SI Manjeet Singh who was posted as Sub Inspector at Police Station Narnaund, District Hissar on 21.4.2010 has proved having joined investigations along with Sh. Abhay Singh, DSP Hansi. He has proved that on the directions of DSP Sh. Abhay Singh, he had lifted the ashes from five houses pointed out by him which had been completely burnt which ashes were picked up from the houses of Sanjay, Sunita, Dilbagh, Gulab @ Gulaba and Chander Bhan. According to him, after picking up the ashes he converted the same into pullandas by putting them into polythene bags and thereafter with a white cloth and stitched the same and put his seal of SP on the said pullandas. He has further deposed that seal after use was handed over to ASI Dharamvir and the five sealed pullandas bearing the details of the houses from where they had been lifted, were handed over to DSP Sh. Abhay Singh which seizure memo of the ashes prepared by DSP Sh. Abhay Singh is Ex.PW57/A. He has further proved the arrest of Viren, Dinesh and Naresh on 23.4.2010 by DSP Sh. Abhay Singh and has stated that the said boys were thereafter interrogated them in his presence when they disclosed their involvement in the present case which disclosure statement of Viren S/o Yashpal is Ex.PW57/B and of Dinesh S/o Prem Singh is Ex.PW57/C. He has further proved that his statements were recorded by the Investigating Officer on 21.4.2010 and also on 23.4.2010. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsels at length but nothing much has come out of the same. He has denied that he had never joined investigations with DSP Sh. Abhay Singh or that the documentation was done while sitting in the Police Station which he had
signed at the instance and directions of DSP Sh. Abhay Singh. I may observe that in so far as the disclosure statements of accused Viren and Dinesh are concerned, they were made at the time when the accused were in police custody and pursuant to the same there is no disclosure of fact or recovery and are therefore inadmissible in evidence. PW60 ASI Sadhu Ram who was posted as Incharge Police Post Bhass Police Station Narnaund, District Hissar on 21.4.2010 and had joined investigations along with Sh. Abhay Singh, DSP Hansi after receiving telephonic information regarding the incident at village Mirchpur, has proved that on the directions of DSP Sh. Abhay Singh, he had lifted the ashes from two houses belonging to Rajesh and Dhoop Singh pointed out by him which had been completely burnt after which he converted the same into pullandas by putting them into plastic polythene bags and thereafter in a white cloth and stitched the same and put the seal of SS on the said pullandas and the seal after use was handed over to ASI Dharamvir. He has also proved that these two sealed pullandas which were bearing the details of the houses from where they had been lifted, were handed over to DSP Sh. Abhay Singh who seized the same vide memo Ex.PW57/A after which his statements were recorded by him on the same day that is 21.4.2010. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsels the witness has denied not having joined the investigations with DSP Sh. Abhay Singh or having signed the seizure memo at the instance and directions of DSP Sh. Abhay Singh in the police station. PW61 ASI Satbir Singh posted as ASI at Police Station Barwala, Distt. District Hissar on 21.4.2010 has proved having joined
investigations with Sh. Abhay Singh, DSP Hansi on receipt of information from SP Hissar. He has proved that on the directions of DSP Sh. Abhay Singh, he lifted the ashes from six houses belonging to Sube Singh, Satyawan, Manoj, Rajesh, Sanjay and Rajender on pointing out by DSP Sh. Abhay Singh which houses were completely burnt. He has further proved that after the ashes were picked up from the above houses he converted the same into pullandas by putting them into plastic polythene bags and thereafter with a white cloth and stitched the same and put his seal of SS on the said pullandas which seal after use was handed over to ASI Dharamvir and the six sealed pullandas bearing the details of the houses from where they had been lifted, were handed over to DSP Sh. Abhay Singh who prepared the seizure memo which is Ex.PW57/A after which his statements were recorded on the same day that is 21.4.2010. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsels he has denied that he had not joined the investigations with DSP Sh. Abhay Singh or that seizure memo had been prepared in the Police Station which he signed at the instance and directions of DSP Sh. Abhay Singh. PW62 ASI Om Prakash who was posted as ASI at Police Station Barwala, Distt. District Hissar has proved having joined investigations along with Sh. Abhay Singh, DSP Hansi on receipt of information from SHO of Police Station Barwala, Hissar. He has proved having lifted the ashes from two houses belonging to Ramphal and Ram Niwas both sons of Rajmal (members of 'B' community) as pointed out to him by DSP Sh. Abhay Singh which houses were completely burnt. He has further proved that the ashes were thereafter converted into pullandas by putting them into plastic polythene bags and thereafter with
a white cloth and stitched the same and put his seal of OP on the said pullandas and the seal after use was handed over to ASI Dharamvir and the two sealed pullandas bearing the details of the houses from where they had been lifted, were handed over to DSP Sh. Abhay Singh who prepared the seizure memo which is Ex.PW57/A after which his statement was recorded on the same day that is 21.4.2010. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsels the witness has denied not having joined the investigations with DSP Sh. Abhay Singh or that the seizure memo had been prepared while sitting in the Police Station which he signed at the instance and directions of DSP Sh. Abhay Singh. PW64 SI Bani Singh was posted as Special Staff Incharge, Hansi on 21.4.2010 and has proved that at about 9-9:30 AM while he was present in the court premises at Hansi, he received an information from WTO by telephone and also by wireless regarding quarrel at Mirchpur village on which he reached there along with his force at about 10:30-11AM where he found smoke emerging/ simmering in the Harijan basti. He has further deposed that he found persons from both the communities that is 'J' community and 'B' community present there and persons from the 'J' community were coming towards the 'B' Basti from the village side taking the main gali while Inspector Vinod Kumar (accused Vinod the then SHO Police Station Narnaund) used force on the persons from the 'J' community who thereafter ran towards the western side of the village. He has also deposed that after about one hour SP, Hissar reached the spot and fire brigades also came to the village along with the additional police force. He has stated that after the SP Hissar reached the village the crowd again stated collecting and therefore on the
instructions of the SP Hissar force was used to disperse the crowd and fire brigades which had come to the village were put in use to control and extinguish the fire. According to him during this period information was received by SP Hissar that there was fire in the house of Tara Chand in which Tara Chand and his daughter Suman were burnt and were lying in burnt condition in said house, on this they went to the house of Tara Chand where they found that there was fire in the house of Tara Chand whereas Tara Chand himself was lying outside the house in a burnt condition. Thereafter on the directions of the SP police gypsy was brought to the spot and Tara Chand who was alive at that time was immediately shifted to General Hospital, Hissar along with his son Amar Lal and nephew Ashok and he (witness) accompanied them at General Hospital, Hissar where Tara Chand was got admitted and the doctor on duty handed over to him the MLR which is Ex.PW52/B and the rukka Ex.PW64/A while he started his treatment. According to the witness he thereafter wrote an application for getting the statement of the injured Tara Chand recorded which application is Ex.PW64/B bearing his signatures at point A on which application the doctor opined Tara Chand fit for statement which opinion is encircled at point B and thereafter he recorded the statement of Tara Chand in the presence of Dr. Dinesh Kumar and the son of Tara Chand namely Amar Lal which statement is Ex.PW64/C bearing the thumb impressions of the deceased Tara Chand at point A, his signatures at point B, signatures of Amar Lal at point C and the signatures of Dr. Dinesh at point D. The witness has clarified the error in the month while recording the date which has been shown as 21.5.2010 at point E and therefore is now required to be read as 21.04.2010. He has stated that after recording the statement he read out
the same to Tara Chand and Tara Chand after hearing the same and understanding it put his thumb impressions at point A. According to the witness after completing this statement he reported and apprised the senior officers including SP Hissar and DSP Hansi of the same on which they were of the view that the statement of Tara Chand should be got recorded before the Judicial Magistrate and therefore he went to Hissar Court complex and moved an application before Ld. Duty Magistrate Hissar which application is Ex.PW55/A bearing his signatures at point B. He has deposed that the said application was presented before Sh. Harish Goyal, Duty Magistrate (PW55) who thereafter came to the General Hospital, Hissar himself and recorded the statement of Tara Chand. He has further deposed that after the statement of Tara Chand was recorded by the Ld. Duty Magistrate his condition deteriorated and he was referred to PGI, Rohtak by the doctors but since his condition had become very serious they immediately shifted him to Soni Burns Hospital, Hissar in an ambulance where they met Dr. Sunil Kumar who checked Tara Chand and declared him dead and therefore, they brought Tara Chand back to General Hospital, Hissar where the doctor prepared his death rukka which is Ex.PW64/D which he handed over to him. Thereafter the dead body of Tara Chand was got preserved in the mortuary while he kept the rukka and thereafter he called the legal heirs of Tara Chand for conducting further proceedings on which his son Amar Lal told them that their relatives were not in a position to come to the hospital and requested that all proceedings should be conducted on the next day. According to the witness after informing his senior officers of all developments, he came back to the hospital at night and on 22.04.2010 on the directions of DSP Sh. Abhay Singh conduct the
inquest proceedings and prepared the inquest papers which are Ex.PW64/E (collectively running into eight pages) of which Form 25 is Ex.PW64/E1, dead body identification by Suresh is Ex.PW24/A and by Amar is Ex.PW64/E2, inspection of the dead body and the inspection of the mortuary is Ex.PW64/E3, copy of the FIR Ex.PW64/E4 and also attached the photocopy of the dying declaration of Tara Chand along with these inquest proceedings. He has further deposed that therefore he made a request to MO, General Hospital, Hissar for constituting a board to conduct the postmortem of the deceased Tara Chand which request is Ex.PW64/F bearing his signatures at point A. He has proved that after the postmortem of Tara Chand was conducted the body was handed over to Amar Lal vide Ex.PW64/G bearing his signatures at point A and signatures of Amar at point B and thereafter the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased. He has further deposed that he also collected the copy of the postmortem report which is Ex.PW52/C bearing his signatures at point D and came to the court premises at Hansi where DSP Sh. Abhay Singh was producing some accused before the court after which he handed over all the papers to DSP Sh. Abhay Singh. According to the witness, on 23.04.2010 on the directions of DSP Sh. Abhay Singh he went to General Hospital, Hissar where five injured namely Gulab Singh S/o Jai Lal, Dhoop Singh S/o Ratan Singh, Raj Kumar S/o Kapoora, Sandeep S/o Raj Kumar and Mahajan S/o Satpal were admitted and he moved an application before the Medical Officer, Hissar for recording the statements of the above injured which application is Ex.PW64/H bearing his signatures at point A. After the doctor declared all the above injured fit for statement vide endorsement encircled B he recorded the statements of Gulab Singh,
Dhoop Singh, Raj Kumar, Sandeep and Mahajan and returned to the office of DSP Hansi and handed over the statements to the DSP. According to the witness, on 21.05.2010 he again joined the investigations along with DSP Tula Ram on which day DSP Tula Ram had recorded the disclosure statement of Rajender S/o Pale who was in his custody which statement is Ex.PW64/I bearing his signatures at point A whereas the remaining investigations were conducted by DSP Tula Ram. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsels the witness has deposed that had reached village Mirchpur along with five other police officials where SP Hissar was already present along with force of more than hundred persons and according to him, all SHOs of district Hissar were present at the village along with their force. He has denied the suggestion that the entire police force was armed and has voluntarily added that the majority of the force was having lathies and dandas. According to the witness, he had left the village along with injured Tara Chand at about 12:30-12:34 PM (noon) and states that at the time when the force had reached the spot the quarrel/jhagra was still going on. He has denied the suggestion that as soon as they reached village Mirchpur they surrounded the village into nakas and has voluntarily explained that first of all they went along with the Superintendent of Police Hissar to the 'B' Basti and dispersed the crowd. He admits that no arrests were made at the spot till the time he remained in the village nor any arrest were made, nor any exhibits in the form of lathies, jellies oil cans were lifted in his presence and according to him he only saw stones and bricks (rora pathar) lying at the spot when he reached the spot but did not see any lathies, jellies and oil cans etc. He
has further admitted that the house of Tara Chand is not on the main gali and has voluntarily added that it is one of the bye lanes and there are four to five houses between the house of Tara Chand and the main gali all of whom belonging to 'B'. He has admitted that towards the house of Tara Chand only houses belonging to the members of 'B' community are present and on the other side there are houses of the members of 'J' community. He has further admitted that when he reached the spot he only saw persons from the 'B' community standing in the gali in front of the house of Tara Chand and persons from the 'J' community were not present in the gali but has denied the suggestion that persons from the 'B' community were also standing in the main gali towards the direction of their houses (houses belonging to the members of 'B' community) and has voluntarily added that the members of the 'B' community were only standing in their Basti and not on the main gali. He has admitted that when he left along with the injured Tara Chand SP Hissar was still present in the village and states that he (witness) returned to the village only on 23.04.2010. He has denied the suggestion that they did not take Tara Chand to the proper place where he could have been given the proper treatment for burns but kept him shifting from one place to another and it is due to this reason that he could not be saved and expired. He has denied the suggestion that Tara Chand was not in a fit state to make a statement and he recorded the statement of Tara Chand of his own and fabricated the endorsement from the doctor at point encircled D on Ex.PW64/C (statement of Tara Chand) later on. He has admitted that the doctor has not specifically mentioned at point encircled D that he had examined the patient and found him fit for making statement and has voluntarily added that the doctor had only attested his
statement on Ex.PW64/C whereas the fitness is present on his application. He has denied the suggestion that he had taken the thumb impression of Tara Chand at the instance of his relatives on a blank paper while he was still unconscious and fabricated the statement later on which he got attested by the doctor and obtained the signatures of Amar. He has denied the suggestion that Tara Chand was not in a position to speak at all or that he had not taken the name of any person or that the application Ex.PW64/B was manufactured by him at a later stage on legal advice after getting the statement attested on which he obtained the endorsement of the doctor regarding fitness at point B. He has denied the suggestion that the doctor had never examined Tara Chand before giving the endorsement. He has further denied having shown the statement recorded by him to the Duty Magistrate on the instructions of the SP Hissar at the time he moved the application Ex.PW55/A or that the Duty Magistrate had simply recorded the dying declaration after seeing the statement of Tara Chand as recorded by him (witness). He stated that he reached the court of the duty magistrate at about 4:30 PM and could appear before him only about 5-5:15 PM but has denied the suggestion that the magistrate did not go to the hospital and has voluntarily explained that he had gone to the hospital in his separate car and not with him and also states that he (witness) was not present with the duty magistrate when he had recorded the statement of Tara Chand in the hospital. He has denied the suggestion that the relatives of Tara Chand was present with him when his statement was recorded and has voluntarily added that Ld. Magistrate had directed their removal from the room and recorded his statement only after they had gone out though he admits that he had only met Suresh and Amar both from the family of
Tara Chand in the hospital. He has denied the suggestion that Amar and Suresh only told him that they are not aware of the incident but could only identify the dead body and has voluntarily added that Amar had told him that Tara Chand had sustained burn injuries in the incident dated 21.04.2010 when the persons from 'J' community had set their house on fire. He has denied the suggestion that Amar did not inform him about any of the names of the assailants and has added voluntarily that he had told him about the name of Rajender S/o Pale and Karam Pal. He has further admitted that only the name of Rajender is mentioned in the inquest proceedings and has denied that he has deliberately and malafidely added the name of Karam Pal. He has also denied the suggestion that he has fabricated the statement of Amar Pal Ex.PW64/E2 and had obtained his signatures on the said fabrication. He has admitted that Rajender was not arrested in his presence but has denied the suggestion that Rajender S/o Pale had not made any disclosure statement in his presence and that he had only signed the document prepared by the Investigating Officer Ex.PW64/I while sitting in the police station. He has denied the suggestion that Dhoop Singh Ex.PW 29/PX1, Raj Kumar Ex.PW 34/PX1, Gulab Singh Ex.PW 48/PX1, Mahajan Ex.PW 38/PX1 and Sandeep S/o Raj Kumar which is now Ex.PW 64/DX1 did not make any statement to him and he recorded their statements of his own by fabricating the same. He has denied that Dhoop Singh, Raj Kumar, Gulab Singh, Mahajan and Sandeep had never met him nor they were interrogated by him at any point of time and therefore the question of recording of their statement does not arrive. He has denied the suggestion that he did not go to the hospital or that he had recorded the statement of his own while sitting in the police station.
He has admitted that he was present with the DSP Sh. Tula Ram on 25.05.2010 when the team of the Human Rights Commission headed by Viplava Kumar Chaudhary had visited the village and has further deposed that he does not recollect if DSP Sh. M.S. Yadav, Ashish Kumar and Insp. Krishan Singh Yadav were also present there when the team of Human Rights had visited the village. He also does not recollect if DSP Sh. Tula Ram had prepared a report regarding the visit of the team of Human rights which report he had submitted to the senior officers along with the investigations details. He has denied the suggestion that Amar Pal and Pardeep both the sons of deceased Tara Chand had told them that they were not aware of the incident and how their father and sister had sustained injuries. PW 65 ASI Bhim Singh was posted at police Chowki Kheri Chowk on 21.4.2010 and has proved that on that day at about 9:30 AM they had received an information from Police Station Narnaund by wireless regarding communal tension between two communities at village Mirchpur resulting into quarrel and they were directed to reach Police Station Narnaund for duty. He has deposed that on receipt of this information he along with his force reached village Mirchpur at about 10:30 AM where already sufficient number of police personnel's were present who were trying to disperse the crowd. He has further deposed that he along with his force went towards the 'B' Basti and the gali along with the main gali where there were houses of both the communities that is 'J' community and 'B' community and stone pelting was still going on between members of both the communities ('J' and 'B') where he also noticed fire and smoke coming from the side of 'B' Basti. He has also deposed that SP Hissar also reached the spot along with his force, fire
brigade and ambulance and he with the help of his force dispersed the crowd and controlled the situation. The fire was drowsed with the help of fire brigade and he (witness) was directed to remain at the spot on the said day. According to the witness, on 22.04.2010 at about 7:30 AM he was called to the 'B' Basti at village Mirchpur where Sh. Abhay Singh DSP directed him to get the inquest proceedings conducted in respect of the deceased Suman D/o Tara Chand who had died after sustaining burn injuries in the incident on 21.04.2010 whose dead body was lying at GH, Hansi. He has further deposed that on the directions of the DSP he along with Ct. Karamvir No. 1278 reached hospital at Hansi where they found dead body of Suman at mortuary, where he conducted the inquest proceedings which are Ex.PW65/A collectively running into nine pages, of which Form 25 is Ex.PW65/A1. He has clarified that while he was filling up the Form No. 25 he received information from DSP Abhay Singh that there was a possibility of communal clash at Hansi and the dead body of Suman should be immediately shifted to General Hospital, Hissar and therefore on receipt of these directions the dead body of Suman was shifted to General Hospital, Hissar where Amar and Suresh were already present and therefore he recorded the statements regarding identification of dead body of Suman by Amar which is Ex.PW65/A2 and by Suresh which is Ex.PW65/A3 both bearing his signatures at point A and the signatures of Amar and Suresh at point B on the respective documents. He has also proved the copy of the FIR which is Ex.PW64/A4 and the handing over receipt of the dead body which is Ex.PW24/B. According to the witness the doctor handed over to him the postmortem report and the inquest papers along with four sealed
pullandas duly sealed with the seal of hospital and he seized the pullandas vide memo Ex.PW65/B bearing his signatures at point A and signatures of Ct. Karamvir at point B. Thereafter he reached Police Station Narnaund where he telephonically contacted DSP Abhay Singh and apprised him of the entire proceedings conducted by him and thereafter on his (DSP Sh. Abhay Singh's) directions got the pullandas deposited at Police Station Narnaund with the MHC(M) and thereafter he went to village Mirchpur where he met DSP Abhay Singh and handed over to him all the documents including the inquest papers and the postmortem report. After refreshing his memory with the permission of the court, the witness has admitted having filed an application to MO General Hospital, Hissar for constituting a medical board for conducting the postmortem of Suman which application is Ex.PW65/C bearing his signatures at point A. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel the witness has deposed that the force of the entire district had been called by SP Hissar and all the SHOs from the district were present when the force reached village Mirchpur which force first reached the spot of the incident and states that the nakas were made later on. He has further deposed that at the time when he reached the spot along with the other force, the incident was still going on and the force which had come was armed with fire arms like SLR, riffle, 303 riffle and others had lathies and dandas. He has further deposed that he remained at the spot the entire day on 21.04.2010 and also the following night and even the SP Hissar was present with them. According to him, in his presence no arrests were made on 21.04.2010 nor he is aware of the same and also
states that in his presence no exhibits were lifted in the form of empty cans, weapons like lathies, jellies etc. He has admitted that there are houses of mixed population in the main gali and has voluntarily explained that on one side there are houses belonging to the members of 'B' community whereas on the other side there are houses belonging to 'J' community. He has denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely in his examination in chief at the instance of the Investigating Officer or that all documentation was done later on while sitting in the police station. PW66 Sh. Abhay Singh who was posted as DSP, Hansi on 21.4.2010 and is the first Investigating Officer of the case. He has deposed that on that day he was present in the court at Kaithal for his evidence and at about 12.00 Noon when he came out of the court room after giving his evidence, his driver informed him of having received an information from SP Hissar regarding quarrel at Village Mirchpur between 'B' and 'J' community and that he had been instructed by Superintendent of Police Hissar to proceed to Village Mirchpur. On receipt of this information he along with his staff reached Village Mirchpur at about 1.302.00PM where Superintendent of Police Sh. Subhash Yadav was already present along with his staff and he (witness) was told by the Superintendent of Police that the houses of 'B' community were burnt by the persons belonging to 'J' community and the Superintendent of Police asked him to get fire extinguished. the hospital. According to the witness, the Fire Brigade had already reached the village and he got the fire extinguished in the house of Tara
The
Superintendent of Police also directed him to send the injured persons to
Chand where he found the dead body of Suman D/o Tara Chand who was burnt badly. He has deposed that the body of deceased Suman was got sent to Civil Hospital, Hansi in an Ambulance along with police officials whereas Tara Chand who was in a burnt condition was still alive and therefore, he gave directions to SI Bane Singh who was present at the spot to take Tara Chand to General Hospital, Hissar. Accordingly SI Bane Singh took Tara Chand to General Hospital, Hissar in the official vehicle while he (witness) got extinguished the fire in the houses belonging to the members of 'B' community which had been burnt by the persons belonging to 'J' community. In the meanwhile when he was present in front of the house of Tara Chand, Karan Singh Numberdaar of the village came to him and he recorded his (Karan Singh's) statement Ex.PW66/A in verbatim which statement Karan Singh had signed at point A after it was read over to him and he was satisfied with the contents of the same which also bears his signatures at point B. He has also proved having prepared rukka which is Ex.PW66/B bearing his signatures at point A which he gave to HC Om Prakash for taking the same to Police Station Narnaund and registration of the FIR. According to the witness, when he had reached village Mirchpur the FSL team from Hissar and the photographers were already present in the village and thereafter he along with the FSL team inspected the burnt houses and the houses which were damaged during the incident. He has deposed that as per directions of the SP he had constituted four teams headed by SI Manjeet Singh, ASI Sadhu Ram, ASI Om Prakash and ASI Satbir and he directed ASI Satbir Singh to lift ashes from the six burnt houses, ASI Om Prakash to lift ashes from the two burnt houses, ASI Sadhu Ram to lift ashes from the two burnt houses and SI Manjeet Singh to lift ashes from
the five burnt houses. He has further deposed that on the same day all the aforesaid four police officers produced before him sealed parcels duly sealed and he seized the sealed parcels vide seizure memo already Ex.PW57/A bearing his signatures at point E, signatures of SI Manjeet Singh, ASI Sadhu Ram, ASI Satbir Singh and ASI Om Prakash at points A, B. C and D respectively. Thereafter, he lifted ashes from the different places from the house of Tara Chand and prepared one parcel of ashes and affixed his seal on the same which seizure memo is Ex.PW49/A bearing his signatures at point A. He has further stated that one motorcycle which was lying in a burnt condition in the house of Tara Chand which he seized in the presence of Pradeep S/o Tara Chand and HC Ranbir Singh who put their signatures at point B and C respectively. He has stated that thereafter he also lifted the ashes from different places from the house of Pradeep S/o Tara Chand and prepared a parcel of ashes and affixed his seal of AS on the parcel and also found one rickshaw (tricycle) of disabled Suman which was lying in the house in a burnt condition which he seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW49/B in the presence of Pradeep S/o Tara Chand and HC Ranbir Singh who also put their signatures at points B and C and also bearing his signatures at point A. He has further stated that he recorded the statements of the witnesses from the 'B' community namely Kamla, Pradeep, Gulaba, Satyawan, Ramesh, Jagmal, Ram Niwas, Chander, Dilbagh, Sanjay, Manoj, Rajinder, Sanjay S/o Satpal, Sunita W/o Surta, Sushil S/o Surta, Raja, Rajmal, Jaswant, Vijender, Dharambir, Binder, Nawab, Rajesh, Praveen, Satpal S/o Pratap, Karamvir, Pawan and of the official witnesses namely SI Manjeet, ASI Om Prakash, ASI Satbir and ASI Sadhu Ram under Section 161 Cr. P. C. He has further deposed that during the inspection of
the burnt and damaged houses he had prepared site plans of the same which were thirty three in numbers and are Ex.PW66/C-1 to Ex.PW66/C-33 all bearing his signatures at point A. According to him on the same day that is 21.04.2010 he directed SI Ajeet Singh Incharge, CIA staff to apprehend the accused persons whose names had figured in the FIR and in the statement of the witnesses so recorded by him. He has further deposed that on 22.04.2010 SI Ajeet Singh produced before him 25 persons out of the assailants who had been named by the victims who all were arrested. He has proved the arrest memo of the accused Dharambir S/o Tara Chand Ex.PW66/D1 (not disputed by the accused); Pawan S/o Ram Mehar Ex.PW66/D2 (not disputed by the accused); Karam Bir S/o Tara Chand Ex.PW66/D3 (not disputed by the accused); Joginder @ Jogar S/o Bhim Singh Ex.PW66/D4 (not disputed by the accused); Dalbir S/o Dalip Singh Ex.PW66/D5 (not disputed by the accused); Balwan S/o Inder Ex.PW66/D6 (not disputed by the accused); Satyawan S/o Tara Chand Ex.PW66/D7 (not disputed by the accused); Jai Bir S/o Manphool Ex.PW66/D8 (not disputed by the accused); Ajeet Singh S/o Sukhbir Ex.PW66/D9 (not disputed by the accused); Balwan S/o Dharam Singh Ex.PW66/D10 (not disputed by the accused); Roshan S/o Ram Swaroop Ex.PW66/D11 (not disputed by the accused); Pradeep S/o Ram Phal Ex.PW66/D12 (not disputed by the accused); Vijender S/o Hoshiar Singh was Ex.PW66/D13 (not disputed by the accused); Hoshiar Singh S/o Mangal Singh Ex.PW66/D14 (not disputed by the accused); accused Ajeet S/o Dalip Singh Ex.PW66/D15 (not disputed by the accused); Rajinder S/o Dhupa Ex.PW66/D16 (not disputed by the accused) and Surender Kumar S/o Jagde Ram Ex.PW66/D17 (not
disputed by the accused) all bearing his signatures at point A respectively. He has also deposed that the accused Satish S/o Ajmer, Deepak S/o Ajmer, Ajeet S/o Sukhbir, Sukhbir S/o Manphool, Ram Mehar, S/o Gulab Singh, Kulwant S/o Chander Singh, Rajesh S/o Prakash and Dinesh S/o Amar Lal were also arrested by him but have not been sent up for trial. He has further proved the joint disclosure statement of the accused Dharam Bir, Pawan, Karambir, Joginder, Dalbir, Balwan S/o Inder, Satyawan, Jaibir, Ajeet Singh, Balwan S/o Dharam Singh, Roshan, Pradeep S/o Ram Phal, Vijender, Hoshiar Singh, Ajeet S/o Dalip Singh, Rajinder S/o Dhupa and Surender Kumar S/o Jagde Ram which is Ex.PW66/E bearing his signatures at point A. He has further proved the production of all the above accused before the Ld. Judicial Magistrate and states that he had made a request for grant of their police custody remand which request was disallowed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate and the accused were remanded to Judicial Custody. He has deposed that while he was still in the court premises on that day SI Bane Singh came to him and handed over to him the inquest proceedings and PM Report in respect of deceased Tara Chand. Thereafter he along with his staff went to village Mirchpur where he met ASI Bhim Singh who handed over to him the inquest papers and the postmortem report of deceased Suman and prior to which ASI Bhim Singh had telephonically informed him that he was also handed over some pulandas by the doctor on which he instructed ASI Bhim Singh to deposit the same with the MHC(M) of Police Station Narnaund.
Page No. 266
He has further deposed that on 22.04.2010 he was present at village Mirchpur along with the SP Hissar when Karan Singh met them and handed over some application to the Superintendent of Police, Hissar which application Ex.PW66/F was handed over to him by the Superintendent of Police, Hissar pursuant to which he recorded the supplementary statement of Karan Singh and added the provisions of Section 4 of SC/ ST (POA) Act. He has further deposed that on the same day evening SI Manjeet Singh had apprehended and produced the the accused Rajbir S/o Mai Chand before him and he arrested the accused Rajbir vide memo Ex.PW66/E18 (not disputed by the accused) bearing his signatures at point A. He has stated that accused Rajbir was produced before the Ld. Illaqa Magistrate and remanded to judicial custody on the next day while he had recorded the statement of HC Ramphal on the same day that is 22.4.2010. According to the witness, on 23.04.2010 he directed SI Bane Singh to go to General Hospital, Hissar and interrogate all the injured who were admitted there and to record their statements. In compliance of his directions SI Bane Singh went to the General Hospital, Hissar and recorded their statements which he handed over to him at Village Mirchpur on the same day. Thereafter on the same day SI Manjeet Singh produced before him accused Dinesh, Naresh (not an accused before this court) and Viren and he arrested accused Dinesh vide memo Ex.PW66/E19 and Viren vide memo Ex.PW66/E20. He has explained that the accused Naresh was got discharged and not been sent up for trial as per record. On 24.04.2010 accused Dinesh and Viren were interrogated and he recorded their disclosure statements which statements are already Ex.PW57/B and Ex.PW57/C respectively bearing
his signatures at point B. He has further deposed that he recorded the statement of SI Manjeet Singh and the accused were produced before the Illaqa Magistrate who remanded them to judicial custody. According to the witness, on 25.04.2010 photographers ASI Miya Singh, Ct. Anil Kumar and Ct. Devi Lal who had conducted the photography of the post mortem and the spot and also videography of the spot on 21.04.2010 and 22.04.2010 on his instructions and directions and on pointing out of the victims handed over the CDs of the videography and the photographs to him which CD was duly seized vide Ex.PW4/B bearing his signatures at point C after which he recorded the statement of all the above police officials. He has further deposed that on 26.04.2010 he went Village Mirchpur he carried out further investigations and also recorded statements of Veer Bhan, supplementary statement of Sanjay, Amar and Rajesh and also interrogated ASI Dev Raj and took the entire investigation file from him in respect of incident of dated 19.04.2010 containing the MLR, rukka and statements of the witnesses which he seized vide memo Ex.PW66/G after which he recorded the statement of ASI Dev Raj. Here I may observe that a separate charge sheet has been filed by the prosecution in respect of the incident dated 19.4.2010 which trial is pending before the competent court at Hissar. According to the witness on 27.04.2010 he again went to Village Mirchpur for investigations where he met Karan Singh and other residents of the village and recorded the supplementary statement of Karan Singh after which then he returned to Police Station Narnaund and recorded the statements of HC Veer Bhan MHC(M), EASI Manohar Lal and EASI Raghubir Singh.
He has stated that on 30.04.2010 he went to Village Mirchpur where a large number of persons belonging to the 'B' community had collected claiming that they had been injured in the incident dated 21.04.2010 and demanded that their medical examination should be conducted in the village itself on which he informed the DC about the demand of the said persons and thereafter on the directions of the Deputy Commissioner called the doctor from the Narnaund Hospital who examined as many as twenty nine persons claiming to have received injuries in the incident dated 21.04.2010 and thereafter he collected the MLRs of these persons claiming themselves to be injured and also recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The witness has also proved that on the same day that is 30.04.2010 the further investigations of this case were handed over to DSP Tula Ram and he handed over the entire investigation file along with the statements and other proceedings conducted by him to DSP Tula Ram on the same day. I may also observe that on 17.9.2011 the witness DSP Abhay Singh was recalled by the Court wherein he has proved having recorded the statement of Sushil under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.PW66/CX1. In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsels the witness has admitted that when he reached the spot the Superintendent of Police Hissar along with the other force consisting of more than hundred personnel's right from the rank of Constable to Superintendent of Police and also the Naib Tehsildar Jage Ram were present at village Mirchpur. He has denied that the entire force was armed and has voluntarily explained that majority of the force was armed with fire arms and others were having lathies. He has denied that when he reached the spot i.e.
village Mirchpur, the quarrel/incident was still continuing. According to him, he met SI Bane Singh and ASI Bhim Singh at village Mirchpur as they were present before he had reached the spot and states that by the time he had reached the village SP Hissar had not apprehended any of the assailants involved in the incident. He has further deposed that he had received the information through his gunman who informed him that he had received a communication from SP Hissar regarding the quarrel at village Mirchpur since his mobile phone was with the gunman when he was giving his evidence in the court and states that it was only when he reached the spot that SP Hissar told him that there had been a communal flare up between the 'J' and 'B' in the village and a large number of persons from the 'J' community had indulged into rioting and arson as a result of which many persons had received injuries and were required to be taken to the hospital and he was instructed to ensure that all injured were shifted to the hospital. According to him, the Superintendent of Police did not tell him anything about the assailants and when he asked the SP regarding the assailants he was only told that they were persons from the 'J' community but he did not ask him (SP) about any other details. He has deposed that at the time when he (witness) reached village Mirchpur, the Superintendent of Police did not tell him that when he (Superintendent of Police) reached the village rioting was still going on or that he had to use force to disperse the crowd and has voluntarily added that this fact he had told him later which also finds a mention in his case diaries. He has denied that he was told by the Superintendent of Police that the actual assailants had been made to escape from the spot and has voluntarily added that he only told him that he had dispersed the crowd. Witness has admitted that persons from other communities also
reside in the village apart from the 'B' and the 'J' and states that he did not make any other person from other community other than a 'B' community a witness in the present case nor he recorded their statements but has denied that he deliberately did not record the statements of the persons of other communities who were residing in the same village. He has denied that he was informed by the villagers that the quarrel had taken place on account of the fact that a large number of persons from outside the village had come and attacked assaulted the villagers after which they had gone away or that Superintendent of Police Hissar had made inquiries and interrogated residents of the village belonging to the 'B' community and also to all other communities and has voluntarily added that he came to know of this but states these inquiries were not made in his presence by the Superintendent of Police. Witness is unaware if the Superintendent of Police had interrogated Suresh, Karan Singh and Ramphal Phelwan all belonging to 'B' community along with twenty other persons of same village from other communities and has voluntarily added that he came to know of this case from the jimnies/ case diaries written by the Superintendent of Police though the Superintendent of Police did not tell him about the same. He has further deposed that Superintendent of Police Hissar did not tell him during the investigations that on interrogation he (Superintendent of Police) had come to know that on 19.04.2010 in the evening when Deepak, Satish, Pardeep, Suresh from village Mirchpur and one Tinku from Petwar were passing through the main gali the pet she-dog of Jai Parkash caught hold the pant of Deepak and he used force to free himself by using his chappal (slipper) on which there was an objection by the boys of the 'B' community resulting into a quarrel which got aggravated initially but
later it was settled amicably and has voluntarily stated that he came to know of this incident and fact from the case diaries written by the Superintendent of Police who did not personally tell him about the same. He has also denied that the Superintendent of Police Hissar had told him that on 20.04.2010 when Rajender S/o Pale came to know of this incident that some of the 'J' boys had been beaten by the boys of the 'B' community he (Rajender) did not supply milk to the 'B' Basti and has again voluntarily added that he came to know of this fact from the case diary written by the Superintendent of Police. He has further denied that Superintendent of Police Hissar also told him that being aggrieved by this incident dated 20.04.2010 when Rajender did not supply milk to the 'B' Basti some of the boys of the 'B' community stopped and surrounded Rajender S/o Pale and Karam Pal S/o Satbir and while they were passing through the main gali in their boogie and started beating them when Karampal some how managed to free himself and informed the persons from the 'J' community about what had happened on which the dispute got aggravated and stone pelting commenced and has again voluntarily stated that he came to know of this fact from the jimney written by the Superintendent of Police Hissar. Witness has deposed that it was not in his knowledge that Rajender S/o Pale was thereafter rescued by Dinesh S/o Prem resident of village Mirchpur and shifted to Balaji Hospital, Jind for treatment and it was also not in his knowledge that Dinesh S/o Prem was also badly beaten by these boys belonging to the 'B' community and similarly shifted to General Hospital Jind for treatment as he had also received injuries. He has admitted that Dinesh S/o Prem was arrested in the present case but has denied that he was arrested from General Hospital Jind where he was admitted after receiving injuries in the hands
by the 'B' boys and has denied that he came to know from inquiries that Rajender S/o Pale was not even present at the time when the incident dated 19.04.2010 took place and on 21.04.2010 he was admitted in the hospital as he had received injuries. He has denied that witnesses from the village had also shown him the boogie in which Rajender and Karampal were going when they were attacked at the main gali by the boys belonging to the 'B' community which boogie remained at the spot for about four to five days but he deliberately did not seize the same and has stated that there was no such boogie. DSP Abhay Singh (witness) has admitted that on 21.4.2010 and also on the intervening night of 21/22.04.2010 he remained at village Mirchpur through out along with the Superintendent of Police and other force and states that he was inside the village carrying out investigations whereas Superintendent of Police and the force were outside at the water works for security arrangement. He has denied the suggestion that he had given directions to SI Ajeet only after fabricating the evidence and material against some of the accused by showing them as assailants only to work out the case because of the pressure put on them. He has denied that on 21.04.2010 Pardeep, Gulaba, Satyawan, Ramesh, Jagmal, Ram Niwas, Chander, Dilbagh, Sanjay, Manoj, Rajender, Sanjay S/o Satpal, Sunita W/o Surta, Sushil S/o Surta, Raja, Rajmal, Jaswant, Vijender, Dharambir, Bindar, Nawab, Rajesh, Parveen, Satpal S/o Partap, Karamvir, Pawan and Kamla did not meet him and none of them made any statements and he had recorded their statements of his own. He has denied that Karan Singh did not make any statement to him and he had only taken his signatures on blank papers which he filled up of his own at a later stage and converted the same into a rukka and on the basis of
which the present FIR was registered. He is unable to tell whether Karan Singh S/o Tek Ram has made a statement before the ASJ Hissar where this case was previously tried before its transfer that police had obtained his signatures on blank papers. He has admitted that initially only twenty five persons were arrested. He has also admitted that during the investigations in the village on 21.04.2010 no weapons in the form of lathies, jellies, gandases and oil cans/containers were found by him at the village nor he seized the same. He has denied that lathies, gandases, jellies, oil cans were never used during the incident and it was for this reason that they could not be found at the spot on 21.04.2010. He has denied that none of the accused facing trial before this court were involved in the incident dated 21.04.2010 and it was for this reason that they were not apprehended at the spot when a large police force reached the village under the senior police officers of the rank of SP and they had been subsequently arrested on the basis of fabricated material only to work out the present case. He admitted that till the time the investigation file remained with him there was no material warranting the discharge some of the accused arrested by him who were later on got discharged by the subsequent Investigating Officer and not sent up for trial but has denied that accused Dharambir, Pawan, Karambir, Jogender, Dalbir, Balwan S/o Inder, Satyawan, Jaibir, Ajeet Singh, Balwan S/o Dharam Singh, Roshan, Pardeep S/o Ramphal, Vijender, Hoshiayar Singh, Ajeet S/o Dalip Singh, Rajender S/o Dhoopa and Surender Kumar S/o Jagdev Ram did not make any disclosure regarding their involvement in the present offence and it was for this reason that he obtained their signatures and thumb impressions on blank papers forcibly and converted the same into a joint disclosure. He has admitted that no
recovery was made pursuant to the joint disclosure statements made by Dharambir, Pawan, Karambir, Jogender, Dalbir, Balwan S/o Inder, Satyawan, Jaibir, Ajeet Singh, Balwan S/o Dharam Singh, Roshan, Pardeep S/o Ramphal, Vijender, Hoshiayar Singh, Ajeet S/o Dalip Singh, Rajender S/o Dhoopa and Surender Kumar S/o Jagdev Ram which statement is Ex.PW66/E and has voluntarily added that the accused Dinesh who had also made a joint disclosure statement with the above accused was got discharged later on by his successor. He has denied that Karan Singh had not given any application to the Superintendent of Police on 22.04.2010 which was handed over to him by the SP on the basis of which he had recorded his statement and added certain sections in the FIR or that Karan Singh had not made any supplementary statement to him and it was only with a view to invoke the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act that he fabricated his supplementary statement. He has denied that the attestation as a witness on the joint disclosure statement Ex.PW66/E had been made by HC Ramphal on his instructions and directions while sitting at a police station and has also denied that he had never directed SI Bane Singh to go to General Hospital, Hissar for investigations of the case or for recording the statements of the injured or that the statements of the alleged injured namely Gulab Singh S/o Jai Lal, Dhoop Singh S/o Rattan Singh, Raj Kumar S/o Kapoora, Sandeep S/o Raj Kumar and Mahajan S/o Satpal were fabricated by SI Bane Singh on his dictation and instructions at the police station itself. He has also denied that he had not recorded any statements of Veer Bhan, supplementary statement of Sanjay, Amar and Rajesh and that he fabricated the same of his own on 26.4.2010 or that on 27.04.2010 he did not record the supplementary statement of Karan
Singh, HC Veer Bhan, EASI Manohar Lal and ESAI Raghubir Singh and that he fabricated the same of his own. Witness has admitted that on 27.04.2010 he was present at village Mirchpur and CM Haryana Sh. Bhupender Singh Hooda had visited the village but has stated that he is not aware if he (Chief Minister Haryana) had made any announcement regarding grant of compensation to the victims and states that he (witness) was on investigation duty. He has denied that it was on his suggestion to the persons from the 'B' community in order to secure a compensation claim that he told them to get their medical conducted and it was for this reason that the doctor was called by him to the Mirchpur hospital for purposes of creating the medical MLRs of twenty nine persons of the village all belonging to the 'B' community. He has also denied that he along with other senior officers had directed the doctors on duty to create and fabricate MLRs of all the persons who came to them for examination irrespective of the fact they suffered from injuries or not or that on the basis of these MLRs he got secured the compensation for these persons. The witness has admitted that he did not get the judicial Test Identification Parade of the accused arrested by him conducted and has voluntarily explained that since the names of the accused were figuring in the statements therefore there was no requirement of the same. He has admitted that police station Narnaund was under his jurisdiction at the time of the incident and the accused Vinod S/o Ram Niwas was the SHO of the said police station and was under his supervision and control. He admitted that on 09.04.2010 the then SHO Vinod Kajal had moved an application before the SP for sanctioning leave on account of demise of his mother and he was sanctioned ten days
leave. He has admitted that the relevant record regarding the application of Vinod to the Superintendent of Police, sanction of Leave and his departure/ joining entries are Ex.PW66/DX1 collectively running into five pages and had joined his duties in the police station only on 20.04.2010. He has also admitted that a double murder had taken place in village Barchapar falling in the jurisdiction of Police Station Narnaund and in respect of which FIR No. 106/10 was registered under Section 302/307/34 IPC which investigations were handed over to the accused Vinod but he is not aware if on 20.04.2010 the accused Vinod had proceeded to investigate the above FIR No. 106/10 at village Barchapar vide entry No.15 dated 20.04.2010 at 10:20 AM and returned only at 10:35 PM vide DD No. 44 dated 20.04.2010. He has admitted that on 21.04.2010 SHO Inspector Rohtash Singh, SHO Barwala was also present at village Mirchpur but he could not tell if he had reached the village prior to the reaching of the accused Vinod the then SHO Police Station Narnaund but states that Insp. Rohtash Singh had reached village Mirchpur before he (witness) could reach there. He has admitted that initially the allegations made under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act, 1989 were against the SHO and also against the Naib Tehsildar Jage Ram and admits that Naib Tehsildar was designated executive magistrate of the area and was a supervisory officer who had the power to direct the use of force. He has admitted that the allegations against Vinod and Jage Ram were similar and also that initially Niab Tehsildar Jage Ram had been booked and arrested under the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 but later on discharged on account of legal requirements and has stated that this had been done by his successor and not by him but he was aware of the same. According
to his witness, he had only added the provisions of Section 4 SC/ST(POA)Act but all arrests in this regard were made by his successor and therefore he is unable to tell why Vinod was booked for both SC/ST(POA) Act and IPC offences whereas Niab Tehsildar Jage Ram was got discharged for SC/ST(POA) Act and not booked for IPC violations despite the allegations against them being the same. He has also admitted that till such time the accused Vinod remained under his supervision in official capacity as SHO he found him to be a sincere and hard working officer and has explained that Vinod remained under him for almost two months and during this period there was no complaint against him. He has denied that he had wrongly booked the accused on the basis of the fabricated evidence and arrested them falsely. He has denied that he was deposing falsely to that extend only to support the investigations made by him. PW67 Sh. Tula Ram is the second Investigating Officer to whom investigations of the present case was handed over on 30.4.2010. He has deposed that on 27.04.2010 he was transferred from Gohana, District Sonipat to Hansi Haryana as DSP. On 30.04.2010 the further investigations of the present case was assigned to him by the order of Superintendent of Police, Hissar which investigations he took over from DSP Abhay Singh. He has further deposed that on that day that is 30.4.2010 SI Bane Singh produced before him at village Mirchpur accused Dharambir @ Illa S/o Mai Chand and Sonu @ Deepak S/o Krishan @ Pappu and he arrested Dharambir S/o Mahi Chand vide memo Ex.PW67/A1 (not disputed by the accused) and Deepak S/o Krishan vide memo Ex.PW67/A2 (not disputed by the accused). He has further deposed that on 01.05.2010 he arrested Insp. Vinod Kumar
Kajal from his quarter No.5, Police Line Hissar vide memo Ex.PW67/A3 (not disputed by the accused). He has further deposed that on 02.05.2010 he arrested accused Naib Tehsildar Jage Ram (not sent up for trial and therefore not disputed by the accused) from the office of DSP Hansi. According to him, on 14.05.2010 Raj Kumar the ExSarpanch of village Mirchpur produced before him eight accused persons at Senior Secondary School at Mirchpur namely Rajender S/o Belu, Rajender S/o Sidhu, Kuldeep S/o Balbir, Jagbir S/o Baru Ram, Ramphal @ Petla S/o Prithvi Singh, Vikas S/o Suresh, Daya S/o Jeet Singh and Suresh S/o Balbir whom he arrested. The arrest memo of the accused Kuldeep is Ex.PW67/A4, Rajender S/o Belu Ram is Ex.PW67/A5, Jagdish S/o Baru Ram is Ex.PW67/A6, Suresh S/o Balbir is Ex.PW67/A7, Rajender S/o Sadhu Ram is Ex.PW67/A8, Ramphal S/o Prithvi Singh is Ex.PW67/A9 and the arrest memo of accused Daya S/o Ajeet is Ex.PW67/A10 which bear his signatures at point A respectively. He has further deposed that on 15.05.2010 he arrested accused Pardeep S/o Balwan who was produced before him by Wazir Singh at village Mirchpur whose arrest memo is Ex.PW67/A11 (not disputed by the accused). He has further deposed that on 16.05.2010 Ex-Sarpanch Raj Kumar again produced before him three boys at Senior Secondary School village Mirchpur namely Rishi S/o Satbir, Karampal S/o Satbir and Jasbir S/o Ishwar whom he arrested. The arrest memo Rishi S/o Satbir is Ex.PW67/A12 (not disputed by the accused), Jasbir S/o Ishwar is Ex.PW67/A13 (not disputed by the accused) and Karampal S/o Satbir is Ex.PW67/A14 (not disputed by the accused) all bearing his signatures at point A.
Again on 17.05.2010 Sh. Prem Singh produced before him two boys at Senior Secondary School village Mirchpur namely Sunil Kumar @ Soni S/o Jaiveer and Sumit S/o Satyawan whom he arrested vide memos Ex.PW67/A15 (not disputed by the accused) and Ex.PW67/A16 (not disputed by the accused) respectively bearing his signatures at point A. According to the witness on 18.05.2010 he went to village Mirchpur at the 'B' Basti for investigations where he recorded the statements of Ajmer S/o Balbir, Sajna S/o Ram Swaroop, Satbir S/o Bhale Ram, Aman S/o Surta, Ashok S/o Maha Singh, Sandeep S/o Satpal, Abhishek S/o Sanjay, Kela W/o Jai Singh, Sunita W/o Satbir, Sunita W/o Vedu, Chander Pati W/o Sajna, Angoori W/o Dalip, Shanti W/o Jugti, Suman D/o Raghbir, Krishna W/o Raghbir, Ishro W/o Pasha and Pooja D/o Surta under Section 161 Cr. P.C. Further on 19.05.2010 he recorded the statement of HC Subhash the draftsman in the DSP Office, Hansi under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He has proved that on 20.05.2010 he prepared the charge sheet in respect of twenty eight accused persons who were in judicial custody and sent the same for checking to the prosecution department. He has further deposed that on 21.05.2010 he arrested Rajender S/o Pale from bus stand Mirchpur vide memo Ex.PW67/A17 (not disputed by the accused) and thereafter interrogated him wherein he disclosed about his involvement in the present case vide disclosure statement Ex.PW64/I. Here I may observe that the disclosure statement of the accused Rajender S/o Pale was recorded while in police custody and there is no discovery pursuant to the same due to which reason the disclosure statement is inadmissible in evidence.
The witness has further deposed that on the same day that is 21.5.2010 he was handed over the X-Ray reports of Raj Kumar, Mahajan, Dhoop Singh and Gulab Singh by SI Bane Singh and he added the provisions of Section 325 IPC to the charges and thereafter on 11.6.2010 he filed the charge sheet in the court in respect of twenty eight accused. He has further deposed that on 27.06.2010 he went to village Mirchpur where he carried out investigations and interrogated the alleged victims and recorded the statements of Suresh S/o Chander, Vicky S/o Dhoop Singh, Parveen S/o Jagpal, Aman S/o Surta, Gulab Singh S/o Jai Lal, Manoj S/o Mahender, Mahender S/o Amar Lal, Karamvir S/o Balbir, Sanjay S/o Bane Singh, Pardeep S/o Tara Chand and Amar S/o Tara Chand under Section 161 Cr.P.C. at water works Mirchpur and thereafter he prepared the supplementary charge sheet in respect of nine persons arrested later which was filed in the court on 01.07.2010. The witness has further deposed that thereafter again on 27.07.2010 he went to village Mirchpur to carry out the further investigations and interrogated some of the victims at 'B' Basti and recorded the statements of Veer Bhan S/o Man Singh, Suresh S/o Raj Kumar, Ashok S/o Maha Singh, Pradeep and Amar Lal both sons of Tara Chand under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and on the same day that is 27.07.2010 he prepared the supplementary charge sheet against the accused Vinod Kajal the then SHO Police Station Narnaund which he filed in the court on 29.07.2010. He has further deposed that on 29.07.2010 he arrested the accused Jogender S/o Inder vide memo Ex.PW67/A18 (not disputed by
the accused); Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand vide memo Ex.PW67/A19 (not disputed by the accused) and Jaiveer S/o Balbir vide memo Ex.PW67/A20 (not disputed by the accused) from Bus Stand Narnaund all bearing his signatures at point A. According to the witness on 01.08.2010 one Pardeep S/o Krishan produced before him Rupesh S/o Tek Ram, Bobal @ Langra S/o Tek Ram and Ramesh @ Mahesha S/o Dalip at Bus Stand Mirchpur whom he arrested. The arrest memo of Ramesh @ Mahesha S/o Dalip is Ex.PW67/A21 (not disputed by the accused), Rupesh S/o Tek Ram is Ex.PW67/A22 (not disputed by the accused) and Bobal @ Langra S/o Tek Ram is Ex.PW67/A23 (not disputed by the accused) all bearing his signatures at point A. He has further deposed that on 12.08.2010 while he was coming from the 'B' Basti where he had gone in connections with investigations on pointing out of the chowki incharge Mirchpur, he arrested Jagdish S/o Lehna whose arrest memo is Ex.PW67/A24 (not disputed by the accused). Again, on 24.08.2010 he had received a secret information regarding the presence of the accused Pawan @ Tinku S/o Sewa Singh at bus stand Petward on which he went to bus stand Petward and apprehended the accused Pawan @ Tinku S/o Sewa Singh whose arrest memo is Ex.PW67/A25 (not disputed by the accused). On 31.08.2010 one Prem Singh resident of village Mirchpur produced Balwan S/o Jai Lal at police chowki Mirchpur whom he arrested vide memo Ex.PW67/A26 (not disputed by the accused). On 01.09.2010 the team headed by Insp. Vijay Pal produced before him Pardeep S/o Suresh, Satish S/o Randhir and Pawan S/o Hoshiyar Singh at police chowki Mirchpur whom he arrested. The arrest memo of Pardeep S/o Suresh is Ex.PW67/A27 (not disputed by the accused), Satish S/o Randhir is Ex.PW67/A28 (not
disputed by the accused) and Pawan S/o Hoshiyar Singh is Ex.PW67/A29 (not disputed by the accused) all bearing his signatures at point A. He has further deposed that on 02.09.2010 the team headed by Insp. Baljeet Singh produced before him Jora S/o Balwan and Ved Pal S/o Daya Nand at police chowki Mirchpur whom he arrested. The arrest memo of Jora S/o Balwan is Ex.PW67/A30 (not disputed by the accused) and Ved Pal S/o Daya Nand is Ex.PW67/A31 (not disputed by the accused) both bearing his signatures at point A. He has also deposed on the same day that is 2.9.2010 he also recorded the supplementary statement of Amar Lal S/o Tara Chand and on 03.09.2010 different teams headed by Insp. Vijay Pal, Insp. Baljeet Singh, Insp. Rajbir, ASI Bhim Singh and Insp. Rohtash produced before him as many as twenty three accused at police post Mirchpur and he arrested all the twenty three accused. The arrest memo of Kuldeep S/o Om Parkash is Ex.PW67/A32 (not disputed by the accused), Jogal @ Dogar S/o Hawa Singh is Ex.PW67/A33 (not disputed by the accused), Naseeb S/o Prem Singh is Ex.PW67/A34 (not disputed by the accused), Pardeep S/o Jaiveer Singh is Ex.PW67/A35 (not disputed by the accused), Pardeep S/o Satbir is Ex.PW67/A36 (not disputed by the accused), Shamsher S/o Rajender is Ex.PW67/A37 (not disputed by the accused), Rakesh @ Meenu S/o Ramesh is Ex.PW67/A38 (not disputed by the accused), Jitender S/o Satbir is Ex.PW67/A39 (not disputed by the accused), Charan Singh S/o Sadhu Ram is Ex.PW67/A40 (not disputed by the accused), Parveen S/o Jagdev is Ex.PW67/A41 (not disputed by the accused), Sandeep S/o Ram Swaroop is Ex.PW67/A42 (not disputed by the accused), Sandeep S/o Ratan Singh is Ex.PW67/A43 (not
disputed by the accused), Vikas S/o Sunehra is Ex.PW67/A44 (not disputed by the accused), Ved Pal S/o Karan Singh is Ex.PW67/A45 (not disputed by the accused), Kala @ Rakesh S/o Satyawan is Ex.PW67/A46 (not disputed by the accused), Pawan S/o Rajbir is Ex.PW67/A47 (not disputed by the accused), Sandeep S/o Raj Kumar is Ex.PW67/A48 (not disputed by the accused), Monu S/o Suresh Kumar is Ex.PW67/A49 (not disputed by the accused), Amit S/o Satyawan is Ex.PW67/A50 (not disputed by the accused), arrest memo of Ramesh S/o Karan Singh is Ex.PW67/A51 (not disputed by the accused) and Sata S/o Karan is Ex.PW67/A52 (not disputed by the accused). The witness has further deposed that on 04.09.2010 different teams headed by Insp. Vijay Pal, Insp. Baljeet Singh, Insp. Rajbir, ASI Bhim Singh and Insp. Rohtash produced before him as many as seventeen accused at police post Mirchpur whom he arrested. The arrest memo of Dalbir S/o Tara Chand is Ex.PW67/A53 (not disputed by the accused), Pardeep S/o Jagbir is Ex.PW67/A54 (not disputed by the accused), Sanjay @ Sanjeev S/o Amar Lal is Ex.PW67/A55 (not disputed by the accused), Sunil @ Shila S/o Bhira is Ex.PW67/A56 (not disputed by the accused), Naveen @ Tina S/o Rajbir is Ex.PW67/A57 (not disputed by the accused), Vinod S/o Jagdev is Ex.PW67/A58 (not disputed by the accused), Manbir S/o Zile Singh is Ex.PW67/A59 (not disputed by the accused), Pappu S/o Pyare Lal is Ex.PW67/A60 (not disputed by the accused), Rakesh @ Nikli S/o Amar Lal is Ex.PW67/A61 (not disputed by the accused), Vipin S/o Jogender is Ex.PW67/A62 (not disputed by the accused), Sandeep S/o Mahender is Ex.PW67/A63 (not disputed by the accused), Sandeep S/o
Jogender is Ex.PW67/A64 (not disputed by the accused), Satyawan S/o Rajender is Ex.PW67/A65 (not disputed by the accused), Sunil S/o Daya Nand is Ex.PW67/A66 (not disputed by the accused), Rajesh S/o Dhoopa is Ex.PW67/A67 (not disputed by the accused). Witness has further deposed that again on 05.09.2010 different teams headed by Insp. Vijay Pal, Insp. Baljeet Singh, Insp. Rajbir, ASI Bhim Singh and Insp. Rohtash produced before him as many as eight accused at police post Mirchpur whom he arrested. The arrest memo of Baljeet S/o Inder is Ex.PW67/A68 (not disputed by the accused), Dhaula S/o Satyawan is Ex.PW67/A69 (not disputed by the accused), Anoop S/o Dharma is Ex.PW67/A70 (not disputed by the accused), Sandeep S/o Chander is Ex.PW67/A71 (not disputed by the accused), Lilu @ Jasbir S/o Raja is Ex.PW67/A72 (not disputed by the accused), Krishan S/o Karan Singh is Ex.PW67/A73 (not disputed by the accused), Ameer Singh S/o Tara Chand is Ex.PW67/A74 (not disputed by the accused), Anil S/o Prem Singh is Ex.PW67/A75 (not disputed by the accused). The witness has further deposed that on 06.09.2010 different teams headed by Insp. Vijay Pal, Insp. Baljeet Singh, Insp. Rajbir, ASI Bhim Singh and Insp. Rohtash produced before him two accused at police post Mirchpur whom he arrested. The arrest memo of Sonu S/o Dalbir is Ex.PW67/A76 (not disputed by the accused) and the arrest memo of Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar is Ex.PW67/A77 (not disputed by the accused). The witness has further deposed that on 09.09.2010 the accused Sanjay @ Handa S/o Daya Nand surrendered before him at DSP Office Hansi whom he arrested vide memo Ex.PW67/A78 (not disputed by the accused). He has proved that on 16.10.2010 he prepared
the charge sheet in respect of fifteen accused and filed the same in the court on 18.10.2010. According to him, on 28.10.2010 by the order of the Superintendent of Police Hissar he handed over the investigating file to Insp. Vijay Pal SHO Narnaund who filed the charge sheet for the remaining fifty accused in the court. (In this regard I may observe that the investigations being conducted by an officer of the rank of DSP, the filing of the charge sheet in the court by an officer of the rank of an Inspector is a mere irregularity and not illegality per-se which can prove fatal to the prosecution case). I may further observe that on 17.9.2011 the witness DSP Tula Ram was recalled by the Court wherein he has proved having recorded the statement of Gulab Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.PW67/CX1 and also the statement of Chanderwati which is Ex.PW67/CX2. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsels the witness has admitted that on 25.05.2010 a team of Human Rights Commission from Delhi headed by Viplav Kumar Chaudhary and duly accompanied by Insp. M.S. Yadav and Insp. Ashish Kumar and Isham Singh Yadav had come to village Mirchpur and conducted an inquiry. Witness has denied the suggestion that after this team left he was told to submit a detail report of the investigations to the senior officers of the police and the Human Rights Commission but has admitted that on 25.05.2010 he had called SI Bane Singh to the village Mirchpur and he also went there. Witness has denied that he recorded the statements of various witnesses from the 'B' community on 25.05.2010 and has voluntarily added that it was the commission who recorded the statements while he himself was only present there. He has further deposed that he does not recollect if the statements of former sarpanch
Raj Kumar S/o Sugandh Singh, Om Parkash S/o Nihala, Pardeep S/o Krishan, Mahavir S/o Jag Ram, Jagdeep S/o Parmeshwar, Balbir S/o Khazana, Gopi S/o Kehri, Sukhbir S/o Dalip Singh, Inder S/o Shishu, Baljeet S/o Harphool, Om Parkash S/o Badri, Rajesh S/o Inder Singh, Ram Dhari S/o Sangi Ram, Krishan S/o Rama Nanad, Lehna S/o Bhima Ram, Satyawan S/o Dara Singh, Vikas S/o Bhoop Singh, Parshant S/o Anoop Singh, Deva Singh S/o Abhay Ram, Krishan numberdar S/o Amar Singh etc. all belonging to 'J' community and resident of village Mirchpur were also recorded. Witness has further deposed that he also does not recollect the names of the persons from the 'B' community whose statement were recorded by the commission but has admitted that he himself had recorded the statements of Manphool S/o Rullia Ram and Baru Ram S/o Jug Lal (both belonging to 'J' community) under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 25.05.2010 and also of Karan Singh S/o Tek Ram (a member belonging to 'B' community) but has denied that all these persons had told him that on 19.04.2010 when Deepak resident of village Mirchpur along with Pardeep, Suresh, Satish all residents of village Mirchpur and Tinku resident of village Petwar were passing through the main gali in the evening when the she-dog of Jai Parkash caught hold the pants of Deepak who hit her with a chappal to free himself on which there was an objection and the matters got aggravated but were later on settled amicably. He has also denied the suggestion that the name of Rajender S/o Pale did not figure anywhere in his investigations/ inquiry and also in the inquiries made by the commission or that the further investigations carried out by him also revealed that on account of this incident dated 19.04.2010 Rajender did not supply milk to the 'B' Basti on 20.04.2010. Witness has denied the suggestion that his investigations
also revealed that on 21.04.2010 some boys belonging to the 'B' community being aggrieved by the conduct of Rajender stopped Rajender and Karampal when they were passing through the main gali in their boogie and beat them up on which Karam Pal some how managed to free himself and reached out to the persons to the 'J' community and informed them about the incident. He has also denied the suggestion that on coming to know of this incident Dinesh S/o Prem came to rescue Rajender and was also beaten severely and had to be admitted at General Hospital Jind. He has further denied the suggestion that Dinesh S/o Prem was arrested from General Hospital Jind on 22.04.2010 or that Rajender S/o Pale also sustained injuries in this incident and had been taken to Balaji Hospital Jind Rohtak Road on 21.04.2010 itself after which he was given first aid and discharged on the same day or that despite having come to know of the aforesaid facts he did not make any inquiries or collect the relevant records of Dinesh S/o Prem from General Hospital Jind and of Rajender S/o Pale from Balaji Hospital Jind Rohtak Road. He has also denied that the investigations had revealed that it was on account of this incident when Rajender, Karam Pal and Dinesh were beaten and sustained injuries that the matters got aggravated. He has further deposed that he is not aware if the stone pelting was being done from both the sides that is from the side of the 'B' and also the 'J' community and has denied the suggestion that his investigations had revealed this fact. He has however admitted that he had written the case diaries on day to day basis. When this witness was asked to refresh his memory and inform the court if he had submitted some report to the NHRC, he without even going through the case diaries stated that he had submitted a report to the Human Rights Commission in respect of the
investigations conducted from 21.04.2010 to 25.05.2010 but has denied the suggestion that he had reported to the NHRC that most of the accused who had been apprehended till 25.05.2010 had no material evidence against them and had been falsely implicated and arrested. He has also denied the suggestion that he had reported to the NHRC in the said report that a large number of statements of persons belonging to the 'B' community had been falsely recorded by the police or that a large number of accused who had been implicated and arrested were not even present at village Mirchpur when the incident took place and that they had no concern with the incident in any manner. Witness has also denied the suggestion that the Superintendent of Police Hissar had sent a similar report to NHRC on the same lines. Witness has denied the suggestion that he deliberately did not make the statements of Manphool S/o Rullia Ram, Baru Ram S/o Jug Lal and Karan Singh S/o Tek Ram recorded by him on 25.05.2010 a part of the charge sheet only to assist the prosecution and states that he did not mention in the case diaries the reason for not relying upon the statements of these persons. He has further admitted that as an investigating officer it was his duty to place on record all material whether it goes in favour of prosecution or not and has voluntarily explained that he did not rely upon the statements of the these three persons as they were from the same community as that of the accused and was going against the prosecution. The witness has also admitted that village Mirchpur has a mixed population of all the communities apart from the 'J' and 'B'. Witness has further deposed that he did not record the statement of any person from any other community and has denied the suggestion that he did not record the statement of any persons from any other community because he in collusion with the
persons from the 'B' community fabricated evidence against the accused persons and concealed the actual investigations conducted by me till 25.05.2010. Witness has denied the suggestion that this he did under political and local pressure. Witness DSP Tula Ram has further admitted that he had arrested Vinod and Jage Ram on same evidence which came on record against them and has admitted that Jage Ram is not facing trial in the court. He has further admitted that he had filed the charge sheet against accused Vinod but not against Jage Ram and has denied that Jage Ram had been got discharged by him. He has thereafter voluntarily added that it was on the instructions of the senior police officers since Jage Ram belong to Schedule Caste Community and could not have been charged under the provisions of Section 4 of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 that he was got discharged. He has also admitted that the accused Vinod has also been charge sheeted under Section 120B IPC but Jage Ram has not been charge sheeted under the same section. Witness has further denied the suggestion that both Vinod and Jage Ram were arrested under the provisions of section 120 B IPC for conspiracy and has clarified that that they were both arrested under Section 4 of SC/ST(POA) Act, 1989 but the provisions of section 120B IPC were subsequently invoked against Vinod on the supplementary statements recorded by him on 27.07.2010. He has also denied the suggestion that no statement had been made by Ashok S/o Maha Singh, Pardeep S/o Tara Chand, Amar S/o Tara Chand, Veer Bhan and Suresh on 27.07.2010 and that he recorded their statements of his own in order to fabricate the material against the accused Vinod and distinguish his case from the case of Jage Ram from that of Vinod.
Witness has further deposed that on 14.05.2010 and 16.05.2010 he did not record the statement of Ex-Sarpanch Raj Kumar when he produced the various accused before him whom he had arrested and on 15.05.2010, or of Wazir resident of village Mirchpur who had produced the accused before him whom he had arrested and also on 17.05.2010 and on 31.08.2010 or of Prem Singh resident of village Mirchpur who produced the accused before him whom he had arrested. He has further deposed that he also did not record the statements of Inspector Vijay Pal, Insp. Baljeet Singh, Insp. Rajbir, Insp. Rohtash and ASI Bhim Singh who were heading the various teams constituted by him and had apprehended the various accused as stated by him in examination in chief whom he had arrested. Witness has denied the suggestion that all the accused have been arrested on the basis of fabricated evidence but has admitted that he had never taken any police custody remand of any of the accused and also admits that no recovery has been made in the form of dandas, jellies, gandases and oil cans from any of the accused after their arrest. He also admits that he did not get the Judicial Test Identification Parade of the accused conducted and has voluntarily added that there was no requirement as the accused have been specifically named by the witness in their statements. Witness has denied the suggestion that the witnesses had not named the accused and he had of his own inserted the names to fabricate material against them. Witness has admitted that sanction to prosecute a government servant is always sought after the completion of the investigations. Witness has further deposed that he can identify the signatures of the Superintendent of Police.
After seeing the memo

Page No. 291
bearing
No.
16891/SU
dated
22.07.2010
which
document
is
Ex.PW67/DX1 and bears the signatures of the then Superintendent of Police Hissar Sh. Subhash Yadav at point A and B, the witness has denied the suggestion that he had completed the investigations qua Vinod on 22.07.2010 and on specific query from the court he has stated that he had recorded the supplementary statements of Pardeep, Amar S/o Tara Chand, Ashok, Suresh and Veer Bhan on 27.07.2010 only after which he prepared the charge sheet. The witness has further deposed that he recorded these statements between 11 AM to 1 PM at village Mirchpur at 'B' Basti but he does not recollect whether he had mentioned the time of recording these statements on 27.07.2010. He has further deposed that the charge sheet was prepared by him on 29.07.2010 and submitted to the Superintendent of Police on 29.07.2010. Witness has further admitted that initially he had prepared the charge sheet against Vinod on 04.07.2010 but has denied the suggestion that he fabricated statements of Pardeep, Ashok, Amar, Veer Bhan and Suresh on 27.07.2010 only to create material against Vinod to justify the grounds made in the charge sheet. Witness has denied the suggestion that he interpolated the date in the charge sheet and the date of 04.07.2010 was made of 27.07.2010 and when observed by the court it was found that there is an interpolation made at two places in the date wherein the date of 04.07.2010 has been changed to 27.07.2010. Witness has further deposed that Tehsil Uklana, district Hissar is at a distance of 27 kilometers from village Mirchpur. Witness admitted that Amar is working as an LDC /clerk at Tehsil Uklana in the government office. Witness has denied the suggestion that Amar did not meet him on 27.07.2010 as he was performing his duty at Uklana in the
office of Tehsildar. He has also denied the suggestion that Sunita D/o Ved, Angoori Devi W/o Dalip Singh, Krishna W/o Raghbir, Ishro W/o Pasha, Shanti W/o Jugti, Chander Pati W/o Sajna, Pooja D/o Surta, Kela W/o Jai Singh, Sunita W/o Satbir, Aman S/o Surta, Satbir S/o Bhale Ram, Suman D/o Raghbir, Sajna S/o Ram Swaroop, Sandeep S/o Satpal, Abhishek S/o Sanjay, Ashok S/o Maha Singh, Ajmer S/o Balbir, Vicky S/o Dhoop Singh, Manoj S/o Mahender, Gulab Singh S/o Jai Lal, Pardeep S/o Tara Chand, Amar S/o Tara Chand, Mahender S/o Amar Singh, Parveen S/o Jag Pal, Suresh S/o Chander Singh, Ashok S/o Maha Singh, Veer Bhan S/o Man Singh had been fabricated by him of his own to create evidence against the accused to justify their arrest and to work out the present case.
Statement of accused:
After completion of prosecution evidence the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to them which they have denied. The accused Dharambir S/o Tara Chand aged 48 years has studied till class10th and is a farmer by profession. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that he had his fields which are two and half kilometers away from the village and he was present at his fields since 6:00 AM and returned back to the village only at about 7:30-8PM when he came to know about the incident. According to him, he was picked up by the police from his house when he was sleeping during the intervening night of 21/22.04.2010 and has been falsely implicated in the present case and is innocent.
Accused Pawan S/o Sh. Ram Mehar aged 30 years has studied till class 10th and is a farmer by profession. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that on 21.04.2010 he was at his fields which are about three and a half kilometers away from the village Mirchpur for harvesting the wheat and two boys from the 'B' community namely Binder and Kallu both sons of Ram Kumar were also with him to help him in the same. According to him, Kamla the wife of the deceased Tara Chand used to come to their house to take lassi from his mother in the early morning and often created a ruckus which was objected to by him and his family and they had to stop supplying lassi to her on account of her behaviour. Therefore being aggrieved Kamla and her son Pradeep have falsely implicated him and his brother Kulvinder and they are victims of village politics and he is innocent. Accused Karambir @ Gagar S/o Sh. Tara Chand aged 42 years has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that he is innocent and was not even present in the village at the time of the incident since he had gone to his fields which are three and a half kilometers away from the village for harvesting of wheat since 6 AM in the morning and had returned to the village only at about 8:30 PM when he came to know of the incident. According to the accused, he was lifted by the police during the intervening night of 21/22.04.2010 and has no previous history of any dispute with anybody in the village. He has further stated that his house is situated in the main gali adjacent to the 'B' Basti and he has good relations with everybody and despite the fact that the animals owned by the persons of 'B' community enter his house to which he had never objected nor there has been any dispute. He has further expressed his shock that he had been identified by Rani, Sube
Singh, Dilbagh, Sanjay, Manoj, Pradeep and Kamla despite the fact that he was not even present in the village and states that this has been done only on account of village politics. Accused Joginder @ Jogar S/o Sh. Bhim Singh aged 36 years has studied till class 6 th and is a farmer by profession. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that he is innocent and was not even present in the village at the time of the incident. According to him, he had gone to his fields at about 7 AM which are about three kilometers away from the village and returned back to the village from the fields only at about 6:30 PM when he was lifted by the police and falsely implicated in the present case. Accused Dalbir S/o Dalip Singh aged 45 years has studied till class 7th and is a driver by profession. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that he owns a Mahindra Jeep which he gives on hire. He has further stated that on 21.04.2010 his jeep had been hired by Pandit Rishi Lal of village Mirchpur and he had taken their family to village Dehani, District Hissar as somebody from his family had expired. According to him, he returned in the late evening when he came to know of the incident and states that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused Balwan S/o Sh. Inder Singh aged 28 years is totally illiterate and is a farmer by profession. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that on 21.04.2010 he had gone to his fields for harvesting of wheat and was present there from morning till 7 PM and he came to know of the incident only when he was lifted by the police at night on the same day and falsely implicated in the present case. He states that he is innocent.
Accused Satyawan S/o Tara Chand aged 50 years is totally illiterate and is a farmer by profession. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that his fields are two kilometers away from the village Mirchpur and on 21.04.2010 he had gone to his fields at 6 AM and returned to the village only at 7-7.30 PM when he came to know of the incident. According to him, he was lifted by the police from his house at night while he was sleeping and falsely implicated in the present case. Accused Jaibir S/o Sh. Manphool aged 38 years is totally illiterate and is a farmer by profession. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that he was not even present in the village at that time as he had gone to his fields which are about four to four and a half kilometers away from the village. According to him, as soon as he returned to the village on the tractor at about 7-8 PM he was lifted by the police and was taken to the police station and states that he is innocent. Accused Ajeet S/o Sukhbir aged 26 years has studied till BA (1st year) and is a constable in Haryana Police. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that on the date of the incident he was at Jind at his sister's place and thereafter he had gone to Dr. Punia's Hospital for treatment since he was on medical leave since 09.03.2010 on account of his operation and did not join. According to him, as soon as he came back in the evening on 21.04.2010, he was arrested and had been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused Balwan S/o Dharambir aged 38 years has studied till class 8th and is a farmer by profession. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that he has been falsely
implicated and was lifted by the police when he was coming back to his house from his fields in the evening after sunset being unaware of the incident and he came to know of the incident only when he was taken to the police station. He stated that he has been falsely implicated. Accused Rajbir @ Nanha S/o Mai Chand aged 44 years is totally illiterate and is a farmer by profession. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that on the date of the incident i.e. 21.04.2010 he was at his fields and came to know of the incident only at 9 PM when he returned home. He has further stated that in fact prior to this incident he was a chowkidar at the jhor/pond of Suresh (a member of 'B' community) who had the fishing contract and on one occasion two months prior to this incident Tara Chand had received burn injuries accidentally while at the jhor and he (Rajbir) had left him to the Bhatta of Suresh. According to Rajbir, in his capacity as Chowkidar of the Jhor/ pond he had stopped many persons from stealing fishes from the Jhor/Pond which included Sushil, Sanjay S/o Raja Ram, Vijender and Sanjay S/o Gulab Singh all of whom have falsely identified him in the court and implicated him on account of village politics. Accused Viren S/o Sh. Yashpal aged 22 years has done the course of Junior Engineering from Hissar and at the time of incident was employed at Vita Milk Plant at Jind. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that on 21.04.2010 he was unwell and hospitalized at Punia Nursing Home, Safido bye pass, Jind due to stomach ailment. According to him, he has been falsely implicated. Accused Dharambir S/o Sh. Mai Chand aged 44 years has stated that he is innocent. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that in the year 2007-2009 he was managing
the affairs of the village temple that is Phoolan Devi Mata during that time as authorized by the village panchayat when he had got the charava/ offerings rights. According to him, Sanjay S/o Raja Ram is a chain snatcher and a pick pocket of the area and in the said year when he was managing the affairs of the Temple Sanjay had on one occasion committed chain snatching on a lady when he was caught red handed by some boys of the village after which they all gave him beatings and also got the chain returned to the lady as a result of which Sanjay has become inimical to him and the other boys of the village. He has further stated that prior to him the theka/ contract of the offering was with Satyawan (a member of 'B' community) and prior to that this theka/ contract was always with the 'B' of the village for almost twenty years. According to the accused Dharambir ever since he had got the contract from the Panchayat the 'B' took it adversely and therefore on account of caste politics, Meena Kumar, Mahajan, Vijender, Vicky, Sanjay, Gulaba and Kamla had falsely implicated him in the present case. Accused Deepak @ Sonu S/o Krishan @ Pappu aged 21 years and at the time of the incident was a student of 2 nd year at engineering college Ambala where he was staying as a paying guest behind the hostel by taking a room. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that 19.4.2010 there was a dispute in the village on the she-dog of Jai Prakash who had caught hold of his pant and when he tried to free it, there was a quarrel which matter was amicably settled on 19.4.2010 itself. However, since he did not want any further dispute so he left for Ambala to his room on 20.4.2010. He states that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated.
Page No. 298
Accused Kuldeep @ Midha S/o Sh. Balbir Ram aged 35years is totally illiterate and is a farmer by profession. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that he was not even present in the village on the date of incident and was admitted at Puniya Hospital, Jind from 18.4.2010 to 22.4.2010 as he was suffering from dysentery and vomiting and prior to that middle finger of his right hand got cut in the wheat harvesting machine and therefore he was receiving treatment for the same. Accused Rajender S/o Belu Ram aged 60 years has studied till class 6th and is a farmer by profession. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that he was not present in the village at the time of the incident and had gone to his fields which are four kilometers away from village for harvesting of wheat as he had borrowed the machine of Anand for the said purpose. He has further stated that he returned to the village only on 22.04.2010 when he came to know of the incident. He states that he is innocent and had been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused Jagdish @ Hathi S/o Sh. Baru Ram aged 36 years has studied till class 10 th and is a farmer by profession. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that on 21.04.2010 he was at his fields from morning 7AM till 10PM along with Satyawan S/o Bhim Singh and has been falsely implicated. Accused Suresh Kumar S/o Balbir aged 38 years is a Matriculate and has been observed to be handicapped by 70% suffering from Polio. Copy of the Disability certificate he has been placed on record. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that he was previously employed with doctor Hari Chand Midda at
Jind and on one occasion he had helped Pradeep with medicines worth Rs.2980/- and later Pradeep also asked him for a friendly loan for Rs.20,000/- which he refused as he had never had that amount, on which Pradeep refused to pay the money for the medicines which he had given him and was harboring a grudge against him for the same due to which reason he has been falsely implicated. Accused Rajender S/o Sh. Sadhu Ram aged 52 years has studied till class 5th and is a cultivator by profession. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that he is a very poor person with no landed property and he takes the lands of others for cultivation. According to him, he was not present in the village at the time of the incident as he was away to fields belonging to his co-brother (Sandhu) at village Ekas which is twelve kilometers away from village Mirchpur which he had taken for cultivation. He has further stated that he had left his village on 19.04.2010 and returned on 25.04.2010 for harvesting. Accused Ram Phal S/o Prithvi aged 36 years has studied till class second and is a farmer by profession. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that on 21.04.2010 he was present at his fields since morning 7 AM till evening 9-10 PM and it was only after he returned to his house that he came to know of the incident. He has further stated that his first cousin brother Dharambir @ Illa who is the son of his tau had been given the offering rights by the panchayat of the Mata temple for the year 2007 and 2009 which rights were with the 'B' for the last twenty years prior to this. According to him there was no police arrangement at the temple and the entire responsibility of maintaining the law and order was on them and he was
one of the persons who used to guard the temple and the shops near by along with his other brothers. He has stated that on one occasion they had caught Vicky S/o Dhoopa removing the electric wire of the light installed on the top of the mandir and gave beatings to him due to which reason Vicky became inimical to them. He has further stated that Sanjay S/o Gulab had entered into his fields on one occasion and committed theft of crop/channa when he was caught by him, on which he along with three to four other boys who had entered his fields inflicted injuries upon him (accused) and the incident was reported to the panchayat pursuant to which the matter was compromised. According to him all these persons namely Dhoopa, Santra, Mahajan, Vijender, Vicky, Dilbagh, Sanjay S/o Gulaba, Manoj, Rajesh, Satyawan, Gulaba, Pradeep and Kamla frequently indulge into committing thefts from the shops around the temple and exploited the visitors to the temple and have been caught by him on number of occasions and it is for this reason that they have become inimical to him and have taken revenge and he has been falsely implicated on account of the caste politics in the village. Accused Daya Singh S/o Sh. Ajeet Singh aged 50 years and on the date of the incident i.e. 21.04.2010 he was employed as a servant with Raghu Baniya at his shop which is away from the place of the incidence and is situated in the middle of the village. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that he had left his house at 6 AM and went to the shop first and thereafter he accompanied Raghu Baniya to Anaj Mandi Jind for sale of wheat and returned to the village only at 6 PM when he came to know of the incident. According to him, he had a plot of land adjoining the 'B' Basti and about three years prior to the incident and had objected to the entry of animals belonging
to the 'B' to his plot due to which reason there was a quarrel. He has further stated that he was beaten and even gone to the police to lodge a complaint but with the intervention of police the matter was compromised. According to him, he has been falsely implicated. Accused Pradeep S/o Sh. Balwan aged 35 years is totally illiterate and is a farmer by profession. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that on 21.04.2010 he was at his fields since 6AM till 8 PM and he came to know of the incident only on his return to the village. He has further stated that he owned a tractor which he some times give on hire and on one occasion Vicky had hired his tractor and on his instance he had brought five trolleys of mud and dropped the same in front of his (Vicky) house and when he asked for money there was a dispute. He has further stated that after the incident dated 21.04.2010 there was large scale caste politics in the village and he has been falsely implicated in the present case on account of the said politics only because he belongs to the 'J' community. Accused Rishi S/o Sh. Satbir aged 32 years is a driver by profession and is totally illiterate. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that he was employed with Bansi a resident of village Kapro, district Hissar and he normally remains at the dumper and return home only after fifteen to twenty days. According to him on 21.04.2010 he was on him dumper and had left the village ten days prior to the incident. He has further stated that on 21.4.2010 he was present at village Kharkhoda district Sonipat for dumping mud at a site and further states that he returned to the village only on 05.05.2010 and he himself surrendered on 15.05.2010. According to him, he is a victim of village politics. He has further stated that Santra, Sanjay, Vicky, Sanjay S/o
Gulaba, Manoj, Pradeep and Kamla are belonging to one party and supporting Master Subhash in the panchayat elections whereas he (accused) was supporting the candidate Ramphal. According to him, he had caught all of them casting bogus votes and reported them to the sarpanch and the duty officer due to which reason they were inimical to him. He also states that he resides near the 'B' Basti and on many occasion the animals of the persons from the 'B' community entered his house to which he had objected. He states that he has been falsely implicated on account of the aforesaid reasons. Accused Jasbir S/o Sh. Ishwar aged 29 years has studied till class 12th and is a farmer by profession. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that he was not even present in the village at that time as he had gone to his fields which are about three to four kilometers away from the village and had returned back to the village from the fields only at about 8.00-8.30PM. He has further stated that Kamla has wrongly identified him and falsely implicated him. Accused Karam Pal S/o Satbir aged 22 years has studied till class 7th and is a farmer by profession. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that Rajender S/o Pale is his chacha by village relations and on 21.04.2010 he had gone to Balaji Hospital, Jind Rohtak Road for treatment of Dinesh as he had been injured while he was trying to save Rajender from the assault of the boys belonging to 'B' community. According to him in the morning while he and Rajender S/o Pale were coming back to their village on their boogie and were passing through the main gali they were stopped by some boys belonging to 'B' community and assaulted but he managed to escape and raised alarm in the village and informed them that Rajender had been
caught on which Dinesh who is the nephew of Rajender went to save him but had received injuries on his head. He has further stated that he along with Rajender and Prem, father of Dinesh had rushed Dinesh to Balaji hospital and therefore he does not know what transpired in the village thereafter since he returned to the village only in the evening at about 8 PM. He has further stated that Sanjay S/o Raja Ram has a criminal record of theft and had committed the theft of hukka of Pale, the father of Rajender on which he had caught him and handed him over to Pale after giving a beating to Sanjay S/o Raja Ram due to which reason he is entertaining a grudge against him since then. He has also stated that Sanjay S/o Gulab, Pradeep, Vicky and Manoj had hunted down a peacock on the panchayat land which he had witnessed and he carried the body of the peacock to the sarpanch and demanded action against these boys on which panchayat was called and all the boys i.e. Sanjay S/o Gulab, Pradeep, Vicky and Manoj were asked to deposit a sum of Rs.3000/- each in the panchayat fund then these boys had threatened him with dire consequences and to see him later and it is under these circumstances that they had falsely implicated him. Accused Sunil @ Sonu S/o Jaibir aged 25 years is a teacher by profession and at the time of incident he was teaching primary classes in Vidya Vihar Senior Secondary School. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that he is a graduate and had done JBT First year and on the date of the incident he was in his school since 7 AM and returned to the village at abut 5PM when he came to know about the incident. According to him, he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
Page No. 304
Accused Sumit S/o Satyawan aged 21 years is a Matriculate and is a farmer by profession. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that on the date of the incident i.e. on 21.04.2010 he had gone to the fields which are two kilometers from the village along with his father at 6 AM and returned to the village only on 22.04.2010 at about 7.00 AM. According to him, he has been falsely implicated by Manoj on account of a previous quarrel with him about four months prior to this incident when he (Manoj) had hit him with the side of his cycle. He has stated that he has no concern with the incident since he was not even available in the village and has been falsely implicated. Accused Pradeep S/o Sh. Ramphal aged 24 years is 5th class pass and is a farmer by profession. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that on the date of incident he had gone to his fields, which are three to four kilometers away for wheat harvesting and returned to the village only at 7.00AM on 22.04.2010 when he was arrested on the same day in the afternoon. According to him, he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Accused Roshan S/o Ram Swaroop aged 38 years has studied till class 5th and is a farmer by profession. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that he has been falsely implicated by Vicky on account of his previous dispute with him since on one occasion he had caught Vicky while he was indulging into eve teasing in a public transport/ bus and restrained him from doing so when the matter had also reached the police. According to the accused, Manoj is a good friend of Vicky and they together have implicated him falsely.
Accused Surender S/o Sh. Jagda aged 28 years has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that he was lifted by the police when he was coming back to his house from his fields in the evening at 4 PM being unaware of the incident and he came to know of the incident only when he was taken to the police station. According to the accused, he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Accused Hoshiar Singh S/o Sh. Mangal Ram aged 55 years is 6th class pass and at the time of incident was employed at Sugar Mill Jind. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that he was not even present in the village and was away to Sugar Mill at Jind and returned home only at night. He has further states that Kamla is his neighbour and his house is just three to four houses away from her house. According to him, he was sleeping at his house when he was lifted by the police early morning on 22.04.2010 and falsely implicated in the present case. Accused Ajeet S/o Dalip aged 40 years has studied till class 7th and is a farmer by profession. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that on the day of incident he was not present in the village and had gone to his sister's house at village Kharkhara District Hansi where he had gone on 18.04.2010 to get Tura/fodder and returned only on 21.04.2010 evening and was apprehended by the police in the night hours. According to the accused, he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused Rajender S/o Dhoop Singh aged 50 years is totally illiterate and is a farmer by profession. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that on 21.04.2010 he had left for his fields in the morning for harvesting of wheat and returned at
midnight/intervening night of 21-22.04.2010 at about 12'O clock/ 1 AM when he came to know of the incident and was arrested in the early hours of morning itself. He states that he has been falsely implicated. Accused Rajender S/o Pale aged 33 years is a Matriculate and is a farmer by profession and at the time of incident was having a dairy for supplying milk in the village and also to Lakshay Dairy, District Jind. He has stated that he is the only able bodied male person in his family who is the earning hand and his widow mother stays with him and his family comprising of his wife and two children and two married sisters. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that on 19.04.2010 he was at his house in the evening and it was at late night at about 10-10:30 PM that he came to know that there was some dispute between the boys belonging to 'B' community and 'J' boys connected with the she-dog of Jai Parkash and he does not even know whether the dispute had even sorted out or not. According to him on 20.04.2010 some 'B' had come to purchase milk from him and he could supply it only to a few persons and on account of less supply he could not supply the milk to the other 'B'. After some time some of the 'B' came to his shop and protested as to why he had not supplied milk to them on which he told them that there was no supply and on account of the shortage he could not supply milk to them on which they made allegations against him that it was on account of the dispute of the previous night i.e. 19.04.2010 that he was deliberately not supplying milk to them on which he told them that this was not so since there was no dispute with him and therefore the question of not supplying of milk does not arise. He has further stated that he also told them that large number of persons from 'J' community
also could not supplied milk on account of shortage of supply but they refused to listen to him and abused and threatened to see him in case if he came to their side. He has further stated that on 21.04.2010 in the early morning he distributed milk in the village and thereafter he along with Karampal went to the house of Satbir to pick up the iron pipes required for installation of submersible pump at their house because the water level had gone down and while they were returning with the pipes on their boogie (bullock cart) he along with Karampal were surrounded by Kalu S/o Veer Bhan, Rajbir and his two sons, Sanjay S/o Satpal and some other 'B' boys whose names he does not know who started beating him saying why he had not supplied milk to them on 20.04.2010. He told them that the supply was less and he had supplied whatever milk was available but they were not satisfied and assaulted him on which Karampal escaped and raised an alarm in the village. According to him on this Dinesh S/o Prem came to his rescue but he was also hit with a jellie and severally beaten as a result of which he (Dinesh) received an injury on his eye which got damaged and when other persons from the village also came he (accused) and Dinesh were rescued and he along with Prem and Karampal took Dinesh to Balaji hospital Jind but they refused to admit Dinesh as his eye appeared to be badly damaged and they referred them to Government Hospital. He has further stated that from Balaji hospital he and Prem took Dinesh to General Hospital Jind whereas Karampal remained at Balaji hospital. According to the accused, he had also received some injuries and was given treatment at General Hospital and at the GH hospital Jind he had also given a telephone call to Dr. Kuldeep at PGI Rohtak who is his cousin since the
hospital authorities were taking time and delaying the admission of Dinesh in the hospital. He has further stated that the said call was made from one of his mobile numbers which was either 9467090205 (which connection is in his name) or 9812628500 (which connection is in the name of his mother) which he was carrying and he remained in the hospital till about 5-6 PM and it was only when he returned to the village he came to know of the incident. The accused Rajender has further stated that the name of his father is Satpal and not Pale and he has been falsely implicated in the present case and at the time of his arrest he repeatedly told DSP Tula Ram that he is Rajender S/o Satpal and not Pale but DSP Tula Ram threatened to ensure that he was hanged and also illegally detained him at the police station for two days. The accused has admitted the memo of arrest dated 21.05.2010 but states that he was picked up by the police on 19.05.2010 and produced before the hon'ble court only on 21.05.2010. He has further stated that the name of his father was Satpal and he was never known as Pale, in fact there were other persons in the village of the 'J' community by the name of Pale which request has not been investigated. He has further stated that he knows the witness PW13 as the wife of Ved but is not aware her name that is whether it is Sunita or not. According to him she belongs to his village and used to come to his shop for purchasing milk on credit which he refused since previously also he was running a general merchandize shop which he had to close on account of losses as people used to make purchases on credit and thereafter never paid for it due to which she has wrongly identified him.
Page No. 309
He has also stated that Sushil and Vijender are owning a large number of pigs and other animals who often strayed into his plot which is present in the main gali to which he had objected on many occasions. According to him, Sushil and Vijender are also having a butcher's shop in the 'B' Basti for which they rear these animals and therefore there has been a quarrel on this account on many occasions. He has further stated that Rani is the wife of Sanjay who had purchased Bajra from him on credit and later refused to pay for the same on which there was a quarrel between them. In so far the witness Sanjay who is the husband of Rani is concerned, the accused has stated that Sanjay had made false allegations against him since earlier he was running a grocery shop and Sanjay had purchased 20 Kgs Bajra from him on credit and later when he asked him for payment he refused after threatening him and there was a hatha pai between them since which date they are not on talking terms with each other. He has further stated that Meena Kumar has falsely identified him since his uncle Rajbir and his sons whose name he does not know had assaulted him and Karampal in the morning on 21.04.2010. According to him, Mahajan had wrongly identified him as he is the real brother of Meena Kumar and the nephew of Rajbir who along with his sons had assaulted him in the morning due to which reason he sustained injuries and had to be taken to the hospital along with Dinesh. The accused has also stated that Sube Singh owned an Atta chaki and about nine/ ten years prior to the incident when his father was
in the army and he along with his mother used to stay in the village and were getting their wheat crushed from the atta chakki of Sube and on one occasion there was a delay from the part of his mother in making the payment on which Sube came to their house and insulted them on which there was a quarrel after which they had no concern with him. He has falsely implicated him on account of the fact that he entertained a grudge against him for this reason. In respect of the witness Vicky, he has stated that Vicky used to pass through the main gali in the morning wearing shorts and playing loud objectionable songs on his transistor which he carried on which he (Rajender) had asked him (Vicky) to desist from the same as there were women and young girls in the area and his (Vicky) behaviour was inappropriate. According to him, Dilbagh and Sanjay are both sons of Gulaba chowkidar and Sanjay had come to his shop five to six years back when he was running a general merchandized shop and tried to sell wheat to him which he came to know was stolen and he refused and also informed other persons in the village about his act. He has further stated that at that time Sanjay was a drunkard as a result of which his first wife had committed suicide and when Sanjay tried to sell this wheat to him, he along with the other boys handed him over to his father Gulaba along with the wheat bag and ever since Sanjay is not on talking terms with him and had even assaulted him after five to six days. He has further stated that they used to take milk sometimes from him and than from some other person in the village but never paid the payment on which he stop the supply of milk to their family.
Page No. 311
He has also stated that Manoj is the brother of Rajender who had a quarrel with him one month prior to this incident on purchase of Milk from his shop and it was a Wednesday and Rajender had taken five liters milk from his shop and asked him to keep five liters more since he was having a tea stall at the Mata Ka Mandir in their village where they had a mela every Wednesday. He has further stated that after taking the milk in the morning he came back to him in the afternoon at about 11-12 O'clock and asked him to take back the milk which he refused since the milk once sold could not be taken back and on this all the three boys i.e. Rajender, Manoj and their younger brother got together and started quarreling with him and also threatened to see him later. It is for this reason he has falsely named him. The accused Rajender has further stated that Satyawan is a local politician and in the previous elections of the assembly Satyawan was supporting a Congress candidate by the name of Randhir Singh and he along with his group were supporting Rajiv Raja an independent candidate. He has further stated that on the date of the elections the brother of Rajiv Raja was threaten by Satyawan at the election booth and started doing hatta pai on which they intervened to save him in which process Satyawan had been hit with a plastic chair which broke though he did not receive any injuries and since that day Satyawan is having a grudge against him. He has also stated that Pradeep had falsely implicated him due to previous quarrel of his family members with Kamla the mother of Pradeep as the pig belonging to Pradeep and Kamla had delivered piglets at his adjoining plot where they keep their uplas and when his (Rajender's) mother went to their plot she was attacked by the pig and
when they asked Kamla to remove the pig from the plot there was a quarrel on that account. He has further stated that he had been wrongly identified and falsely implicate due to village caste politics. Accused Vijender @ Handa S/o Sh. Hoshiyar Singh aged 29 years has studied till class 12th and at the time of incident was working at a Welder's shop at district Jind. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that he had gone to his inlaws house on 20.04.2010 at village Naina Titarpur, District Sonipat and returned only on 21.04.2010 evening when he was lifted from his house at night while he was sleeping when he came to know of this incident. He has further stated that his family had a previous dispute with Santra and Kamla since on one occasion he had caught Santra stealing fodder from their fields and his mother had caught Kamla stealing cow dung cakes (uplas) from their plot situated next to the house of Kamla. According to him, he is residing near the 'B' Basti and therefore he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused Dinesh S/o Prem aged 21 years has studied till class 11th and on the date of the incident he was doing the work of plastic pipes on daily wages at Jaipur. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that on 21.04.2010 he was present in the village when in the morning he was coming back from the fields along with his father in a boogie and while they were passing through the main gali he met Karampal S/o Satbir on the way who told him that Rajender S/o Pale had been waylaid and was being beaten by some boys belonging to the 'B' community. According to him, when he came to know of this he ran towards the direction of the 'B' Basti where Rajender S/o Pale was being beaten and when he reached 'B' Basti he found six to seven boys
belonging to 'B' community beating Rajender. He has further stated that he tried to intervene in order to save Rajender but he was hit with a jellie in this process and received injuries on his left arm and on his right side temple near the eye and started bleeding and became unconscious. According to him, when he regained consciousness he was at medical General Hospital Jind and found his father Prem Singh along with him and Rajender S/o Pale present in the Hospital. He has further stated that he was lifted by the police from the hospital and arrested on 22.04.2010 and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused Vinod S/o Sh. Ram Niwas aged 50 years was posted at SHO at Police Station Narnaund about three to three and a half months prior to the incident. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that his mother expired on 09.04.2010 and he proceeded on leave for ten days on 09.04.2010 and joined only on 20.04.2010 on which day he had to go to village Barchappar, District Hissar for investigations of a double murder case along with CID crime team and returned at the police station only at about 10:30 PM. According to him, on 21.04.2010 he received the information at about 99:30 AM about the incident at village Mirchpur on his official land line telephone pursuant to which he immediately sent four to five officials to the village to control the situation. According to the accused, Police Station Narnaund is a small police station and at a time there is staff of not more than nine to ten persons present at the police station and on receipt of the call he had sent all the officials present in the police station except the munshi, santri and wireless operator who stayed back with him in the police station while he simultaneously informed DSP Hansi Sh. Abhay Singh, Superintendent of Police Hissar Sh. Subhash Yadav
and also directed all the officials posted at the police chowki Kheri Chowpta and Police Station Bass to reach village Mirchpur. He has further stated that after about half an hour he received a call from his subordinate police officials who had reached the spot informing him that situation was getting out of control on which he directed them to remain at the spot whereas he called for additional force by informing the Superintendent of Police Hissar and after additional force came from Sadar Thana Hansi, Police Station Barwala, CIA Staff Hansi and other police officials posted in his police station he went to the village Mirchpur with them and tried to disperse the crowd by use of force i.e. lathi charge but since they could not control the crowd as the force was very less and the persons had gathered in large numbers and therefore he requested the Duty Executive Magistrate Sh. Jage Ram who by that time had also reached the spot to permit use of fire arms for dispersing and controlling the crowd but since there were women and children also in crowd he (Jage Ram) refused to grant the permission on this pretext. He has further stated that he tried his best to control the situation till the backup arrived along with senior police officers and he also called the fire brigade and the ambulance at the spot. According to him he had done his best what he could under the given circumstances. He states that he had been falsely implicated only because he belongs to the same community as of alleged assailants and due to political pressure. Accused Kulwinder S/o Sh. Ram Mehar aged 25 years is a Matriculate and is a farmer by profession. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that Sheela is his neighbour and her animals normally strayed into their house to which he had objected but there has never been any major dispute. He has further
stated that house of Sube Singh is also situated near his house and when his house was under construction he (accused) had gone to his plot to drop the building material and while backing his tractor he accidentally hit the wall of the house of Sube which was damaged and there was a quarrel between them after which incident Sube Singh had become inimical to him. The accused has further stated that the family of Vicky who is the son of Dhoop Singh is involved in sale of liquor in the village and his (accused) brother Pawan who is also an accused before this court in this case used to purchase liquor from Vicky and there was a quarrel between them in connection with the sale-purchase of the liquor on account of which Vicky had been beaten by his brother and had become inimical to their family. According to him Sanjay S/o Gulab had hunted down a rabbit in the village which he had seen to which he objected and there was verbal altercation between them and since then they are not on talking terms. The accused has further stated that Mahender the father of Manoj and his father Ram Mehar had a previous history of dispute as there was a quarrel between them and their families are not on speaking terms due to which reason Manoj has falsely implicated him. According to the accused, Pradeep used to play cricket with him in the school grounds and there was a major quarrel between him and Pardeep after which they are not on talking terms and he has falsely named him on account of the same. The accused has further stated that Kamla the mother of Pradeep used to come to their house in the morning to take lassi but used to speak very loudly and objectionably which was objected to by his family and they stopped giving her lassi as a result of which she also became inimical to them. In so far as Sanjay and Mahajan are concerned, the accused has stated that he had no interaction with them
but it is only on account of village politics that he had been wrongly identified and falsely implicated by them in the present case despite the fact that he was not present in the village for three days on account of harvesting of wheat. Accused Monu S/o Sh. Suresh aged 22 years a student and was a student of BA 2nd year from C.R. Kisan College, Jind due to which reason he was residing at his Bua's House at village Gandela Distt. Jind. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that his father Dr. Suresh had a dispute with Tara Chand 'B' and his family on some money matter and his house is near the 'B' Basti due to which reason Pradeep and Kamla and other 'B' had falsely implicated him and his family. Accused Amit S/o Satyawan aged 21 years has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that he had gone to his Mama's house at village Tikra, Bhiwani Road, District Jind on 2.4.2010 and returned only on 29.4.2010. He has further stated that he had gone there to help in harvesting and had been falsely implicated. Accused Sunil S/o Daya Nand aged 35 years was at the time of incident employed with Haryana police as Constable. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that he was not even present in the village on the date of incident and had left for Hissar at 8-8:03 in the morning to search for his first cousin that is son of his mausi who had been kidnapped and returned back to village Mirchpur only on 24.04.2010. According to him, he is innocent and has been falsely implicated due to village politics. Accused Baljeet S/o Late Sh. Inder aged 42 years has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that Sanjay
S/o Raja Ram, Mahajan, Vicky, Sanjay S/o Gulab, Manoj and Gulab all belong to one extended family and were inimical to his father who was mentally unstable and used to hurl abuses at everybody. According to the accused they had falsely implicated him on account of the previous grudge and his father had expired only after the incident. He states that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated and wrongly identified by the witnesses. Accused Rajesh S/o Dhoop Singh @ Dhupa aged 27 years has studied till class 7th and is a farmer by profession. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that on 21.04.2010 he was at his fields for harvesting of wheat from where he had gone to Jind Mandi to sell his wheat and returned only on 22.04.2010. He states that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused Ramesh S/o Karan Singh aged 33 years is a graduate (BA) and at the time of incident was doing JBT. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that on the date of incident i.e. on 21.04.2010 he was at Kaithal at his sister Santosh's house where she is residing with her husband and her family. According to him he came to know about the incident which took place in the village through the news papers on the next day and has been falsely implicated. Accused Amir S/o Tara Chand aged 37 years is a Matriculate and is a driver by profession. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that on that day his niece/ bhanji daughter of his sister who is residing at Village Dakal District Jind had met with an accident and broken her leg and he had gone to her village to take her to Hissar Hospital. He states that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated.
Accused Anil @ Neel S/o Prem Singh aged 35 years is a farmer by profession. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that he had gone to fetch his children from his in-laws house at village Tarkali, Distt. Sirsa and was present there from 20.4.2010 till 22.4.2010 when he returned only about 6-6:15 PM and came to know about the incident only thereafter. He states that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Accused Balwan S/o Jai Lal has studied till class 3rd and is a farmer by profession. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that he was even not present in the village and had gone to village Bibipur, District Jind which is twenty kilometers from village Mirchpur on 20.04.2010 to purchase a buffalo and returned only on 22.04.2010. He has further stated that he had stayed there at his brother-in-law/Sala's house and came to know about the incident only on 22.04.2010. He states that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused Charan S/o Sadhu Ram aged 29 years has studied till class 10th and is a farmer by profession. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that he was in Jind on the date of incident i.e. 21.4.2010 where he had gone to sell his wheat in the Mandi to one Suresh. He states that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Accused Anoop S/o Dharma aged 21 years is a student and on the date of the incident was studying in first year in Sir Chhotu Ram Kissan College at Jind. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that on 21.04.2010 he was at Bahadurgarh after having completed first year examination on 18.04.2010. He has further
stated that on 21.04.2010 he had gone to his brother's house at Bahadurgarh to deliver Ghee to him which was given to him by his mother for the said purpose and he has been falsely implicated. Accused Dalbir S/o Sh. Tara aged 35 years has studied till class 12th and is a farmer by profession. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that on the date of the incident he had gone to the village of his widow sister at Patrey, Panipat for harvesting of wheat. He has further stated that Manoj is his neighbour and he does not know why Manoj and Kamla have falsely implicated him in the present case. Accused Krishan Kumar @ Dhaula S/o Sh. Satyawan aged 24 years is a graduate (BA) and at the time of incident was working as a security guard in an agency at Jind behind the court. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that he left the village at 6 AM and came back only at 8 PM when he was informed about the incident. He states that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Accused Jogal S/o Sh. Hawa Singh aged 34 years has denied all the allegations made against him. He has stated that Sanjay is a chain snatcher and a pick pocket of the area. According to him on one occasion when he (accused) had gone to the village Temple along with his brothers he found that Sanjay, Vijender and Mahajan were involved in an incident of snatching of chain of a lady who raised an alarm and they on hearing the same caught hold of Sanjay and gave beating to him and also to Vijender and Mahajan who were with him and recovered the chain from them and thereafter returned the same to the said lady. He has also stated that Manoj is a very good friend of Sanjay, Vijender and Mahajan and belong to the same friends circle and had therefore falsely
identified him at their instance. He has further stated that pursuant to the above incident he was attacked on three occasions by these boys i.e. Sanjay, Vijender and Mahajan in order to seek revenge from him. He has further stated that his (accused) father was a drunkard and he used to take liquor supply from Dhoopa and Vicky and when he stopped Vicky from providing alcohol to his father and did not adhere to his request he gave him a beating and told him that he will not give him any money for the alcohol supply to his father. He has further stated that a few days later his father took a bag of wheat and gave it to Vicky in lieu of the alcohol being supplied to him on which he objected and brought the bag of wheat back to his house on which there was a quarrel between him and Vicky and Dhoopa had even threatened him. He has further stated that Vicky had purchased a second hand television from his brother and did not make the payment on which he brought the TV back but Vicky hit him with a lathi and there was a quarrel. He states that on account of this hostility he has been falsely implicated by Vicky. He has further stated that Kamla used to take the milk supply from their house but did not make the payment of the same on which he stopped the supply and she became inimical to him and therefore they all had falsely implicated him. Accused Jitender S/o Sh. Satbir Ram aged 22 years was a student of BA Ist year correspondence. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that on 20.04.2010 he had gone to village Machroli, District Jhajjar at his in-laws house and returned only on 22.04.2010. According to him, he has been falsely implicated in the present case.
Page No. 321
Accused Jora Singh S/o Sh. Balwan aged 21 years has studied till class 7th and at the time of incident was helping his uncle/chacha in dairy business at Jind. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that he was not present in the village at the time of the incident as he was staying with his chacha/maternal uncle at Jind who is running a dairy business there and he is assisting him. He states that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Accused Rakesh @ Kala S/o Sh. Satyawan aged 25 years has studied till class second and at the time of incident was a driver by profession employed at Jyoti Senior Secondary School which is two kilometers away from village Mirchpur. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that he had left for his job at about 7 PM and returned at 4 PM when he came to know of the incident. He states that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Accused Krishan S/o Sh. Karan Singh aged 42 years is BA, B. Ed. and at the time of incident was working as a private teacher. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that on the date of the incident he was not present in the village since he had gone to Jind to make some purchases and from there he went to village Aleva, District Jind at his in-laws' house to pick up his children who were there. According to him, he came to know of the incident only on the next day through the news papers and he returned to the village only after two days and has been falsely implicated. Accused Kuldeep S/o Om Prakash aged 30 years has studied till class 10th and is a farmer by profession. He has denied all the allegations made against him. He has stated that he was a driver of Mahendra Max which he used to put on hire. According to him on the
date of the incident i.e. on 21.4.2010 he was away to his fields which are two to two and a half kilometers away from the village since 7 AM to 8 PM and has been falsely implicated by the family of Mahender, father of Manoj and Dhoopa father of Vicky since they are hooch suppliers (suppliers of liquor)/ peddlers of the area and he along with five to six other boys had started on a drive against illicit liquor in the village. He has stated that they were aggrieved of the same and has wrongly identified and falsely implicated him. Accused Manbeer S/o Sh. Jile Singh aged 29 years has studied till class 12th and had also done his diploma in veterinary sciences and was posted as a Veterinary Inspector at Veterinary hospital Village Mirchpur. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that Vicky used to come to his SDO (Vet.) for taking loan which loan was never sanction to him by the SDO due to which reason Vicky had a grudge against him for the same. He has further stated that he had been falsely implicated only because he belongs to the 'J' community on account of village politics. Accused Naseeb S/o Prem Singh aged 23 years is a Matriculate and was working as a Peon in Vidya Vihar, Sr. Sec. School, Rajpura, Jind. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that on the date of incident i.e. on 21.4.2010 he was at the school from 7 AM to 3 PM and when he reached the village he came to know about the incident. He states that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated on account of the village politics. Accused Rakesh @ Nikli S/o Amar Lal aged 21 years has studied till 12th class and at the time of incident he was student at ITI Hissar. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated
that on the day of incident i.e. 21.4.2010 he was attending his classes at ITI, Tosham Road, Hissar and his attendance is present on the register. According to the accused he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Accused Pappu S/o Pyara aged 38 years has studied till class 12th and is a farmer by profession. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that on the date of incident i.e. 21.4.2010 he was away to his fields which are two to two and a half kilometers away from village Mirchpur and he came to back to the village only at 7 PM when he came to know about the incident. According to the accused, he is innocent and has been falsely implicated only on account of the village politics. Accused Pradeep S/o Jagbir aged 21 years and has denied all the allegations made against him. He has stated that on the date of the incident he was employed at village Nagali District Solan Himachal Pradesh where he was working as a supervisor over the labours in a building belonging to Base Corporation Ltd., which building was under construction at that time. He states that he was not even present in the village and has been falsely implicated. Accused Pradeep S/o Sh. Jaibir aged 20 years has studied till class 10th and at the time of incident he was having a mobile repair shop at Jind-Rohtak Road, near Anaj Mandi, Jind. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that he does not stay in proper village but he has his house in his fields which are about three kilometers away from the Lal Dora of the village. According to him, on 21.04.2010 he had left the village at about 7 AM and went to his shop at Jind where he remained till 8 PM and came to know of the incident on the next day. He has further stated that he has been falsely implicated by
Dhupa, Vicky (son of Dhupa) and Manoj since they are all involved in business of illicit liquor and sale of alcohol in the village to which he had objected to about two-three years prior to this incident and had also given information to the police about these activities done by Dhupa, Vicky and Manoj pursuant to which the police had also taken action against them and therefore they were harbouring a grudge against him. He has further stated that in so far as Sanjay S/o Raja Ram is concerned he has a number of criminal cases against him of pick pocketing and theft and when he came to his shop on one occasion, he told him not to come because of his reputation due to which reason he has taken revenge against him and he had been falsely implicated by all these persons. Accused Pradeep S/o Sh. Suresh aged 24 years is a matriculate and at the time of incident was working in the United India Insurance Company at Jind. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that on 21.04.2010 at 8.00AM he had left the village for Tehsil Ghanori, Distt. Patiala, Punjab for purchasing a bike and returned on 23.04.2010 and he was not even present in the village. He has further stated that he had a previous dispute with the boys belonging to 'B' community of the village namely Vicky, Manoj and Pradeep since on 05.03.2009 they had given him beatings after an incident of eve teasing of his first cousin by Vicky to which he had objected but the said incident could not be reported to the police on account of the death of his real sister at home on the same day. He has further stated that he had been falsely implicated in this case on account of village politics. Accused Pradeep S/o Sh. Satbir aged 30 years has denied all the allegations made against him.
He has stated that he had a

Page No. 325
previous dispute with Sanjay S/o Raja Ram since on one occasion he wanted to take a lift in his car to Jind which he refused and ever since he is not on talking terms with him. According to him Santra is Sanjay's Aunt and the entire family is harboring a grudge against him due to which reason both Sanjay and Santra have falsely implicate him. He has further stated that he is a victim of village politics and that is why Vicky, Sanjay, Manoj, Gulaba and Kamla who are all residing near his house had falsely implicated him. Accused Praveen S/o Sh. Jagdev aged 21 years was a student of MA (Prev.) English at the time of incident. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that he was preparing for his examination after taking a room on rent and Jind which he was sharing with Sunil Kumar of his village. He has further stated that on that day he was attending his class at Small Talk Coaching Centre at Jind and has been falsely implicated. Accused Pawan S/o Sh. Hoshiar Singh aged 21 years was a student of BA first year (Correspondence) at the time of incident. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that on the date of the incident i.e. 21.04.2010 he was at Gurgaon with his first cousin i.e. son of his mausi and was learning plumbers job as he is having a showroom of sanitary wares. He has further stated that he returned to the village only after five to six days when he came to know about the incident on the next day through newspapers. He states that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Accused Pawan S/o Rajbir aged 22 years has studied till class 5th and is a farmer by profession. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that he was not even present at village
Mirchpur and was away to his sister's village Kalua, Distt. Jind to help her in the harvesting of wheat. He states that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Accused Sandeep S/o Mahender aged 25 years has denied all the allegations made against him. He has stated that he was not even present in the village on 21.04.2010 was at Gurgaon since 29.03.2010 and returned to the village only 28.04.2010. According to him he came to know of the incident only on 22.04.2010 through news papers and he does not know why he has been implicated in the present case. Accused Sandeep S/o Raj Kumar aged 25 years has denied all the allegations made against him. According to him, at the time of incident on 21.04.2010 he was attending his classes at Kinder King College of Education at Panipat and he does not know why Kamla had wrongly identified him and falsely implicated him in the present case. Accused Sandeep S/o Ram Swaroop aged 26 years is a Matriculate and is a farmer by profession. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that on the date of incident i.e. 21.4.2010 he was staying at his sister's house at village Songri Glana, Distt. Kaithal where he was staying since one year prior to the date of incident and doing farming there since his sister is financially much well of than him and was having much more land than his family which is comprising of his parents and his three other brothers and they own only two killas of agricultural land. Accused Sandeep S/o Rattan Singh aged 25 years has denied all the allegations made against him. He has stated that he resides near the house of Kamla and she is known to him as such. According to
him, on the date of incident he was at Kakaroli, District Udaipur, Rajasthan with his brother who is a manager at JK Tyre company at Udaipur where he had gone in search of employment and therefore was not even present in the village. Accused Sandeep S/o Jogender aged 25 years has studied till class 10th and his father owning a bhatta/ brick kiln at village Nidana, Distt. Jind where he was helping him in his business. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that on 21.4.2010 he was at the Bhatta and only came to know of the incident later on through newspapers and has been falsely implicated. Accused Sandeep @ Langra S/o Sh. Chander aged 27 years has denied all the allegations made against him. He has stated that on 21.04.2010 he was preparing fodder/ Toora from 6.00-6.30AM for the cattle at his fields which are three to three and a half kilometers away from village Mirchpur along with his family and returned only at about 7.00PM when he came to know about the incident and has been falsely implicated. Accused Sanjay @ Sanjeep S/o Sh. Amar Lal aged 23 years is a Graduate and at the time of incident was working as a private teacher at Vidya Vihar Senior Secondary School, Village Rajpura Bahm, Distt. Jind. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that at the time of incident he was attending his classes and was not even present in the village and has been falsely implicated. Accused Sanjay S/o Daya Nand aged 30 years was a student of government senior secondary school, village Mirchpur in class 12th. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that on the day of incident i.e. 21.4.2010 he was at the house of his Bhua
at village Kheda District Hissar where he had gone on 20.04.2010 to get Toora/ fodder for the cattle and returned on 22.04.2010 at about 11-12 noon and came to know of incident only on that day (22.04.2010). He has further stated that on 03.05.2009 he was having his 10th class board class and was returning to village from Kheri Chopta village when he and Pradeep S/o Suresh (co-accused in the present case) were coming back along with the cousin sister of Pradeep who was also giving her papers then on the way Vicky was present near the school in a drunken condition and he committed eve teasing on the sister of Pradeep to which they objected and there was a quarrel. He has further stated that at that time they (Pradeep and Vicky) were separated after which they returned to their village. Thereafter while he and Pradeep were coming back to village and were passing through the main gali through the 'B' Basti, large number of boys belonging to 'B' community stopped their car which was belonging to Pradeep and damaged the same and also caused injuries to them in which Pradeep received more injuries then him but when they returned home after the incident the real younger sister of Pradeep had expired and therefore the matter could not be reported to the police. He has stated that it is for this reason that Sanjay, Vicky and Pradeep had wrongly identified and falsely implicated him in this case. Accused Satyawan @ Satta S/o Sh. Karan Singh aged 50 years is totally illiterate and is a farmer by profession. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that on 21.04.2010 he was at his fields since 6 AM for harvesting of wheat and returned on 22.04.2010 at about 7 PM when he came to know of the incident. He has further stated that he had been falsely implicated in the present case on account of village politics since his fields are near the village and he had
been stopping the animals i.e. pigs etc of these persons i.e. Sushil, Sanjay, Meena, Manoj and Kamla from coming to his fields and there had been a quarrel on this account with the 'B' prior to the incident and he had been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused Satish S/o Sh. Randhir Singh aged 22 years has studied till class 12th and is a farmer by profession. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that at the time of incident he was staying at village Samlo with his widow sister two years prior to the incident and was lifted from village Samlo in the month of September and falsely implicated in the present case. Accused Satyawan S/o Rajender aged 30 years is totally illiterate and at the time of incident was doing the work of tractor mechanic at Suresh Tractor Workshop Hansi Rad, Jind. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that on 21.4.2010 he had left the village Mirchpur at 7 AM and was present at his shop till 24.4.2010 on account of work load as it was harvesting season and he had been falsely implicated. Accused Shamsher S/o Rajinder aged 20 years has studied till class 12th and is a Mechanic by profession and at the time of incident was working at a shop at Jind which is a tractor repair shop. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that on the date of incident i.e. 21.4.2010 he was at his shop at Jind which shop belongs to Rishi Lal of village Mirchpur who is his chacha/ uncle by village relationship. He has further stated that he does not know any Sunita W/o Satbir and has been falsely implicated. Accused Sheela @ Sunil S/o Sh. Beera aged 26 years is a Matriculate and is a farmer by profession.
He has denied all the

Page No. 330
allegations made against him and has stated on 21.04.2010 he had gone to Jind Mandi to sell wheat and returned only by 5-6 PM when he came to know about the incident. He states that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Accused Sonu @ Monu S/o Ramesh aged 20 years has studied till class 12th and at the time of incident was having a tractor which he used to give on rent/ hire. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that on 21.04.2010 Jagdev S/o Gujan from their village had taken his tractor on rent/ hire and he had gone to his (Jagdev's) fields which are two and a half to three kilometers from the village along with his tractor for harvesting of wheat where he remained from morning 7 AM till 6 PM and came to know of the incident only when he returned. According to him, he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Accused Mandeep @ Sonu S/o Dalbir aged 22 years was a student of BA first year at the time of incident. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that on 18.04.2010 he had gone to Jabalpur for giving examination for RPF and returned to Jind on 20.04.2010 where he stayed at his Bua's house till 22.04.2010. According to him he came to know of the incident of village Mirchpur in the TV News on 21.04.2010 evening and returned to his village on 22.04.2010 and has been falsely implicated. Accused Naveen @ Teena S/o Rajbir aged 22 years has denied all the allegations made against him. He has stated that on 21.04.2010 he was away to his bua's house at Kalayat District Kaithal as she was unwell and his fufa (uncle) and his son were away being in service. According to the accused, he is innocent and has been falsely
implicated in the present case. Accused Ved Pal @ Bedoo S/o Sh. Karan Singh aged 25 years is a student of MA (History) Final Year. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that on 20.04.2010 they had harvested the wheat from their fields and on 21.04.2010 he had gone to sell the wheat at Anaj Mandi Jind for which he left the village at 7 AM in a Tata 407 and returned only in the evening at about 6:30 7PM when he came to know of the incident from the villagers. According to the accused, he has been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused Vikas S/o Sunehra @ Sumer Singh aged 25 years has studied till class 12th and is doing his Graduation (BA). He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that he has a business of poultry farm at village Mirchpur and on 21.04.2010 he was not present at village Mirchpur and had gone to DM Poultry Research and Breeding farm at Uchana Khurd at Jind to purchase chicks for his poultry farm at Mirchpur and he returned at village only by 6.457.00PM. According to the accused, he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused Vipin S/o Sh. Jogender Singh aged 20 years has denied all the allegations made against him. He has stated that he was staying at his bua's house at Hansi since last one and a half years prior to the incident where he was doing the business of property dealer with his fufa and was not even present in the village on 21.04.2010. According to the accused, he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Accused Joginder @ Jokhar S/o Inder Singh aged 32 years has studied till class 8th and is a farmer by profession. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that on
21.4.2010 he was at his fields which are 15-20 killas away from village Mirchpur where he had gone at 7 AM in the morning and returned at about 6:30 PM. He has further stated that he had been falsely implicated on account of his previous disputes with Vicky and the family of Pardeep and Kamla and wrongly identified by them in the court. Accused Rajpal S/o Sh. Sheo Chand aged 25 years is a graduate and at the time of the incident dated 21.4.2010 he was doing the business of poultry farm at his fields which are four to five kilometers away from the village. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that on the date of the incident i.e. 21.04.2010 he was at his fields which are two and a half to three kilometers away from village Mirchpur for harvesting of wheat since 7 AM and remained there till 6 PM and he came to know of the incident when he returned to the village. He has further stated that he had a dispute with Dilbagh and Vicky two years prior to the incident on purchase of poultry from him which he had refused because they had both come to him in a drunken condition and there was a quarrel. He states that he has been falsely implicated on account of village politics. Accused Jaibir S/o Sh. Balbir aged 35 years has denied all the allegations made against him. He has stated that Kamla is his neighbour and his house is just two galies away from her house. According to him, he is an Asthma Patient and on the date of the incident he was having an Asthma attack and was lying inside his house. He states that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and wrongly identified by Kamla. Accused Ramesh S/o Sh. Dalip aged 55 years has studied till class 5th and at the time of the incident was driving a TSR at Jind. He
has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that on 21.04.2010 he had gone to village Samro district Jind at about 8 AM on a booking of Dharamvir S/o Agdi Ram of village Mirchpur on account of some death in their family and he returned to village Mirchpur at about 5:30 PM when he came to know of the incident. He has further stated that he is residing near the 'B' Basti and had been identified only on account of village politics and had been falsely implicated. Accused Rupesh S/o Sh. Tek Ram aged 30 years is a graduate and at the time of the incident was working as a clerk at Rishikul Public School, Nirwana Road, Jind which is eighteen kilometers from village Mirchpur. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that he has been staying at his sister's house at Urban Estate, Jind from where he goes to the school and only returned to village Mirchpur during weekends i.e. on Saturday and return to his work at Jind on Monday morning. He has further stated that on 21.04.2010 he was present in the school since 7 AM till 3-3:15 PM and had returned to Mirchpur only on the following Saturday and he came to know of the incident next day through the news papers. He has further stated that in so far as Sanjay S/o Raja Ram is concerned, he had a previous dispute with him since on one occasion while he was going to his fields along with his first cousin i.e. son of his chacha when Sanjay was coming back through the gali in a drunken condition and started abusing them on which there was a quarrel and since that day they are not on talking terms with him due to which reason he has falsely named and identified him. He has further stated that in so far as Vicky and Mahajan are concerned they are in a habit of hunting down birds and animals in the fields to which he objected and they are inimical to him
ever since and he had been falsely implicated in the present case due to village politics. Accused Bobal S/o Tek Ram aged 35 years has studied till class 7th and is a farmer by profession. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that Sushil is a daily wager and on one occasion he had called him at the time of harvesting of wheat for labour work and after doing the work, he demanded 160 Kg (4 man i.e. 1 man = 40 Kg) wheat but he told him that the prevailing rate at that time was only three and a half man. According to him he told him to take as per the prevailing rate but he got annoyed and did not take the wheat of his labour and left by threatening to see him later. He has further stated that Dhoop Singh and his son are involved into sale of liquor in the village which he used to purchase from them. He has stated that on one occasion he noticed that in the record maintained by Dhoop Singh regarding credit he was showing extra purchases on his name on which there was a quarrel with his son Vicky who started abusing him and therefore he had given him (Vicky) a beating and also did not make the payment of the extra amount which they were showing in his name on which Dhoopa and Vicky became annoyed. He has stated that they have wrongly identified him. He has further stated that Sanjay S/o Raja Ram is a pick pocket and he was in need of some money for purchase of food articles for his home and taking pity on him he asked his chacha to give him sugar and tea on credit but Sanjay did not make the payment when his chacha demanded for the same and when he told Sanjay to make the payment he (Sanjay) asked him (Bobal) to make the payment promising to pay the same to him later after he gets this amount from somewhere
else by pickpocketing. On this he (Bobal) told him (Sanjay) that he doesn't indulge into these things and therefore asked him to make the payment directly. He has further stated that on other occasion he (Sanjay) wanted Rs.100/- from him for going to Uchana which he refused and since then Sanjay had became inimical to him. He has further stated that his fields are adjoining the 'B' Basti and their animals frequently entered his fields due to which there is a dispute and it is for this reason Gulaba, Manoj, Sanjay, Dilbagh, Vijender, Mahajan, Kamla and Satyawan are inimical to him. According to him, in fact Kamla had been helped by him on many occasions since she belongs to a very poor family and despite the fact that she used to lift the upplas from his plot to which he never objected or quarrel with her. He has further stated that he does not know why she has wrongly identified him and he had been falsely implicated and wrongly identified on account of village politics. Accused Jagdish @ Jagda S/o Lehna Ram aged 49 years has studied till class 10th and is a farmer by profession. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated the family of Santara had a criminal background and had falsely implicated him. He has further stated that the family of Vicky was indulging into sale of liquor in the village and his brother used to purchase the liquor from them. According to him, after the death of his brother Vicky came to him and demanded money for the liquor purchased by his brother before his death and when he refused saying that when his brother is no more, why should he make the payment on which there was a dispute. He has further stated that Vicky has falsely identified him on account of the aforesaid and he has been falsely implicated on account of village politics.
Accused Pawan @ Tinkoo S/o Sh. Sewa Ram aged 23 years has studied till class 12th and is a farmer by profession. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that on the day of the incident i.e. on 21.04.2010 he was at his house at village Petwa which is twenty two kilometers from village Mirchpur and he came to know about the incident only after seven to eight days. According to the accused he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Accused Vinod S/o Sh. Jagdev aged 23 years has studied till BA (second year) and is a teacher by profession. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that on 21.04.2010 he was teaching Maths and Science to class 10 th at Vidya Vihar Senior Secondary School, Raj Pura, District Jind where he was employed. According to him, he has been falsely implicated. Accused Ved Pal S/o Sh. Daya Nand aged 35 years has studied till BA 1st year and at the time of incident was running a shop at Jind Rohtak Road, Distt. Jind where he was doing the business of sale of grains. He has denied all the allegations made against him and has stated that he does not stay in the proper village and his house is situated in his fields which are two-two and a half kilometers from the village where the incident took place. According to him on 21.04.2010 he was at his shop at Jind which is about twenty five kilometers from village Mirchpur from 7.00AM to 8.00 PM and he came to know about the incident through the news papers on 22.04.2010. He has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case only on account of caste politics in the village.
Page No. 337
Defence Evidence:
The accused before this court have examined as forty four witnesses in their defence as under: DW1 HC Ram Singh has proved the leave record of the accused Vinod Kumar, the then SHO, Police Station Narnaund. He has proved that ten days casual leave w.e.f 09.04.2010 to 19.04.2010 had been availed by the accused Vinod Kumar. The photocopy of his application is Ex.DW1/A bearing signature of Superintendent of Police Hissar at point A. he has proved that as per record accused Vinod Kumar made his departure on 09.04.2010 and joined his duties on 20.04.2010 after availing the above leave. He had also proved the record pertaining to the grant of sanction to prosecute the then SHO Insp. Vinod Kajal under Section 4 of the SC/ST (POA) Act which is Ex.DW1/B. The testimony of this witness has gone uncontroverted as he has not been cross-examined by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor being an official witness. DW2 Ct. Ravinder has proved the log book pertaining to wireless L-46 (call sign). According to him, on 21.04.2010 he was posted as a wireless operator at Police Station Narnaund and was with the SHO the then Insp. Vinod Kajal from 7:45 AM till 12:45 PM along with the wireless set and thereafter ASI Satbir Singh No. 1414/C took over the charge of the wireless set from him and had made the entries which entries have also been proved by him having seen ASI Satbir Singh writing in official course. He has proved log book showing the entries made with regard to the calls sent and received on the wireless set issued to the police station which remained with the SHO (accused Vinod Kajal) which record is Ex.DW2/A running into three pages.
I may observe that according to the above record as many as six calls had been made on the directions of then SHO Insp. Vinod Kajal on 21.04.2010 and the first call was at 9:55 AM to I/C Kheri Chowkta with directions to him to be prepared to reach village Mirchpur 'B' Mohalla. In his cross examination by Ld. Special prosecutor for the victims he has deposed that the follow up action of the call of 9:55 AM shows that it had been noted by the authorities and as per record on the directions of the SHO the information was given to the control room at 12:16 PM regarding the dispute getting aggravated and also the fact that the fire brigade had not reached the spot and has voluntarily stated that at 10:10 AM request was also sent to City Hansi, Sadar Hansi and Barwala for more force. DW3 Sh. Surender Kumar Assistant DC Office, Hissar, Haryana has proved the attendance record of Pradeep Kumar S/o Tara Chand who was employed as clerk in their office which record dated 27.07.2010 is Ex.DW3/A showing that he was present in the office from 9 AM to 5 PM. According to him during the day if any employee leaves the office he is required to give the leave application and there is no leave application of Pradeep Kumar of 27.07.2010 showing that he had left the office during the day. The testimony of this witness has gone uncontroverted as he has not been cross-examined by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor being an official witness. DW4 Sh. Baru Ram from Sub Tehsil Uklana District Hissar, Haryana has proved the attendance record of Amar Lal S/o Tara Chand dated 27.07.2010. According to him Amar Lal is working as a Clerk in the Sub Tehsil Uklana district Hissar, Haryana which record is
Ex.DW4/A which shows that Amar Lal was present in the office from 9 AM to 5 PM and during the day. He has deposed that in case if any employee leaves the office he is required to give the leave application. He has further deposed that there is no leave application of Amar Lal of 27.07.2010 showing that he had left the office during the day. The testimony of this witness has gone uncontroverted as he has not been cross-examined by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor. DW5 HC Lachman Singh has proved the DD registers for the period 16.03.2010 till 10.04.2010 and from 11.04.2010 till 02.05.2010 pertaining to Police Station Narnaund. He has proved the departure entry made by Inspector Vinod Kalaj when he proceeded on leave vide DD No. 34 which is Ex.DW5/A and DD No.13 regarding his joining of duties on 20.04.2010 at about 9:30 AM after availing of leave which is Ex.DW5/B. The witness has also proved the DD record of 19.04.2010 which is Ex.DW5/C (collectively running into 06 pages); DD record of 20.04.2010 which is Ex.DW5/D (collectively running into 08 pages); DD record of 21.04.2010 which is Ex.DW5/E (collectively running into 08 pages) and the DD record of 22.04.2010 which is Ex.DW5/F (collectively running into 08 pages). The testimony of this witness has gone uncontroverted as he has not been cross-examined by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor being an official witness. DW6 Sh. Virender aged 28 years is an agricultural labour by profession and a daily wager belonging to the 'B' community and a resident of village Mirchpur since his birth. According to him, Pawan and Kulvinder both sons of Ram Mehar resident of Village Mirchpur are known to him being resident of the same village who are farmers having agricultural lands where he used to work as a labour.
He has deposed that on 21.04.2010 he was with Pawan and Kulvinder in their fields for harvesting of wheat along with his younger brother Kulvinder @ Kullu @ Surender when at 5 PM they came to know about the quarrel which had taken place in the village when they all including himself, his brother Kullu, Pawan and Kulvinder came back to their village. He has further deposed that they were all together in the fields since 4.00-4.15 am and remained there till evening and at about 3.00-3.15 PM they came to know that something had happened in the village as their lunch had not reached the fields which was normally served by 12-00-1.00 Noon which lunch reached them only at about 3.00-3.30PM. He has stated that throughout this time they were working in the fields for harvesting of wheat. In his cross examination the witness has admitted that they earn their livelihood by doing labour work in the fields belonging the the persons from the 'J' community and states after he came to know about the arrest of Pawan and Kulwinder he repeatedly told DSP Tula Ram that Pawan and Kulwinder were with them in the fields throughout the day but he does not listen to them. He has further deposed that DSP Tula Ram did not record his statement but admits that he did not make any complaint against DSP Tula Ram to any senior officer or Court and has explained that he has no influence having studied only till class 7 th and not knowing any intricacies of law. According to him, he had gone to DSP Tula Ram along with other villagers belonging to the 'B' community and pleaded with him not to implicate innocent persons but DSP Tula Ram told them that nothing could be done as challan had already been filed in the court. He has also stated that no interrogation was made from him at any point of time by any police officer including DSP Abhay
Singh. Witness has denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely at the instance of the accused being a resident of the same village and also because his livelihood is dependent upon the persons of the dominant 'J' community and he is having family relations with them. DW7 Sh. Sajjna aged 45 years an agricultural labour is a resident of village Mirchpur since his birth belonging to 'B' community who is totally illiterate and states that he is an eye witness to the incident dated 21.4.2010. I may observe that Sajjna has been cited as a prosecution witness but has not been examined in the court. He has now appears as a witness for the defence and according to him, on 21.04.2010 he was present in the village for the entire day and his house is situated in the 'B' Basti near the main gali and on that day at about 8.00-9.00 AM he was standing outside his house towards the main gali when he saw Rajender S/o Satpal and one more boy coming from the fields side towards the village and while they were passing through the gali some boys belonging to 'B' community stopped them and there was a Maar Pitai wherein Rajender and the other boy was assaulted. He has further deposed that he saw that Rajender and other boy had sustained injuries and were saved by the villagers and removed to Jind Hospital but in the meanwhile a rumor spread in the village that Rajender had been killed by the 'B' Rajender Ko Balmikiyon Ne Maar Diya. According to him on this a large crowd collected and there was tension in the main gali and a large number of 'B' gathered towards the 'B' Mohalla whereas a large number of persons from the 'J' community gathered towards the 'J' mohalla and there was stone pelting. He has further deposed that this rumor also spread in the village temple where there is a fair (Mela) every
Wednesday and a large number of persons from other villages come to have Darshan of the Deity in the temple. He has also deposed that when this rumor spread there many outsiders who had come to the temple then came to the village and there was stone pelting and rioting. According to this witness initially at about 9.00AM about ten to twelve police personnel's come to the village but later a large number of police officials came at about 12.00 or 1.00 Noon. In his cross examination the witness has deposed that his statement was not recorded by the police on 18.5.2010 though he has admitted that DSP Tula Ram had interrogated him but states that he is not aware if he had recorded his statement and what he has recorded. Further in his cross-examination the witness has denied any knowledge of the incident dated 19.4.2010 or 20.4.2010 or that he had ever told DSP Tula Ram on 18.5.2010 about the same. He has also been confronted with his statement recorded by DSP Tula Ram on 18.5.2010 Ex.DW7/PX1 which he has denied including the portion A to A-1 wherein the names of sixty one assailants all boys from the 'J' community has been mentioned. He has stated he does not know the names of any of the assailants and the boys of the 'J' community and question of giving any name does not arise. This witness has admitted that Tara Chand and his daughter Suman had lost their lives in this incident and has also deposed that he was present at the spot but states that he did not receive any injury though he admits that he had been given compensation by the government on the ground that he had sustained injuries. He has also denied the suggestion that his property was damaged and he had claimed compensation from the government in respect of the same and now since
he has been won over by the accused and their families he has falsely deposed in this regard and has voluntarily explained that since all the 'B' from his village had been given compensation by the government therefore he had also received the same but has denied that it was only those 'B' who had sustained injuries and had suffered loss of property who had got compensation after they produced evidence of the same. He has denied that there was no incident in the morning wherein the boys belonging to 'B' community had attacked and assaulted Rajender and another boy who had received injuries and had to be hospitalized. He has also denied that there was no rumor in the village regarding Rajender having been killed by the 'B' on account of which there was a flare up and that in fact the attack on the 'B' Basti was pre-planned. Witness has denied the suggestion that since he is residing in the same village and his livelihood is depend upon the persons from the 'J' community therefore he is deposing falsely at their instance. DW8 Sh. Shamsher Singh is the Secretary of the Jyoti Education Society which is running Jyoti Senior Secondary School, Mirchpur and he has brought the summoned recorded pertaining to the attendance of accused Rakesh S/o Satyawan who was a driver in the school as on 21.04.2010. According to him, on 21.4.2010 the accused Rakesh S/o Satyawan resident of Village Mirchpur was on duty in the school from 7.30AM to 2.00 PM as evident from the attendance register maintained in the school whose attested copy is Ex.DW8/A (the court has also seen the original attendance register which was thereafter returned to the witness). He has also placed on record the certified copy of the memorandum of association which is Ex.DW8/B and the photocopy of the registration certificate issued by the Registrar in favour
of the society which is Ex.DW8/C In his cross examination the witness has stated that he is only concerned with the supervision of the school and the attendance register was being maintained by the Principal of the school namely Sh. Suresh Kumar. He has further deposed that the accused Rakesh S/o Satyawan was employed with them only for one month w.e.f. from 01.04.2010 on temporary basis since the permanent driver was on one month leave. Witness has denied the suggestion that the job of the accused was only to bring the children and parked the bus in the school and then leave the children at 2.00PM and during the day the driver could leave the complex and has voluntarily explained that during the day the driver is required to stay in the school complex as the vehicle could be required in cases of emergencies or outside visit by the staff or the management. He has further denied the suggestion that entire school was run by a management comprising of the persons from the 'J' community and has voluntarily added that one of the partner in the management is Mehtab Singh Jangra who is not a member of 'J' community but a Khati belonging to OBC community. He has further deposed that when he came to know about the arrest of the accused and his implication in the present case, he had gone to the Superintendent of Police Office and told them about the attendance of Rakesh in the school and also gave an affidavit in this regard to the Superintendent of Police Hissar where he along with some other children from 'B' community who were present in the school and had seen accused in the school had even met the Superintendent of Police but they were not heard. Witness has denied the suggestion that he did not file any application in any court to this effect. Witness has denied the suggestion that their record regarding
the accused has been manipulated and fabricated only to help the accused Rakesh S/o Satyawan only to help the accused being from the same community. DW9 Sh. Dalser Lohan has brought the school record pertaining to attendance of Sunil Dhanda S/o Jaiveer, Sanjay S/o Amar Lal, Vinod S/o Jagdev and Naseeb S/o Prem Singh all employees of their school. According to him accused Sunil Dhanda, Sanjay and Vinod are teachers of their school and Naseeb is a fourth class employee. He has further deposed that they are running the school which is till class 12th since last ten years and all the four persons are in the employment of the school for the last more than two years except Naseeb who was working in their school since last one year prior to the incident dated 21.04.2010. He has produced the attendance register of the staff dated 21.04.2010 showing the presence of Sunil Dhanda S/o Jaiveer from 8.00am to 2.00 PM, Sanjay S/o Amar Lal from 7.40AM to 12.45PM, and Vinod S/o Jagdev from 7.50 AM to 12.45PM. He has further deposed that in so far as the group four employees are concerned, there is no attendance register maintained in the school but all group four employees are required to report at 8.00 AM and remain in the school till 2.00 PM that is till the last child leaves the school. He has deposed that Naseeb was employed as a water carrier in the school and states that he (Naseeb) was present in the school from 8.00AM to 2.00 PM on 21.04.2010. He has further deposed that all their employees including the teachers and group four employees travel in the school bus while commuting to and fro from the school. He has proved the attendance register regarding the attendance of Sunil Dhanda copy of which is Ex.DW9/A; copy of attendance register regarding the attendance of
Sanjay Dhanda which is Ex.DW9/B and copy of attendance register regarding the attendance of Vinod S/o Jagdev which is Ex.DW9/C. In his cross examination by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor the witness has admitted that the register does not bear his signatures but has denied the suggestion that he is making deposition today only on the basis of the entries made in the attendance register which he had not checked on day to day basis and has voluntarily added that he had made the deposition also on the basis of his personal knowledge since he remains in the school throughout the day and interacts with the employees and is therefore aware of the day to day attendance of his staff. He has further deposed that he came to know about the incident from newspapers and in so far as Sunil is concerned, he was picked up by the police from his house on 17.05.2010 when he was coming to the school and his family gave him this information and in so far as Sanjay and Vinod are concerned on the request of local police he himself took Sanjay and Vinod to the office of DSP Tula Ram and prior to this he had also met DSP Tula Ram and informed him that all these boys were present in the school on 21.04.2010 i.e. the date of the incident. He has further deposed that he does not tell any senior police officer or court regarding the false implication of Sunil Dhanda S/o Jaiveer, Sanjay S/o Amar Lal, Vinod S/o Jagdev and Naseeb S/o Prem Singh in the present case. Further, in his cross-examination the has admitted that there is a cutting in the attendance register on the word May which has been made April and has explained that it was a clerical error since the month was wrongly mentioned as May. This court has also observed that prior to the month of April which has been written after cutting the word May, the attendance is of the month of March
showing that it was a clerical error. Further, on the query by the court the witness has informed that the all the accused were regularly attending the school till the date of their arrest. He has denied the suggestion that the record produced by him is fabricated only to assist the accused as he belong to the same community as that of the accused. DW10 Dr. Rajesh Malik has deposed that he is posted at the veterinary hospital since the year 2000 where Manbir S/o Ziley Singh is a VLD (Veterinary Live Stock Development Assistant) for the last almost three years prior to the incident. He has deposed that on 21.04.2010 Manbir S/o Ziley Singh was on duty from 8.00AM to 2.00PM and in this regard has placed on record the copy of the attendance register showing the attendance of Manbir S/o Ziley Singh on 21.04.2010 which is Ex.DW10/A (original of which has been seen and returned). In his cross examination by the Ld. Public Prosecutor the witness has deposed that Manbir had gone to Village Mirchpur during the day along with class four employee namely Jagdish (DW11) for purposes of vaccination of animals/ cattle under the National Programme of FMD Control Programme wherein around 800 injection vial were given to Manbir and in the evening he returned/ deposited back only 100 vials showing that he had vaccinated around 700 cattle. He has admitted that checking by the senior officers was done only on 19.05.2010 and there is no checking thereafter and has voluntarily added that checking normally happens once or twice in the year depending upon the senior officer. The witness has denied the suggestion that the attendance record has been manipulated.
Page No. 348
DW11 Sh. Jagdish has deposed that he is working as a group four employee in the veterinary Hospital as Peon. According to him his job is to carry the boxes and medicines and vaccinations and Manbir was posted as VLD in the hospital and on 21.04.2010 he along with Manbir had gone to village Mirchpur towards the hospital side for vaccination of cattle under the National Programme of FMD and in the entire day covered the two kilometer area of the village around the hospital and vaccinated about 700 to 800 cattle. He has further deposed that on that day they had covered only the outer portion of the village situated towards the hospital and they never came to know about the quarrel since that portion is situated away from the area where the quarrel took place about which incident they came to know on the next day. In his cross examination by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor the witness has deposed that he know Manbir since two to three year of the incident on account of his posting in the hospital but he had no interaction with the family of Manbir and he only know him officially. He has further deposed that he belong to Jogi community. He has stated that he did not make any representation to any police officer or any senior officer of the District to the effect that Manbir had been falsely implicated and has denied the suggestion that he has deposed falsely to save Manbir only because he is professionally close to him. DW12 Sh. Manoj Kumar has brought the record from the Rishikul Public School where Rupesh S/o Tek Ram was working a clerk as on 21.4.2010. According to him, as per the attendance register Ex.DW12/A (original of which has been seen and returned) Rupesh S/o Tek Ram was present in the school since 7.30AM to 3.00PM.
In his cross examination by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor the witness has admitted that he cannot tell the period of the employment of Rupesh prior to 21.04.2010 since he was not asked to get the said record and also because he (witness) had joined only in the month of February 2011. He has denied the suggestion that Rupesh was not available in the school during the day and has voluntarily added that in case if any staff member or employee leaves the school premises during the day, the attendance register reflects this fact and he cannot leave without marking in the register. Witness has denied the suggestion that the record has been fabricated only to assist the accused. DW13 Sh. Karan Singh aged 55 years is the complainant in this case on whose statement the FIR had been recorded. He is a permanent resident of village Mirchpur since his birth and is totally illiterate. He belongs to 'B' community and is doing the business of fisheries. I may observe that Karan Singh is the complainant in the present case and the FIR was registered on the basis of his complaint. Despite the aforesaid and also despite being cited as a witness, the prosecution has not examined him as their witness on the ground that he has been won over by the accused. In fact it is the accused before this court who have produced him as their witness in order to prove that the first aggression was made by the boys belonging to 'B' community when the incident got aggravated. According to Karan Singh on 21.4.2010 Tara Chand and Suman both belonging to 'B' community who were not related to him had expired on account of burns which they had received in the fire but is unable to give the details stating that their house is away from his house.
With regard to the incident 19.04.2010 he has explained that he was present at his house in the evening and was having his dinner on the first floor when the she-dog belonging to his brother Jai Prakash started barking very loudly. On this he came down to inquire about the matter when he found that some boys from the village some of whom were belonging to 'J' community and others were 'B' were quarreling with each other on account of the barking of this dog and he intervened and separated them and went back to his house to sleep. Thereafter while he was in his room on the first floor he heard the noise of a tractor passing through the gali in front of his house and he (driver of the tractor) called out in the gali stating that large number of boys were collecting on one side and they should be dispersed least they start fighting. He has further deposed that he was a member of the Block Samiti and felt that it was his moral duty to see that there is no breach of peace and therefore he went to Veer Bhan also another member of the Block Samiti and both of them went to the place where those boys were standing but before they could reach them, suddenly those boys started throwing stones on them. He states that it was 9'O clock at night at that time and was completely dark and he could not recognize any one of them therefore both he and Veer Bhan came back but Veer Bhan had sustained some injuries on his head on account of the stone pelting and he had also sustained little injuries on his left side. He has further deposed that thereafter he along with one or two other persons took Veer Bhan to Narnaund Hospital and from there they were referred to General Hospital, Hissar and on 20.04.2010 evening Veer Bhan was got discharged from General Hospital, Hissar and was brought back to the village as he was no longer required to be admitted in the hospital since
his injuries had been treated and they were also told by the other villagers that the dispute could be compromised. According to him, he had gone to the police station on 20.04.2010 and orally informed the officer on duty about the incident. He has deposed that while he was standing outside it was Veer Bhan who had had gone inside the police station and when they went back to their home everything was peaceful in the village. He has further deposed that on 21.04.2010 he was at his house throughout the day and in the morning at about 10.00-11.00AM he heard a lot of commotion in the street/ gali when he came to know that stone pelting was going on outside from the sides of the 'J' and also from the side of the 'B' but he did not go outside the house because he was fearful of his safety. The witness has also deposed that police came to the village at about 1.00 PM and when he came out of his house his signatures were taken by the police on a number of papers but he is not aware what papers were got signed from him since he cannot read or write and can only sign. According to him he did not see any of the assailants because he did not come out of his house when the incident was taking place. He has further deposed that he had also told the court at Hissar about this fact that he was not aware of the incident and he had also made a similar statement before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Iqbal Singh (Retd.) Commission of Inquiry (Mirchpur), Haryana at Chandigarh and his affidavit in this regard is Ex.DW13/A bearing his signatures at point X at various points along with his statement Ex.PW13/B bearing his signatures at point X-1. In his cross examination by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor the witness has denied the suggestion that on 19.04.2010 he
was sitting on his Chabootra at about 8.30 PM when the incident took place and has voluntarily added that he was in his room at first floor. He has however admitted his complaint Ex.PW66/A bearing his signatures at point A but has voluntarily added that he is not aware of the contents and what was written in the said complaint and states it might have been written by some police officer and he was asked to sign the same. He has denied the suggestion that he had narrated the entire incident dated 19.4.2010 to the police on which his complaint was recorded and he signed the same only after it was read over to him and after being satisfied with the same. The witness has been confronted with his statement Ex.PW66/A which he has denied. He has specifically denied having told the police that Rajender S/o Pale, Sonu S/o Pappu, Monu S/o Suresh, Rishi S/o Satbir along with ten to fifteen other boys were coming from the water tank side in a drunken condition and when they passed from in front of his house, his dog start barking; that it was Rajender S/o Pale who hit the dog with brick on which his nephew Yogesh objected and requested them not to hurt the dog on which Yogesh was beaten; that after some time Ajeet (a member of 'J' community) came to him and said that all the boys had gathered outside the house of Rajender S/o Pale and that he should go and apologize or else there is a likelihood of the matter being aggravated and that he and Veer Bhan went to Rajender S/o Pale at the instance of Ajeet and that thereafter they begged pardon from him but he does not care about it and attacked them in a planned manner resulting in the injuries on the person of Veer Bhan and himself and has voluntarily added that he was at the first floor at the time of the incident and when he came out there was stone pelting upon them before they could even reach to the boys and he could not
identify anyone of them. He has also denied having told the police that on 21.04.2010 at about 10.00/11.00 AM he along with other members of 'B' community i.e. Ajmer S/o Balbir, Sajjna S/o Ram Swaroop, Karambir S/o Balbir and five to seven other persons from the 'B' community went to gali where the house of Veer Bhan is situated to inquire about his health when they saw Rajender S/o Pale Ram, Rishi S/o Satbir, Pradeep S/o Balwan, Kulvinder S/o Ram Mehar, Rupesh S/o Tek Ram, Monu and Vikas Sons of Dr. Suresh, Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand, Illa S/o Mai Chand, Sumit and Amit Sons of Satyawan, Ramesh S/o Karan Singh, Soni, S/o Jaivir, Sonu S/o Papu, Pawan S/o Ram Mehar, Vipin S/o Pratap, Jasbir S/o Ishwar Singh, Mahesha S/o Dalip, wife of Pale, Wife of Dilbag Driver, Wife of Kapoora, wife of Pappu, Rajender S/o Sadhu, Bobal @ Langra S/o Teka, Joginder @ Jogar S/o Inder Singh, Ghaggar S/o Tara Chand, Dharambir S/o Tara Chand, Suresh S/o Balbir, Bhoti W/o Ghaggar, Bharpai W/o Kapoora, Ramphal S/o Prithvi, Sunil S/o Dayanand, Baljeet S/o Inder, Nanha S/o Mai Chand, Karampal S/o Satbir, Mandeep S/o Prema, Hathi S/o Baru Ram,. Kuldeep and Jaivir Sons Balbir, Rajender S/o Belu, Dhupa S/o Manga, Daya S/o Jeet Singh along with 300 to 400 persons from the 'J' community came to the 'B' Basti giving Lalkara/exhortation In saale chooron ke makano ko jala do. Inke Bal bachcho ko makaano ke andar hi jinda jala do. Gharon ko tor phor karke gira do. Inka gaon se khatma kardo and when confronted with portion F to F-1 on Ex.PW66/A he has voluntarily stated that he made no such statement nor gave any names. He has also denied having told the police that the assailants were armed with jellies, lathies, dandas, petrol and kerosene
oil cans and bottles and thereafter they surrounded the 'B' Basti from all the sides and started putting the houses belonging to the members of 'B' community on fire without bothering that their children were inside the house and when confronted with portion marked G to G-1 on Ex.PW66/A he denied the same. He has further denied that on 27.04.2010 DSP Abhay Singh had interrogated him and recorded his statement and when confronted with his statement Ex.DW13/PX-1 recorded by DSP Abhay Singh on 27.04.2010 which was read over to the witness, he denied the same and voluntarily stated that he had made no such statement nor made any allegations against Naib Tehsildar Jage Ram or SHO Vinod Kajal since he did not even know their name. Witness has however admitted that he had gone to the medical team who had come to the village on 30.04.2010 and he had shown them the injury which he had received on 19.04.2010 and his MLR Ex.PW59/J bearing his signatures at point D but has stated that he made no statement to the Investigating Officer in this regard. He has further denied the suggestion that on 22.04.2010 he had made an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Hissar for amendment of charges against the accused and for adding the provisions of SC/ ST (POA) Act and has voluntarily stated that he is totally illiterate and can only sign and cannot even read or write. He has also stated he had also made no application to the DC and when confronted with the application Ex.PW66/F and his signatures at point A, he admitted his signatures at point A but denied the contents of the application and stated that some person from the village must have written the same and got his signatures taken on it.
Page No. 355
Witness has denied the suggestion that since he is residing in the same village he have been won over by the persons of the dominant 'J' community also because his livelihood is dependent upon them. Witness has also denied the suggestion that he had made a false statement in the court at Hissar and also given false affidavit to the Inquiry Commission and also made a false statement before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Iqbal Singh (Retd.) Commission of Inquiry (Mirchpur), Haryana at Chandigarh or that he has deposed falsely under the pressure of the families of the accused. DW14 Sh. Ramesh aged 42 years an agricultural labour belonging to 'B' community is a resident of village Mirchpur since his birth. He has deposed that on 21.04.2010 he was employed as a labour in the fields of Rajender S/o Belu since it was harvesting season for wheat and he went to the fields in the morning at about 6 AM and apart from himself Anand (a member of 'J' community) who owns a tractor, Rajender and his wife were also in the fields for harvesting purposes and they remained there till the evening and returned by 7 pm when he came to know about the quarrel in the village after he had returned home. According to him, when he returned from the fields Rajender still remained there for the purposes of taking care of the harvested crops. In his cross examination by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor witness has deposed that he know Rajender since his childhood as he is a labour in the village and is often engaged by the villagers. He has admitted having family relations with the accused Rajender and states that he came to know a few days later that Rajender is an accused in this case. He has admitted that he did not lodge any complaint or get his statement recorded with the police to the effect that
on the day of incident Rajender was with him and according to him, the police never met him to make any inquiries. He has denied the suggestion that since his livelihood is dependent upon the family of Rajender and he is residing in the same village therefore on account of the pressure he is deposing falsely in favour of Rajender S/o Belu or that Rajender or his wife were not with him in the field on that day. DW15 Sh. Pasha aged 58 years is a permanent resident of village Mirchpur since his birth and is totally illiterate. He belongs to 'B' community and his house is situated in the 'B' Basti near the well and according to the witness he makes money by collecting honey from the beehives from the fields and sells the same. He has deposed that on 21.4.2010 he left the village at 7 am and went to the fields for collecting honey and he went to the fields of Ramesh S/o Bal Kishan whose son is Sonu. According to him he also went to the fields of Satta @ Satyawan S/o Karan Singh and also to many other fields. According to him, when he went to the field of Ramesh he saw Ramesh and his son Sonu who were harvesting wheat with the help of a tractor and there were 15-16 labourers also working in the fields with him. He has further deposed that when he went to the fields of Satta he saw Satta along with his wife and his son whose name he does not know. The witness has thereafter pointed towards the accused Sumit S/o Satyawan as the boy who was present in the fields along with Satta. He has stated that the distance between the fields of Ramesh and that of Satta is hardly two Killas and when he left the fields of Ramesh at 11 a.m. Ramesh and his family including his son Sonu were still in the fields and when he left the fields at 12 noon Satta and his family including his son were still in the fields harvesting wheat. He has further deposed that the fields of Ramesh are
visible from the fields of Satta and vice a versa and he saw these persons in their fields from morning 7 a.m. to 12 noon. In his cross examination by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor the witness has deposed that the fields of Ramesh are one and a half to two kilometers from the village and states that Ramesh possesses a tractor and Satta has a buggi. He has further deposed that he did not know anything about the quarrel till such time he returned to the village at 1 p.m and when he was in the fields he did not know about what was happening in the village. He has further deposed that he had taken water while he was in the fields of Ramesh and also when he reached the fields of Satta and also spent some time in their fields and had a good chat with them. He has further deposed that he is known to the families of Ramesh and Satta and knows their children who have grown up before him and when he returned to the village at 1p.m. police was present in large numbers and it was then that he came to know that Tara Chand and his daughter Suman had expired. He has further deposed that when he reached the village he saw a number of houses burning and fire brigades were trying to drowse the fire. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was told that the fire was on account of the rioting done by the boys of 'J' community who had burnt the houses of the members of 'B' community and injured them and has voluntarily added that when he did not see anything how could he tell who had done this. He has further deposed that he knows Karan Singh but had not seen Karan Singh with the police nor he had seen the police recording his (Karan Singh's) statement and states that he came to know that Sonu, Satta and his son had been arrested by the police after many months of the incident. He has further deposed that he did not tell the police that
they had been falsely implicated and he had seen them in the fields throughout the day and has explained that nobody had made such inquiries from him. He has further deposed that the police never made any interrogation from him nor his statement was recorded at any point of time and has admitted that he had come to the court to depose in favour of Sonu, Satyawan and Sumit so as to save them from the penal consequences of this case and has explained that he has come because they have been falsely implicated as he had seen them in the fields. The witness has further deposed that he received compensation from the Govt. to the tune of Rs.15000/- and has voluntarily added that all 'B' of the village got this amount from the Government. He has denied the suggestion that the compensation was given to him on account of the damage caused to his property and has voluntarily stated that there was no loss of his property nor the property of other 'B' in the Basti situated on side where his house is situated was damaged. He has further denied the suggestion that he had been deliberately planted as a witness by the accused having being won over by them or that he is deposing falsely because his livelihood is dependent upon the family of Ramesh, Satta and the other persons of the 'J' community. DW16 Ajmere aged 43 years belongs to the 'B' community is a permanent resident of village Mirchpur since his birth, is a daily wages labour and is totally illiterate. I may observe that despite the fact that Ajmere was cited as witness of the prosecution, he has not been examined by the prosecution on the ground that he is a witness of repetitive facts. However, he has appeared in the court as a witness of defence and rather than supporting
the prosecution case has corroborated the defence version of the incident. According to him, on 21.4.2010 he was present at his house situated in 'B' Basti near the 'B' Chaupal at village Mirchpur when at about 8 AM in the morning he had gone to the shop of Pawan (a member of 'B' community) situated in the main gali for purchase of some items of daily use for his house. When he reached the main gali he saw Rajender S/o Pale and Karam Pal S/o Satbir coming in their boogie with an iron pipe used for tubewell/pumps and when they (Rajender and Karam Pal) just crossed the shop of Pawan and went slightly ahead they were stopped by fifteen to twenty boys belonging to 'B' community who started quarreling with Rajender and Karam Pal over distribution of milk and he saw the boys belonging to 'B' community assaulting and inflicting injuries upon Rajender and Karam Pal but Karam Pal manage to run away in the village towards the 'J' Mohalla shouting that Rajender Mar Diya, Rajender Mar Diya. Thereafter he saw that Dinesh S/o Prem ran to the spot to rescue Rajender but he was hit in the eye/temples by these 'B' boys and was injured and started bleeding and large chunk of his skin had peeled off. He has stated he was standing and watching all this from a distance. He has further deposed that thereafter Prem father of Dinesh came to the spot in his car and took Dinesh, Rajender and Karam Pal to the doctor though he is not aware if he took them to Jind. On a specific query by the court the witness has responded that he could not identify any of the boys belonging to 'B' community who had attacked Rajender, Dinesh and Karam Pal since they were in large numbers and he was standing away from them but states that he knew that they were boys of the 'B' Basti since he could identify them as they residing in same Basti. According to the witness, the entire incident of quarrel when Rajender
was stopped and beaten and till such time Prem took all of them to the hospital in his car lasted for about ten to fifteen minutes till which time he kept standing at the shop of Pawan from where he was seeing the incident. He has further deposed that after Prem had taken all the boys to the hospital in his vehicle there was a rumor in the village that son of Pale had been murdered by 'B' Pale Ko Mar Diya, Pale Ko Mar Diya Balmikiyon Ne and after this rumor spread in the entire village, a large number of persons from all the communities gathered towards the 'B' Basti where the incident had taken place. On seeing this, the 'B' who were residing in the main gali thinking that all these persons had come to attack them, started throwing stones on those persons who had gathered in the gali and thereafter the situation got aggravated and there was stone pelting from both the sides which continued for about fifteen to twenty minutes. He has further stated that about fifteen to twenty police personnel's came to the spot and separated the parties. According to him, on that day there was a Fair (Mela) of Devi Maa at the temple situated at village Mirchpur which is on the other side of the 'B' Basti where people come in large numbers every Wednesday. He has further deposed that one of the routes to the temple is from the main gali through the village and outsiders who had come to the fair in the temple started coming to the village to inquire what had happened. According to him, he thereafter went back to his house and later on saw smoke arising from the main basti when he saw large number of police personnel's had also come to the village but the police did not make any inquiries from him on that day. He has stated that police did make inquiries when he told them the above facts which he has deposed before this court but states that he is not aware if his statement to this effect was recorded by the
police. In his cross examination by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor the witness has admitted that the incident of quarrel took place in the 'B' Basti and he later came to know that some houses were also burnt which were all belonging to the 'B' wherein Tara Chand and his daughter Suman had sustained burns. He has deposed that he did not see 300-400 people surrounding the 'B' Basti neither he came to know about this fact. The witness has further stated that he is known to Karan Singh 'B' but he did not see police recording the statement of Karan Singh nor he saw Karan Singh at the spot. He has further denied that he was interrogated on 18.5.2010 and also his statement recorded by DSP Tula Ram on 18.5.2010 which statement is Ex.DW16/PX1. The contents of the said statement have been put to the witness which he has denied. He has further denied having given any names as mentioned at point A to A1 in the said statement Ex.DW16/PX1 and has voluntarily stated that his statement was never recorded nor he had seen anything. He has denied having knowledge of the incident dated 19.4.2010 or that Veer Bhan had sustained any injuries. The witness has further denied the suggestion that there was no incident of any kind between Rajender and boys belonging to 'B' community as deposed by him or that there was no rumor of Rajender being killed by boys belonging to 'B' community. He has also denied that there was no stone pelting from the 'B' which took place first as deposed by him or that he has deposed deposing falsely at the instance of the persons from the 'J' community having being won over by them as his livelihood is dependent upon them. He has however admitted that he was medically examined on 2.5.2010 but states that he had not sustained any injury and has voluntarily added that he had got his
medical examination conducted only for purposes of obtaining compensation as everybody in the village was getting the same done and has also admitted that his MLR Ex.PW56/A bearing his thumb impression at point A. He has denied that he had got compensation from the Government in respect of the injuries and has clarified that he was told there was no injuries and therefore despite the fact that he got his MLR prepared he did not receive any compensation as others were getting. DW17 Rajesh aged 32 years is the original resident of village Mirchpur belonging to the 'B' community. He is class 8th pass and is running a kirana shop (general merChandize shop) which is situated in the main gali which he opens at 7 O'clock in the morning and close it at about 9 PM and remains his shop open throughout the day. I may observe that this witness has a shop at the same place in the main gali where the stone pelting had commenced. He has supported the defence version of the incident and states that it was the boys belonging to 'B' community were the first aggressors with regard to the incident dated 21.4.2010. According to him, on 21.4.2010 he had opened his shop at 7 AM and at about 8 AM while he was sitting at his shop which is towards the beginning of the village in the 'B' Basti Main gali he saw Rajender S/o Pale and Karam Pal S/o Satbir both from their village were coming in a boogie from outside and entering the village. He has further deposed that they (Rajender and Karam Pal) were having iron pipes in the boogie which are used for hand-pumps and when they crossed his shop and reached about twenty meters ahead towards the village about five to six boys belonging to 'B' community stopped them and thereafter the number of such persons all from the 'B' community
increased to forty to forty five and they were quarreling with Rajender who has a dairy over non supply of milk to them. Thereafter he saw them beating Rajender and Karam Pal and Rajender was injured while Karam Pal ran away towards his house situated in 'J' Mohalla and after sometime Dinesh S/o Prem Singh came to the spot to save Rajender when the said boys belonging to 'B' community also inflicted injuries on Dinesh in his eye. He has deposed that he saw the father of Dinesh namely Prem who came to the spot who put Dinesh and Rajender in his car and took them away and after they were taken away somebody started saying that Rajender had been killed by 'B' Balmikiyon ne Rajender Mar Diya. After about fifteen to twenty minutes many persons from the village started collecting at the spot of the incident in the main gali and the 'B' residing in the gali thought that these persons had come to quarrel due to which reason they ('B') started pelting stones on these persons from the village who were from all community and there was retaliation when the said persons standing in the street/ gali also started throwing stones. According to the witness this whole episode continued for half an hour or forty five minutes when ten to twelve police personnel's came to the spot and tried to disperse the crowd but they could not control the crowd and on seeing this he (witness) shut down his shop and went to the roof of his house which is behind the shop since the shop is in the same premises as his house and from there he saw smoke coming from various places and after about one and a half hours a large number of police personnel's and force came to the spot along with the Superintendent of Police Hissar and the fire brigades. He has stated that the police did not make any inquiry from him nor recorded his statement.
In his cross examination by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor the witness has deposed that apart from the diary of Rajender there are four to five other diaries also running in the village and has admitted that in case if milk is not available or supplied from one dairy it could be taken from the other diaries but has explained that other shops/ diaries are situated about one and a half or two kilometers far from the 'B' Basti which are near the bus stand. He has further admitted that the incident took place at 'B' Basti and eighteen houses belonging to the members of 'B' community were burnt but is not aware if Tara Chand and his daughter Suman were burnt in this incident. Witness has further admitted that all the injured were 'B' and has voluntarily explained that he came to know that the Medico-Legal Reports were being prepared in the village of the persons belonging to the 'B' community for purposes of getting compensation. According to him, he did not get his MLR done nor he or his family received any compensation and states that there was no damage to his property. He has further deposed that as soon as the stone pelting started he shut down his shop within four to five minutes. He has also admitted that no report was lodged with regard to the injuries received by Rajender in his presence and has voluntarily explained that Rajender had already been shifted to Jind hospital which fact he came to know later when the police arrived at the village. He has further deposed that the police was present in the village since 9 AM and states that initially less number of police personnel's had come but later at about 12.30-12.45 PM large number of police force came along with the Superintendent of Police. According to the witness, he remained at his house and no inquiries were made from him. He has further deposed that he came out of his house at about 2 PM and police was present in the
village at that time but he did not tell the police that in the morning it was the boys belonging to 'B' community who first assaulted Rajender and has voluntarily explained that he was never asked about it and admits that he himself did not volunteer to tell the police about the entire incident. He has denied the suggestion that there was no incident of Rajender and Karam Pal of coming in the boogie and stopped by boys belonging to 'B' community at the basti or that Rajender and Dinesh were never assaulted nor they had sustained injuries and there was no rumor of Rajender being killed by the 'B'. He is unable to tell the names of the boys belonging to 'B' community who had stopped Rajender and Karam Pal nor could he identify them and states that he came to know that these boys were from the 'B' community because two to three persons standing at his shop who were also witnessing the incident were talking that the boys who had stopped Rajender and Karam Pal were members of 'B' community. He has denied the suggestion that since no such incident had taken place it is for this reason that he cannot identify these boys or that he has deposed falsely only to save the accused persons from the penal consequences. DW18 Suman is a Multi Purpose Health Worker (Female) who was on training at General Hospital, Jind from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m on 21.4.2010 and is a summoned witness. According to her, she is known to the accused Rajender S/o Pale as he was the friend of her deceased husband. She has deposed that on 21.4.2010 she saw Rajender S/o Pale in the hospital between 11.30-11.45 AM while she was on training at the Hospital and she inquired from him as to how he had come to the hospital on which he told her that he had sustained some injuries as there was a quarrel in the village with some boys belonging to 'B' community
who had inflicted injuries upon him and on another boy who was also with him. Witness has further deposed that she saw Rajender along with two to three other persons and Rajender had injuries on his hand whereas the other boy whose name she was told by him was Dinesh (witness has identified the accused Dinesh S/o Prem Singh) had injuries on his eyes. She has further deposed that she stayed with them for sometime but then she was called by the head nurse/sister and therefore she had to leave. According to the witness, she saw them when they were present in the hospital and getting treatment from Dr. Gandhi till about 12.30 p.m. after which she left since she was called by the head nurse and states that when she left Rajender and other persons were still in the hospital getting treatment. She has further deposed that the other boy Dinesh remained admitted in the hospital since he was on duty on next day also and bandaged the injuries received by Dinesh at about 11 a.m. when two police officials were also with them. In her cross examination witness by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor she has deposed that on 21.4.2010 she was on training as a nurse and was posted at General Hospital Jind from 1.4.2010 as a trainee under the SMO and her training concluded on 30.4.2010 and during this period her attendance record was being maintained in the hospital. She has further deposed that she was staying at Jind with her in laws and has denied the suggestion that Rajender had never come to the hospital and she has got the hospital record fabricated in connivance with the doctor only to save Rajender and Dinesh. She has further deposed that she cannot identify the other persons who were with Rajender and Dinesh because they were standing at the reception casualty where they were getting their papers prepared when she noticed them and has voluntarily
added that it was only Rajender who was known to her on account of which she recognized him. She has further deposed that she did not talk to any doctor or recommend the case of Rajender and Dinesh and has denied the suggestion that she had not provided any treatment to Dinesh on 22.4.2010 morning and has voluntarily explained that she was a trainee nurse at that time and the nurse who was on duty had called her and asked her to bandage the wounds of Dinesh. She has further deposed that she came to know about the dispute at village Mirchpur on the same day since there was a talk about it in the hospital and states that she did not tell any police personnel's that Rajender had been falsely implicated in the present case and that he was present in the hospital on 21.4.2010 and has voluntarily explained that she came to know much later that Rajender had been arrested in the present case. In her further cross-examination by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor she has further stated that her husband had expired and that she had in fact told her in laws about Rajender having come to the hospital on the date of the incident but she did not go to any authority to mention about this fact. DW19 Ram Chander aged 40 is the original resident of village Mirchpur as his forefather were also residing in the same village. He is a Brahmin by caste and owns agricultural lands and is totally illiterate. He has deposed that he earns his livelihood through farming and also states that he own a tractor which he gave on hire. According to him, his house is at least one kilometer away from the place where the quarrel had taken place but states that his fields are adjoining the fields of Jaibir S/o Manphool. He has deposed that on 21.4.2010 he was at his fields from 6 AM where he had gone along with Jaibir and returned together with Jaibir by 7.30-7.45 PM. He has specifically stated that
both he and Jaibir had left the village together when they went to their fields and also returned together and has explained on a query from the court that he knew that Jaibir was present in his fields for the entire day since he and himself were working together in their fields and he was helping him in harvesting of wheat in his fields. In his cross examination by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor the witness has deposed that he has very good family terms with Jaibir but states that they are not related. He has admitted that he came to know about the arrest of Jaibir but states that he did not approach any senior officer except DSP Tula Ram and told him that Jaibir had been falsely implicated and that he was with him for the whole day. He has voluntarily explained that he had also given his affidavit to DSP Tula Ram in this regard which DSP Tula Ram took and told him that he would do the needful but thereafter did nothing. He has further deposed that he cannot produce any receipt regarding the submission of the affidavit to DSP Tula Ram but he can produce the copy of the same if given time. Witness has admitted that he is unable to produce the copy of the affidavit at the time of his deposition but has denied that he cannot produce the copy of any such affidavit because no such affidavit was given to DSP Tula Ram. He has further deposed that he was not a summoned witness. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of Jaibir only to save him from penal consequences. DW20 Ram Niwas aged 40 years has deposed that he is a resident of village Mirchpur since his birth and his forefathers were also residing in the same village and he is totally illiterate. He has further deposed that he belongs to the 'B' community and is a daily wages
labourer, his house is situated in the 'B' Basti, just one plot away from the main gali. I may observe that Ram Niwas had been cited as witness by the prosecution but was dropped having allegedly turned hostile. He has now appeared and deposed as a defence witness and has not supported the prosecution version of the incident. Rather, he has supported the defence version and has also alleged that the 'B' were the first aggressors and the incident got aggravated. According to him, on 21.4.2010 he was present in the village and at about 7 a.m. he was going to the vegetable vender to purchase vegetable for his family from the shop of Pawan 'B' situated in the main gali. He has further deposed that he saw that Rajender S/o Pale accused present in the court (correctly identified) and one more boy whom he can identify but whose name he cannot tell. (At this stage the witness has identified and pointed out towards accused Karam Pal S/o Satbir) were coming in a booggie from the side of the fields and entered the village. He has further deposed that they were carrying a pipe meant for submersible pump in the booggie and when they crossed the shop of Pawan and must have reached about hardly 20 feet he heard there was some hathapai. According to him at that time he was purchasing vegetable and he came out of the shop of Pawan and saw some boys of the 'B' community had assaulted Rajender and the other boy (Karam Pal), then he saw that one of the boys i.e. Karam Pal ran away towards the village and started shouting Pale Ko Mar diya Balmikiyon Ne. He has further deposed that he then saw Dinesh who is son of Jamindars ('J') came to save Rajender and he was hit on his eye but he cannot tell whether it was by jelly or stone but there was injuries on his eye. He has further deposed that more persons from the village
came and brought a car and put Rajender and Dinesh in the car and took them away and after these boys were taken away large number of persons from the village came to the spot of occurrence because somebody spread a rumor that son of Pale had been killed. Pale Ko Mar Diya aur 'B' laash nahi de rahe hai. According to him it was because of this rumor that persons from all communities gathered and the 'B' who were residing in the vicinity thought that the villagers had come to attack them that they started pelting stones on the villagers. He has further deposed that on that day since it was Wednesday there was Mela at the Mata Mandir and when the rumor reached the temple the public who was present in the Mela from other villages also came to the village and there was a counter attack and stone pelting was done from both the sides and after sometime he saw smoke coming from the other side of the road. He has further deposed that at the time when the incident had happened in the morning there were only 10-12 police officials in the village but later on large number of police force alongwith the SP Sh. Subhash Yadav also came to the village along with the fire brigades. He has further deposed that police never made inquiries from him. During his cross examination witness has denied the suggestion that when SP Subash Yadav came to the village inquiries were made and DSP Abhay Singh also interrogated him. Witness has denied the suggestion that his statement was recorded on 21.4.2010 along with the statement of Karan Singh (a member of 'B' community) and has voluntarily stated that he know Karan Singh but their statements were never recorded. At this stage the statement Ex.DW20/PX1 is read over to the witness which he has denied. He has further deposed that he does not make any statement as read out to him in the court vide Ex.DW20/PX1
and he does not give the names of any boys as mentioned at portion A to A1 in the said statement and has voluntarily stated that police never recorded his statement and it is Satyawan who could have got the statement recorded on his behalf. He has further deposed that he also did not tell the police that there was damage to his property and tor for done by the boys of the 'J' community whose names have been mentioned at portion B to B1 in Ex.DW20/PX1 and has voluntarily stated that there was no tor for in his house. Witness has admitted that he had received a compensation to the tune of Rs. 25000/- (twenty five thousand) from the Govt. but has denied the suggestion that this compensation was given to him on account of the damage to his property and has voluntarily stated that he got this compensation because it was given to all 'B' and he had not received any injuries nor anybody from his family had received any injuries and therefore no compensation was given to him on that account. He has further deposed that he stayed at the spot for hardly 15-20 minutes and after making purchases when the stone pelting started he went back to his house. Witness has denied the suggestion that there was no incident of any kind between Rajender and boys belonging to 'B' community as deposed by him. Witness has denied the suggestion that there was no rumor of Rajender being killed by boys belonging to 'B' community as there was no such incident. Witness has further denied the suggestion that there was no stone pelting from the 'B' which took place first as deposed by him. He has further deposed that he cannot identify the boys belonging to 'B' community who had assaulted Rajender and Karam Pal but he know they were 'B' because they were from 'B' Basti. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was unable to identify these boys because
there was no such incident of the 'B' assaulting Rajender and Karam Pal. He has further deposed that he do not possess any watch and he is giving the time as per his own approximation. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the persons from the 'J' community having being won over by them as his livelihood is dependent upon them. DW21 Dharambir aged 40 years belongs to the 'B' community and is the original resident of village Mirchpur since his birth. He has studied up to 5th class and is a daily wages labour and his house is situated in the 'B' Basti near the well situated adjoining the 'B' Chaupal. I may observe that Dharambir had been cited as a witness by the prosecution but was not examined on the ground that he was a witness of repetitive facts. He has appeared to deposed as a defence facts and has supported the defence version of the incident alleging that the 'B' were the first aggressors and the incident had got aggravated thereafter. According to him, on 21.4.2010 he was present in the village at his house and between 7 AM8 AM when he came to know that there was some quarrel in the 'B' Basti on the other side of the Chaupal after which he reached the spot that is the main street/ gali situated in the middle near the shop of Pawan and Veerbhan. He has deposed that when he reached the spot he came to know that some boys from the 'B' Basti had attacked Rajender and Dinesh who had sustained injuries. Thereafter he saw that two boys were being put in a vehicle/car and he was told that they were Rajender and Dinesh who were being taken to the doctor. After these boys were taken away a large number of persons from the village gathered at the spot of occurrence in the main gali
because a rumor had spread in the entire village that Rajender had been killed Rajender Mar Diya, Rajender Mar Diya, Balmikiyon ne Mar Diya and it was because of this rumor that public persons from all communities gathered and the 'B' who were residing in the vicinity thought that the villagers had come to attack them that they started pelting stones on the villagers. Thereafter stone pelting continued from both the sides and after about one and half hours police came at the spot and dispersed the crowd. He has further deposed that he had seen the police at the spot only once when they came in large numbers and he came back to his house after seeing what was happening after which he does not know what transpired. According to him, the police never made inquiries from him nor recorded his statement. In his cross examination by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor he has denied the suggestion that DSP Abhay Singh came to the village and made inquiries from him and interrogated him on 21.4.2010 and thereafter recorded his statement Ex.DW21/PX1. When the statement was read over and put to the witness he denied having made the same and also stated that he did not give any names of the boys as mentioned from portion A to A1 in the said statement Ex.DW21/PX1 and has voluntarily explained that the police never recorded his statement and it is Satyawan (a member of the 'B' community) who could have got the statement recorded on his behalf. He has denied told the police regarding damage to his property on account of burning and rioting (tor for) done by the boys of the 'J' community whose names had been mentioned at portion B to B1 in the statement Ex.DW21/PX1 and has voluntarily explained that his house was never burnt nor there was any damage to his property as it is situated on the other side. He has
however admitted having received a compensation to the tune of Rs. 15000/- (fifteen thousand) from the Government but has denied the suggestion that this compensation was given to him on account of the damage to his property and has voluntarily added that it was given to all families of 'B' community of the village. He has also stated that neither he nor anybody from his family had received any injuries. He has stated that he stayed at the spot for about one and half hours only after which he had gone back to his house. He has denied that there was no rumor of Rajender being killed by boys belonging to 'B' community as there was no such incident or that that there was no stone pelting from the 'B' which took place first as deposed by him. He has also denied that he is unable to identify these boys because there was no such incident of the 'B' assaulting Rajender and Karam Pal and that he has deposed falsely at the instance of the persons from the 'J' community having being won over by them as his livelihood is dependent upon them. DW22 Praveen aged 25 years is a resident of village Mirchpur since his birth and has studied up to 5 th class. He belongs to the 'B' community and is unemployed. According to him, is 100% handicapped on account of Polio and resides at 'B' Basti where his house is situated towards the side of water works where they can reach through the main basti. I may observe that Praveen had been cited as a witness by the prosecution but was not examined on the ground that he was a witness of repetitive facts. He has appeared to deposed as a defence facts and has supported the defence version of the incident alleging that the 'B' were the first aggressors and the incident had got aggravated thereafter. According to him, on 21.4.2010 morning, he was present in
the village and was sitting in the shop of Pawan situated in the main gali when he saw that Rajender S/o Pale and Karam Pal S/o Satbir (both of whom have been identified by the witness in the court) were coming in a boogie from the side of the fields and entered the village. He has deposed that they were carrying a pipe meant for submersible pump in their boogie and after they crossed the shop of Pawan and must have reached about hardly 30 to 40 steps ahead he saw that Rajender was stopped by about eight to nine boys who were from the 'B' Basti who were carrying lathies who thereafter started assaulting him on which Karampal ran away but Rajender got injured. He has further deposed that he saw Dinesh S/o Prem who came to the spot to save Rajender but he was also beaten and hit with the Rora (stone) on his temples and these boys were abusing Rajender and threatening him because Rajender had not supplied milk to them. He has clarified that Rajender owns a dairy in the main gali near 'B' Basti whereas the other dairies are situated away from the Basti and are near the bus stand which is about one and a half kilometers away from the 'B' Basti. According to him, when Karampal was running away, some boys belonging to 'B' community also ran after him and Karampal raised an alarm in the entire village saying that Rajender had been killed by shouting that Pale ka maar diya, balmikiyan ne. He has deposed that Dinesh sustained injuries on his temples and became unconscious and in the meanwhile Prem, the father of Dinesh came to the spot and removed both Rajender and Dinesh to the hospital at Jind which fact he came to know later from the persons standing there. He has also deposed that after these boys were taken away large number of persons from the village came to the spot of occurrence because of the rumor and gathered at the main gali and the
the persons from their community ('B') who were residing in the vicinity thought that the villagers had come to attack them on which they started pelting stones on the villagers which stone pelting was done from both the sides but thereafter arson and burning of houses also started. According to him nobody knows who first started the incident of fire which spread and after the time one vehicle of police personnel's came to the village. However, later large number of police force came to the village. According to the witness, he was present in the village in the main gali but his statement was never recorded nor any inquiry was made from him. In his cross examination by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor the witness has denied the suggestion that inquiries were made from him by DSP Tula Ram on 27.6.2010 who also interrogated him and recorded his statement vide Ex.DW22/PX1 and has voluntarily stated that when he had never met DSP Tula Ram there is no question of making any statement. The witness was confronted with his statement Ex.DW22/PX1 which was also is read over to him which he denied and has also denied having given any names of the boys as mentioned at portion A to A1 in the said statement. He has however admitted that his house was also set on fire but states that he was not available at his house at that time and was in the main gali in the house of Rajesh (DW17) who has a Kiryana shop in the main street/ gali. He has further deposed that he did make a statement to one police official but Ex.DW22/PX1 is not the statement which he had given to the police official and he had rather told him what he is now telling the court. The witness has admitted having received a compensation to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/-(two lac fifty thousand only) from the Government and has voluntarily explained that
it was on account of the fact that his house was burnt during the rioting. He has further deposed that he had not received any injuries nor anybody from his family including his two sisters had received any injuries and therefore no compensation was given to them on that account. He has also stated that his medical was never conducted and states that he stayed at the house of Rajesh till the time the police had come to the spot. The witness has denied the suggestion that there was no incident of any kind between Rajender and boys belonging to 'B' community or that there was no rumor of Rajender being killed by boys belonging to 'B' community as there was no such incident. He has further denied that there was no stone pelting from the 'B' which took place first and has further deposed that he cannot identify the boys belonging to 'B' community who had assaulted Rajender and Karam Pal and has voluntarily added that a large number of persons had collected at that time when this incident was happening and states that he is aware that they were all 'B' and from their basti because there was nobody else over there except them. He has denied that he is unable to identify these boys because there was no such incident of the 'B' assaulting Rajender and Karam Pal and has also denied that he has deposed falsely at the instance of the persons from the 'J' community having being won over by them as his day to day needs are being fulfilled on account of the charity he was receiving from them. He has admitted that he had sat on a protest (dharna) at DC Office, Hissar and had also come to Delhi for a protest (dharna) and has voluntarily added that he had gone for the protest out of greed only because he thought that they would get some compensation but later he came back on the third day itself and has explained that in fact all the 'B' had gone for that purpose. He has stated that he has never stayed at the Tanwar
Farms and has denied the suggestion that it is on account of greed since he had been won over by the persons of 'J' community that he was deposing falsely to save them from penal consequences. DW23 Ranbir Singh is a summoned witness who has produced the summoned record pertaining to the entry in the Sugar Mill. He is employed as Assistant in the Sugar Mill Jind and has deposed that as per the official record the accused Hoshiyar Singh S/o Mangal Ram who is employed as a Coolie in the Sugar Mill was present in the Sugar Mill from 9:10 AM to 2:50 PM on 21.4.2010 which is evident from the relevant entry made at main gate in the entry register maintained by the security guard which is Ex.DW23/A and has further stated that there is a scrutiny of the entry register once in a week by the Managing Director. This witness has correctly identified the accused Hoshiyar Singh S/o Mangal Ram. In his cross examination by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor the witness has admitted that the entry has been made in the name of Ushara and has voluntarily explained that the guards at the entry gate were hardly 4th to 5th pass and often mention wrong spellings. He has denied the suggestion that the entry made in the register is pertaining to some other person and not the accused before this court and has voluntarily stated that there is only one Hoshiyar Singh who is a Coolie and there is no other Coolie by the name of Ushara. He has further deposed that they also have one more Hoshiyar Singh in the Mill but he is not a Coolie and is a regular employee posted on Tube well and is a Spray Pump Attendant. He has admitted that the place where the word Coolie has been mentioned in the register appears to have been scraped with a blade or a nail.
After this discrepancy was pointed out by the Ld. Special Prosecutor this court examined the register and observed that though the designation appeared to have been changed but after examining the sheet of the register from the backside in light there did not appear to be any overwriting. Rather, it was evident that spelling mistake had been corrected and initially the word Uli (in Hindi) was written which was later corrected as Coolie. It was also observed that the Sl. Number had been changed and one had been made to two and two into three. This court further observed that this was also the case with the pages immediately preceding/ succeeding to the page where the relevant entry was made and hence it is evident that the person maintaining this register not being very educated was frequently making spelling mistakes and also was not well aware of the numerical counting due to which reason after a particular number he often faltered and therefore, this is not a case where an isolated entry has been scrapped and changed. The entire register reflecting this position is Ex.DW23/PX1. In his cross-examination the witness has further denied that the entry record has been manipulated only to save accused Hoshiyar Singh from penal consequences or that the record produced by him was not the correctly maintained. DW24 Ram Mehar Singh is a summoned witness who has produced the record regarding the attendance of Sandeep S/o Raj Kumar Roll. No. 43 who is a student of D Ed. (Diploma in Eduction). According to the witness, as per the attendance record of Sandeep Kumar who is 2nd year student of their college, he was present in the college on 21.4.2010 from 9:00 AM to 3:30 PM. He has further deposed that in case if any student leaves the class then he is either put on leave or in
case if he leaves without intimation his absence is marked in the evening. He has deposed Sandeep was present in the college both in the morning and evening. The copy of the attendance register is Ex.DW24/A. In his cross examination by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor the witness has admitted that the register shows 100% attendance in the college and has voluntarily explained that 85% attendance is compulsory for every student failing which the student cannot sit for examination and in case of default the student is liable to pay a heavy penalty. Witness has denied the suggestion that the attendance record is fabricated and not correct. DW25 Jai Bhagwan is the Proprietor of JSM Engineers, Patiala Chowk, Nirvana Road, Jind, Haryana which company is involved in the work of erection of prefabricated structures at building sites. According to him, Pradeep S/o Jagbir was an employed as a supervisor in their company from April 2010 and was posted at Base Corporation, VPO Nagali, Ochhghat, Distt. Solan, Himachal Pradesh where the construction work was going on. He has further deposed that he was sent to Solan one or two days prior to 1.4.2010 when the working to start at Base Corporation Building. He has further deposed that on 21.4.2010 Pradeep S/o Jagbir was at the site i.e. VPO Nagali, Ochhghat, Distt. Solan, Himachal Pradesh. The copy of the attendance register is Ex.DW25/A (original was returned after seeing the same). On a specific query by the court the witness has informed that their employees remain at the site throughout the work and in the case of Pradeep he was staying in a rented room given to him by the company. In his cross examination by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor the witness has deposed that Pradeep was not known to him
previously but had come to him through some person for employment. On being asked if Pradeep had any salary record he has denied and has explained that persons who are fresh employees are initially paid in cash for two three months because most of them leave after some time and moreover because their work comprises of short time contracts which often finish in a time bound manner and therefore there is no requirement of maintaining any employment record. He has denied the suggestion that Pradeep was never their employee and was never paid any salary and it is for this reason he was unable to produce any employment record or that the attendance register is a fabricated documents only to save Pradeep from legal consequences. DW26 Dr. Balbir Singh Punia is the owner and physician of Punia Hospital & Nursing Home, Urban Estate, Safidon Bypass Jind. He has brought the summoned record pertaining to the medical treatments of the patients/ accused Ajeet S/o Sukhbir Singh, Kuldeep S/o Balbir and Viren S/o Yashpal. According to him, Ajeet S/o Sukhbir Singh had come with the alleged history of fever and bacillary dysentery on 19.4.2010 and he examined him as an outdoor patient. He has proved the prescription slip of Ajeet which is Ex.DW26/A (running into 2 pages) bearing his signatures at point A. He has further deposed that Ajeet again came to him for the follow up on 21.4.2010 in the morning at about 9 AM and remained in his hospital under supervision and treatment for three-four hours and was discharged at 2 PM and has proved the treatment slip for 21.4.2010 which is Ex.DW26/B bearing his signatures at point A. He has further deposed that Kuldeep S/o Balbir Singh had come to him with the history of hyper pyrexia i.e. high fever and
vomiting on 19.4.2010 and was admitted as an indoor patient in his hospital. He remained admitted till 21.4.2010 and was discharged on 21.4.2010 in the evening at about 7.30 PM. He has proved the copy of his treatment papers which is Ex.DW26/C (running into 2 pages) bearing his signatures at point A and states that the original must be with the patient. He has also proved the discharge summary of Kuldeep S/o Balbir Singh which is Ex.DW26/D (running into 4 pages) bearing his signatures at point A. The witness has also deposed that Viren S/o Yashpal had come to his hospital with the history of loose motion and vomiting and was diagnosed as a case of Colera on 20.4.2010 at 10.30 AM and was admitted in his hospital as an indoor patient and was discharged on 22.4.2010 at 8.30 AM. He has proved the copy of his treatment paper which is Ex.DW26/E (running into two pages i.e. front and back side) bearing his signatures at point A and states that original must be with the patient. He has also proved the discharge summary of Viren S/o Yashpal which is Ex.DW26/F (running into four pages) bearing his signatures at point A. He has also placed on record the copy of the relevant entries pertaining to Ajeet S/o Sukhbir, Kuldeep S/o Balbir and Viren S/o Yashpal which are Ex.DW26/G (collectively running into two pages) encircled at point Y1,Y2 and Y3 respectively in the OPD register of the hospital (original of which are seen and returned). In his cross examination by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor the witness has deposed that his hospital is registered with the Government of Haryana vide registration number 9277 and was registered in the year 1992 whereas his own registration was of the year
1982. He has further deposed that the hospital is situated about fifteen kilometer away from village Mirchpur. He has further stated that apart from his hospital there is only one more hospital situated at Urban Estate, Jind but his hospital is the nearest to the village Mirchpur distance wise because Mirchpur falls in District Hissar but is bordering District Jind and is the last village of Hissar on this side. He has further deposed that he had a staff of five persons in his hospital and both himself and his wife are the general physicians and has deposed that at a time his hospital/Nursing Home can admit/ accommodate ten patients. He has stated that when any patient comes to him, then only his fathers name and his address is asked but they not ask for any other document to establish identity and they maintain their record on the basis of the information provided to them by the patient. He has admitted that the case history of the patient is attached on the bed of the patient wherein the various details regarding the temperature, blood pressure and the other examinations and follow up treatment are mentioned and has voluntarily explained that it is done only in case of patients who are under supervision. According to him, he is known to the families of Ajeet, Kuldeep and Viren since he is their regular family physician and has explained that he receives regular patients from village Mirchpur. The witness has denied the suggestion that the medical record placed by him before the court has been manufactured at the instance of the families of the accused and has voluntarily explained that the serial number mentioned at column no.2 cannot be manufactured since it is in continuation and the moment the register is completed the serial number in the next register would be in continuation. He has admitted that after each date one line has been left blank and has voluntarily stated that it is
only a space to distinguish the fresh entry which starts from the next date. He has also stated that the OPD register is normally filled by the staff at the reception and has voluntarily added that it could be in the handwriting of two persons as one of them always present at the reception. He has denied the suggestion that the entire prescription record and discharge summary of the patients Viren and Kuldeep have been manufactured and fabricated only to save them from penal consequences. DW27 Suresh is an accused before this court and has examined himself as his own witness and in his examination has proved that he had suffered the Polio attack at the age of three years, as a result of which he develop physical disability to the extent of 70%. The Medical certificate issued by CMO, Hissar dated 1.06.1989 is Ex.DW27/A. DW28 Dalbir Singh is the Incharge of DM Poultry Research and Breeding Farm, Uchana Khurd, Jind and is into business of sale of chicks to various farmers into poultry business. According to him, Vikas S/o Sumer Singh resident of Mirchpur is his regular customer who is running a poultry farm under the name and style of M/s V & V Poultry farm, Village Mirchpur, Tehsil Narnaund, Distt. Hissar (Haryana). He has produced the record pertaining to the sale of chicks to Vikas S/o Sumer Singh and has stated that on 21.4.2010. Vikas had come to him at 8 AM to get the chicks already purchased by him earlier vaccinated since as a matter of practice the farmers who purchase chicks are required to be present when these chicks are being vaccinated before their delivery and therefore on 21.4.2010 Vikas remained with him till 6 PM and during the day 11,220 (eleven thousand two hundred and
twenty) chicks were vaccinated. He has further deposed that he (Vikas) had booked 11,000 chicks about a week earlier which he purchased on 21.4.2010 after vaccination and 2% chicks were given free to him on the purchase of 11,000 hence the total sale was 11,220. He has proved the receipt regarding the sale of the chicks on 21.4.2010 to Vikas which is Ex.DW28/A (original challan book bearing the counter foil of the receipt has been seen by the court and returned). He has further deposed that the challan is prepared in triplicate out of which one is given to the customer/farmer, one is given to the transporter who transports the chicks and the third challan receipt is present in the receipt book. In his cross examination by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor the witness has deposed that the name of the customer as Vikas is not mentioned in the challan and has voluntarily explained that the name of the company i.e. V & V Poultry Farm, Village Mirchpur is mentioned and Vikas is the partner whose signatures are present in the original receipt. He has admitted that the carbon copy of the receipt does not bears the signatures of Vikas whereas the original bears his signatures and has voluntarily explained that the signatures of the customer are taken on the original in the accounts department where the original is sent after the purchase is made for purposes of payment and it is for this reason the counter foils present in the receipt book would not bear the signature of the customer. He has denied the suggestion that the counter foil book and the challan has been manipulated and fabricated only to help Vikas. He has further denied that he did not meet Vikas on 21.4.2010 and that no vaccination of chicks was done in his presence and he was deposing falsely only to save him from penal consequences because he is known to him and has voluntarily added that he knows
Vikas only professionally as a client/farmer and has no personal relations with him. He has denied the suggestion that the number of the vehicle mentioned on the challan i.e. HR 56 0695 is a fictitious number and no such driver whose signatures are present on the challan is existing and has voluntarily added that the said driver could be called to the court if necessary. Here I may observe that this driver of the vehicle that is Sajjan has also been called to the court and examined as DW36. DW29 Vikas is the accused before this court who has examined himself as his own witness wherein he has proved that he is running a poultry business under the name and style of M/s. V & V Poultry Farm, village Mirchpur since the year 2008 which was pursuant to the loan of Rs. 45 lacs sanctioned from the State Bank of Patiala, Safidon Gate, Main Branch, Jind. He has placed on record the certificate issued by the bank regarding the sanction of the loan is Ex.DW29/A (original has been seen and returned by the court). DW30 Rajender is an accused before this court who has examined himself as his own witness wherein he has tendered the certified copy of the affidavit of Sanjay S/o Gulab Singh who has appeared as a witness before this court as PW44. According to the witness, as per his information Sanjay had filed this affidavit before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Iqbal Singh (Retd.) Commission of Inquiry (Mirchpur), Haryana which copy of the affidavit is Ex.DW30/A and the certified copy of his statement recorded by the Commission as VW-5 on 18.11.2010 is Ex.DW30/B. He has also tendered the certified copy of the statement of Dilbag Singh S/o Gulab Singh who has been examined as PW 43 before this Court and states that as per his information Dilbagh had filed
this affidavit before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Iqbal Singh (Retd.) Commission of Inquiry (Mirchpur), Haryana. Certified copy of his statement recorded by the Commission as VW-28 on 21.01.2011 is Ex.DW30/C. DW31 Ramphal aged 55 years is the Ex-Sarpanch of the village Mirchpur from the year 2005 to 2010. He has in his deposition before the court testified that there is an ancient temple in the village known as Mata Phoolen Devi Mandir and the management of the temple is with the village panchayat and yearly offering rights are auctioned and the rights are then given to the person offering the highest bid. According to him, in the years 2007 and also in the year 2009 the offering rights had been given to Dharamvir S/o Mai Chand being the highest bidder which record of the rights are maintained the Secretary Panchayat and he has produced the same in the court. The copy of the patta/lease register showing the relevant entries is Ex.DW31/A (for the year 2007) and Ex.DW31/B (for the year 2009) bearing his signatures at point A and the thumb impressions of Dharamvir at various points at mark B (original has been seen and returned by the court). DW32 Dr. Rajesh Gandhi was posted in the Casualty General Hospital Jind from 8 AM to 2 PM on 21.4.2010 and has brought the summoned record pertaining to the accused Dinesh S/o Prem Singh resident of village Mirchpur and also the record pertaining to the trainee MPHW (F) (Multiple Purpose Health Worker-Female). According to him, on 21.4.2010 he had examined Dinesh S/o Prem Singh as an indoor patient which record is Ex.DW32/A (running into two sheets) bearing his signatures at point A, showing that the patient had suffered injuries on the frontal region on account of which an opinion had been sought from the surgeon and subsequently it
was reported by the surgeon that no surgical intervention was required and the patient was referred to PGIMS, Rohtak for the opinion of the eye surgeon on 22.4.2010. He has further deposed that Suman D/o Sh. Tek Ram (DW18) was under training as MPHW (F) at GH, Jind on 21.4.2010 and he has duly proved the attested record of her attendance which is Ex.DW32/B (running into four pages) bearing the signatures of the Medical Superintendent at point A. According to him, the Nursing Sister (N/S) has duly certified the attendance of Suman in the Record Matron Office at the time of her joining which certificate is Ex.DW32/C bearing the signatures of Nursing Sister (N/S) Rajbala at point B. He has stated that in order to confirm the attendance of Suman on 21.4.2010 the record keeper from the college from where she had been sent for training could be called along with the relevant record of attendance. (Here I may observe that the witness Dipender Singh DW39 has also produced the corresponding record of attendance from the training institute which confirms the presence of Suman as trainee nurse at General Hospital Jind both on 21.4.2010 and 22.4.2010.) In his cross examination by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor the witness has proved the entire entries made in the bed head ticket which are in his hand except the entries made on the top pertaining to the name and other details of the patient. He has also identified the signatures of the patient on the non MLC statement recorded by him at point X on Ex.DW32/A and has deposed that he cannot confirm the identity of the patient. It has been observed by the court that it is the first duty of the doctor to provide treatment to the patient and not to establish his identity. On a specific query by the court the witness has explained
that he may not be able to identify the patient on account of his long length of service of seventeen and a half years in the hospital but perhaps after seeing the injury which he had treated he may be able to co-relate the patient. Thereafter when the accused Dinesh S/o Prem Singh was shown to the witness Dr. Rajesh Gandhi, he after examining the scar marks of the injuries which were still present and visible on the frontal, temporal and right cheek near the eye, has identified the accused Dinesh stating that he had examined the injuries under question and therefore on the basis of the same he co-relates the accused Dinesh with the patient examined by him on 21.4.2010. He has further deposed that he did not mention the mark of identification of the patient on the bed head ticket and has voluntarily explained that it is only mentioned in the MLR. According to the witness, as per their record the patient was not discharged but had been taken home by his brother on his request with the undertaking to produce him in the morning since he was under observation of the surgeon and states that the record further reveals that on 22.4.2010 the patient was examined by Dr. Anil Birla, the Surgeon who after examination made the various entries at point encircled Y bearing his signatures at point Y1 and the patient Dinesh had signed in his presence on his non MLC statement. According to the witness village Mirchpur is around fifteen kilometers from General Hospital Jind and there are two manual railway crossings from village Mirchpur to General Hospital Jind and if the gates are opened it takes about thirty minutes to reach Mirchpur otherwise it takes much longer. Prem Singh.
He has denied the suggestion that the record
produced by him is manipulated and fabricated only to help Dinesh S/o
Later after the witness Dr. Kuldeep (PW33) was examined Dr. Rajesh Gandhi was recalled by the Court for his additional examination and on a specific query by the court he has informed the court that Dr. Kuldeep was known to him for the last twelve years as they were both posted in the same district since the year 1999. He has admitted that on 21.4.2010 prior to examining the patient Dinesh one person had come to him and told him that Dr. Kuldeep Singh from village Channa (Jalalpur Kalan) wanted to have a word with him and though normally he does not attend to such calls and if anybody has to call him they normally call him on his number but since Dr. Kuldeep was known to him, he attended to the call and was told by Dr. Kuldeep that the person who had come to him was known to him and had suffered some injuries and he requested him to attend to them first. The witness has further deposed that when he examined the person he found that his clothes were smeared with blood and therefore he attended to him on priority. In his further cross examination the witness has denied the suggestion that he never spoke to Dr. Kuldeep and the medical record of Dinesh has been manipulated by him at the instance of Dr. Kuldeep. DW33 Dr. Kuldeep Singh is doing MD in Department of Community Medicine from PGIMS, Rohtak and has proved that he is using mobile connection bearing no. 9416193328 for the last eight-nine years. He has proved that Rajender S/o Satpal (i.e. Pale) is the son of his Mausi Mrs. Bharma and is residing at village Mirchpur. He has deposed that on 21.4.2010 he was present at PGIMS, Rohtak (Community Health Center-Chiri) and on that day he had received a call from Rajender S/o Satpal who told him that he was present at General
Hospital Jind along with a friend and they both had received injuries and further told him that there was a lot of crowd in the hospital and requested him to tell some doctor to attend to them early on which he told Rajender to connect him to whichever doctor who was on duty in the emergency pursuant to which Rajender connected him to Dr. Rajesh Gandhi upon which he requested Dr. Gandhi to attend to Rajender and his friend on priority and Dr. Gandhi assured him that he would do the needful. He has identified Dr. Gandhi (PW32) who had appeared in the court to depose prior to recording his evidence and states that he (Dr. Gandhi) was known to him previously being a colleague. In his cross examination by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor the witness has deposed that the telephone connection which he is using for last eight-nine years is in the name of Raj Kumar who is his very good friend. According to him, the service provider is BSNL and his connection is prepaid. He has denied that he was deposing falsely to save Rajender from penal consequences being his close relative and there was no telephone call received from him nor he had spoken to Dr. Gandhi since there was no occasion for the same. He has denied the suggestion that the mobile no. 9416193328 is not in his use but did not recollect the number of Rajender. I may observe in this regard that after the examination of Dr. Kuldeep, Dr. Gandhi was recalled by the court and examined on the aspect of the telephone call made by this witness which he confirmed. In fact the oral testimony of both Dr. Gandhi (DW32) and Dr. Kuldeep (DW33) also find due corroboration from the call detail record placed before this court and proved by DW34 Pawan Singh.
Page No. 392
DW34 Pawan Singh is the Nodal Officer (Delhi & NCR) from Idea Cellular Ltd. who has produced the summoned record pertaining to mobile no. 9812628500 and no. 9540151131. He has proved that mobile No. 9812628500 is in the name of Rajender Singh S/o Satpal Singh R/o H.No.48, Village Mirchpur, Block-2, Tehsil Narnaund. The copy of the customer application form which is Ex.DW34/A showing the photographs of the customer at point encircled A and his signatures at point B. According to him, the identity of the customer was verified on the basis of election identity card attached along with the customer application form which election identity card is Ex.DW34/B. He has placed on record the call details of the customer for 21.4.2010 since 5.37 AM to 20.58 PM (i.e. 8.58 PM) which is Ex.DW34/C showing that the user was present in the same area till 10.04.56 except at one time at 9.23.18 when this location appears to be different. He has further deposed that thereafter the location of the user has changed till 10.25.07 and has been continuously changing and the entry at 9.23.18 at point X1 shows the location of the user at Jind Vita Milk Plant. Entries at 10.04.57 and 10.25.07 at point X2 are of the tower situated at Rakhi, Hissar. He has further deposed that the presence of user has been shown at Jind as per the point mark X3 at point 13.07.00 during which time an outgoing call was made at the number 9416193328 duration of which call was lasted for about 59 seconds. The witness has requested for calling the Nodal Officer of the concerned area (Haryana) in order to confirm the tower details and exact locations. The witness has further proved that the mobile no. 9540151131 is in the name of Sandeep Kumar S/o Mahender Singh R/o H.No. 284, village Mirchpur, Tehsil Narnaund, District Hissar,
Haryana. The copy of the said customer application form is Ex.DW34/D bearing the photograph of the customer at point A and his signatures at point B. He has also deposed that the verification had been done on the basis of election identity card of the customer which is Ex.DW34/E and has also brought the call details for 20.4.2010 and 21.4.2010 which are Ex.DW34/F showing the location of the user at Gurgoan on both the days. The witness has also deposed that since he is the Nodal Officer for Delhi and NCR region, therefore he is in a position to tell the location on the basis of the tower shown in the last column. He has proved that as per the record the location of the user on 21.4.2010 was at Sector 14, Gurgoan at 8.59 AM as per the entry at point encircled Y1; at 10.59 AM the location of the user has been shown at Payal Cinema, Gurgaon as per the entry at point encircled at point Y2; at 12.07 PM the location of the user has been shown at Payal Cinema, Gurgaon which is encircled point Y3; at 1.02 PM the location of the user is shown at Sector 14, Gurgaon which is encircled at point Y4 and at 7.10 PM the location of the user is shown at Payal Cinema, Gurgaon which is encircled at point Y5. Initially when the witness was cross examined by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor he has not brought the authorization letter therefore he was again recalled and examined wherein he placed on record the authorization letter issued by Sh. Pankaj Kumar, Assistant Manager, Legal Department duly authorizing him to depose before this court which is Ex.DW34/G bearing his signatures at point A and bearing the signatures of Sh. Pankaj Kumar at point B and also the certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act which is Ex.DW34/H bearing his signatures at point A.
Page No. 394
DW35 Om Prakash is the Deputy General Manager, BSNL, Distt. Hissar and has proved the call details record dated 21.4.2010 pertaining to mobile no. 9416200453 in the name of SHO Police Station Narnaund, District Hissar which is Ex.DW53/B and had been retrieved and preserved by his office as per the directions of this court. He has certified that the above is the true and correct record retrieved from the computer in his possession whose password is protected. He has also proved the copy of the customer application form which is Ex.DW35/A which was sanctioned in official capacity (original has been seen and returned by the court). The testimony of this witness has gone uncontroverted as he has not been cross-examined by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor. DW36 Sajjan is the driver employed with DM Poultry Research and Breeding farm, Uchana Khurd, District, Jind on Tata 407 tempo bearing no. HR 56 0695. According to him, on 21.4.2010 he had made the delivery of chicks to V & V Poultry Farm, village Mirchpur from DM Poultry Research Farm, the challan already exhibited as ExDW28/A which bears his signatures at point A which were affixed by him at the time of loading at Jind and has also proved the signatures of the customer at point B which were put after the delivery of the chicks at the destination. In his cross examination by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor he has deposed that they do not maintain any log book of the vehicle and has explained that are maintaining an entry/ exit register at the Poultry farm. He has denied the suggestion that he is maintaining a log book of the vehicle which he has deliberately not produce in the court since it would have proved the movement of the vehicle and has
voluntarily added that no log book is being maintained. He has also denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely at the instance of his employer (DW28) and his signatures were obtained subsequently. DW37 Ranbir aged 36 years is a graduate and is a resident of VPO Faridpur and belongs to 'J' community. He is a farmer by profession and has deposed that his mother's family (nanka) are at village Mirchpur. He is related to Pawan and Kulvinder who are both sons of Sh. Ram Mehar his real mama. According to him, on 20.4.2010 he had gone to village Mirchpur to pick up his mother from his mama Ram Mehar's house and had stayed there overnight. He has deposed that on 21.4.2010 in the morning at about 8 AM while he was sitting outside the house of his mama, he saw Rajender S/o Satpal and Karampal S/o Satbir who are neighbours of his mama were coming in their boogie from the main gali and were having an iron pipe in the boogie. He has further deposed that while they were coming 'B' Basti and when they reached near Vir Bhan's house, he saw seven-eight boys belonging to 'B' community who suddenly stopped the boogie and surrounded Rajender and Karampal and started beating Rajender with lathies and also started beating the bullock. Some how Karampal managed to escape but in the meanwhile some other boys from the 'B' Mohalla also joined the earlier boys. He has further deposed that while running from the spot, Karampal was shouting Rajender ko 'B' ne peeth diya when he saw Dinesh S/o Prem having the house in the same gali who was also present in the gali ran to help Rajender but when he reached near Rajender one of the 'B' boy hit him with the jelly on his face due to which reason he became unconscious and all the boys belonging to 'B' community left him there. He has
further deposed that thereafter he saw Prem father of Dinesh who came to the spot and he along with Rajender and Karampal picked up Dinesh and put him in a Jeep and took him away to hospital at Jind and after some time a rumor spread in the village that Rajender S/o Pale had been killed by the 'B' Rajender pale ka balmikiyon ne mar diya. He has further deposed that on that day there was a Mela in the temple of Phoolan Devi Mata being a Wednesday when large number of persons from the surrounding village also visit the temple which is situated near the 'B' Basti and the road leading to the temple adjoining 'B' Basti in the western side. According to the witness, on hearing that Rajender had been killed a large number of villagers gathered at the spot where Rajender had been beaten in the main gali near the 'B' Basti and the 'B' residing there panicked and thought that these persons had come to attack them and therefore started throwing stones on the crowd as a result of which stone pelting started from both the sides and there was rioting and after sometime he saw smoke arising from the western side. According to the witness, he was witnessing the entire incident from the roof of his mama/ Ram Mehar's house from where he saw that after some time the police also came to the village and later more police force came along with the fire brigade to drowse the fire and dispersed the crowd and went to the spot where the smoke was arising. In his cross examination by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor the witness has deposed that he had six acres land and he had come to village Mirchpur on his motorbike and states that the distance between Faridpur and Mirchpur is about forty kilometers. He has further deposed that he normally visited Mirchpur once in two months or so and states that his mother had come to his mama's house about ten days prior
to the date when he had gone to pick her up and during this period when his mother was at Mirchpur, he had spoken to her once. According to him, he knew most of the residents of village Mirchpur of that area because he had stayed there for a year when he was student. He also stated that he is known to many persons of village Mirchpur from both the 'J' and the 'B' community and has deposed that from the 'B' community he is known to those persons who had been meeting him like Karan Singh, Vir Bhan, Amar, Pradeep, Satyawan, Sajna, Binder and Kullu. According to this witness, he had come to this court only once that is on the first date when the accused had been shifted to Delhi from Hissar. He has further deposed that Tara Chand who has expired had three sons out of whom he knew Pradeep and Amar and also his wife Kamla as she used to come to the house of his mama. He has further stated that he cannot not identify the boys belonging to 'B' community who had caught Rajender and were beating him and the shop of Pawan is near the place of the incident and has explained that he had seen the incident from the gali in front of his mama's house which is about four to five houses away from the actual place of incident. He has further deposed that he did not try to intervene when the quarrel was going on and the entire dispute lasted for about thirty minutes from the time Rajender was stopped till the time Dinesh and Rajender were removed to the hospital. He has further deposed that no other person except Dinesh intervened in the dispute and he did not inform the police nor raised any hue and cry or alarm and also did not go to the house of Rajender to inform them about the incident because according to him, there was no need as Karampal had already raised an alarm in the village. He has further deposed that after this incident he did not take his mother back on
21.4.2010 and has explained that since the parents of Kulvinder and Pawan have expired therefore being the elder in the family his mother stayed back and returned only after two days of her own in a bus. Witness has admitted that before he left the village, senior police officers had come to the spot and had conducted inquiries but no police officer made any inquiry from him since he was sitting inside the house nor he told any police officer what had happened. He has further deposed that he does not know anything about the incident 19.4.2010 and only came to know of the same on the next day after Pawan had been arrested at night. He has also deposed that on the day Pawan has been arrested he had himself gone to Superintendent of Police Sh. Subhash Yadav to tell him that Pawan has been falsely implicated and he was present in his fields during the day but he was told by the Superintendent of Police that Pawan would be left after interrogation and has voluntarily added that later he had also met IG, DC and DSP Tula Ram and had given an application in writing to the IG copy of which was handed over to DSP Tula Ram. Witness has denied the suggestion that he was not present at village Mirchpur on 20th and 21st April 2010 or that no such incident regarding beating of Rajender and Dinesh had taken place nor any rumor had spread in the village. He has also denied that 'B' had never indulged into stone pelting on the crowd as alleged by him or he is deposing falsely in order to save Pawan, Kulvinder and other boys of 'J' community from penal consequences. DW38 Dalip Singh is the District Welfare Officer, Hissar who has proved the record pertaining to the compensation provided to the victims/ affected families of Mirchpur village in respect of the incident dated 21.4.2010 attested copy of which is Ex.DW38/A (running
into 29 pages).
According to him, Kamla has been granted half
compensation for the death of Tara Chand on account of the fact that Tara Chand had a son from the first wife namely Amar Lal who has been given half of the compensation as per the record. The testimony of this witness has gone uncontroverted as he has not been cross-examined by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor. I may further observe that all the three sons of the deceased Tara Chand namely Amar Lal, Pradeep and Ravinder have been given appointment in government services on compassionate grounds after the approval of the Cabinet which is Ex.PX3 and is not disputed by both the prosecution or the accused. DW39 Dipender Singh has proved the record regarding the attendance of Suman D/o Sh. Tek Ram who was a trainee nurse at GH Hospital Jind from Shri Balaji School of Nursing, Uchana Mandi and had reported to General Hospital Jind on 21.4.2010 in the shift 8 AM to 2 PM. He has placed on record the copy of the attendance register copy of which is Ex.DW39/A (original seen has been seen and returned by the court). The testimony of this witness has gone uncontroverted as he has not been cross-examined by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor. DW40 Chander Prakash aged 65 years is the original resident of village Mirchpur where he is residing since his birth and is a teacher (retired) and belongs to the 'J' community. According to him, on 21.4.2010 he was present in the village and on that day at about 8.308.45 AM he had gone to the 'B' Basti in search of agricultural labour since a Thrasher had been taken on rent by him for harvesting of wheat at the fields and when he reached the main gali he saw a boogie parked near the house of Veer Bhan, he also saw a vehicle apparently a jeep in
which he saw some people carrying some persons and putting them in the vehicle. According to him out of curiosity he went to the spot but before he could reached the vehicle it was taken away and he was told by the people standing there that one Rajender S/o Pale and Karam Pal were getting their boogie to the village and when they reached near 'B' Basti some boys belonging to 'B' community surrounded them and Rajender was brutally assaulted, while Karam Pal managed to escape and raise an alarm in the village stating that Rajender had been killed by members of 'B' community Rajender Ko Balmikion Ne Mar Diya. He has further deposed that he was also told that Dinesh who was from the family of Rajender had gone to save him on hearing the alarm of Karam Pal when he was also assaulted and received injuries near his eyes as a result of which some red colored flesh had come out near the eye and Dinesh had become unconscious due to which reason the said boy were being taken to the hospital. Thereafter a rumor spread in the village that Rajender had already been killed and whoever heard of the same came out to the spot of the incident out of curiosity to find out what had happened. According to the witness, not many people of the village were present in the village at that time being the crop harvesting season and a few of the elders of the village whoever were present came to the spot to find out what had happened. He has further deposed that on every Wednesday there is a Mela in the temple of Phoolen Devi Maa where a large number of people/devotees come not only from the neighbouring village but even from far off places and the day of incident being a Wednesday a large number of devotees/ pilgrims were present in the temple of the village. He has deposed that when the news that Rajender had been killed reached the temple, many persons who had come to the
temple also came to the spot in the 'B' Basti and the 'B' residing around the main gali saw the crowd collecting and coming towards their side and became apprehensive thinking that Rajender had been killed. As a result of the same they started pelting stones on the crowd which was collecting in the main gali and during this period police force from Police Station Narnaund headed by the SHO reached the village and took a stock of the situation and tried to control the same but was unable to control the crowd. According to him later after about half an hour more force/reinforcement started reaching the village and while the stone pelting was going on in the main gali, they noticed some smoke coming out from one of the by-lanes where the fuel in the form of Uplas and Thasras were lying stacked. He has further deposed that the fire from these dumps of fuel started spreading to the neighbouring houses situated in the gali as a result of which the fire brigades had to be called and SP Hissar also came to the spot and inspected the houses which had caught fire and it was then that he found Tara Chand in a burnt condition in his house. He also found his (Tara Chand) daughter Suman in the adjoining house also belonging to him in a burnt condition. According to him Suman had already expired by the time but Tara Chand was still alive and the police immediately shifted him to the hospital in their vehicle. He has further deposed that at that time there was no other person present in the house of Tara Chand but when he was being shifted to the hospital in the police vehicle his elder son Amar Lal came to the spot and accompanied the injured Tara Chand and at the time when the ambulance had lifted and taken Tara Chand from the spot no other person from his family present there except Amar Lal who had come when Tara Chand was being shifted. According to him police did not arrest any person
from the spot in his presence. He has further deposed that it was in the evening when Chaudhary Bhajan Lal, the former CM Haryana followed by Maan Singh Manhera from the BSP also came to the village and started politicizing the issue by giving it the colour of a caste conflict. He has further deposed that till the evening when all the residents of the village belonging to all communities had a meeting with the Superintendent of Police Hissar and none of them including the police could know why and how the rioting/ arson had taken place. He has further deposed that thereafter many political leaders started visiting the village including Sh. Rahul Gandhi, Kumari Shelja, Sh. Ajay Chautala, Sh. Ram Vilas Paswan, Sh. Jaibir 'B' from Congress, Sh. Phool Singh, INLD (Indian National Lok Dal), 27 members Lok Sabha Committee of MPs and one lady politician from West Bengal of CPM, Sh. Bhupinder Singh Hudda, CM,Hissar, Sh. Randeep Singh Surjawala, Ms. Geeta Bhukal had also come to the village and met the 'B' of the village and spoke to them but none of the above leaders met any other persons from any other community in the village except the 'B'. According to him all these political leaders started enticing the persons from the 'B' community by promising them land and money in case if the dispute is shown to be a caste atrocity. During his cross examination by Ld. Special prosecutor witness has admitted that he is following up this case and states that he is doing so as a social worker pf the village and his aim is to establish peace between the waring communities. He has denied the suggestion that he had been instructing his counsel and helping him during the examination of the prosecution witnesses and has also denied the suggestion that he had been making public statements to the press and
the media that a lot of injustice was being done with the persons from the 'J' community which statements he had made during 'J' agitation and has voluntarily stated that he had made no such statements, though he was always of the view that persons from all communities should have been heard during the investigation and the role of the NGOs (Non Government Organizations) and politicians was very dubious. He has denied the suggestion that the senior officers and District Administration were known to him in his capacity as a social worker and has voluntarily added that prior to the incident he did not know anybody but after the incident when the senior officers started visiting the village it was then that he came to know them. He has further deposed that he had told Superintendent of Police, Hissar and the first and the second Investigating Officers of the rank of DSPs that there was no dispute between the castes and everybody was residing in the village peacefully and has voluntarily added that this was something which was even told to the police by the 'B' of the village but they were never heard. He has further deposed that he had only told these things to the police orally and did not give anything in writing to any authority including the Investigating Officer and the Superintendent of Police. He has stated that he came to know that boys of their village had been falsely implicated when the case was filed in the court but he did not object to their alleged wrongful arrests in writing to any authority and has explained that he only met them and objected orally to the action and whenever he told them of the same they had written it down in their records. He has denied the suggestion that he is the President of the Khap Panchayat and has voluntarily added that he is even not a member. He has denied the suggestion that he was also member of the team who had
gone and met the CM Sh. Bhupinder Singh Hooda and has voluntarily added that he had never gone to meet Sh. Bhupinder Singh Hooda. He has also admitted that he had not seen any of the injured and has voluntarily stated that they had left as soon as he reached the spot before he could see them and had only seen the vehicle. Witness has denied the suggestion that he had not witnessed any incident regarding taking of Rajender, Dinesh and Karam Pal to the hospital; or that he was not present at the spot; or that nobody had told him that Rajender had been surrounded and brutally assaulted by boys belonging to 'B' community; or that the dispute was there between the 'J' and 'B' community and since the same was being hushed up by the local administration it is for this reason that the politicians as aforesaid had come to the village to protest against the action of the local administration only when the matter was highlighted and the case registered. Witness has also denied the suggestion that he had never given his statement in writing to the police or to any authority because he was not a witness to any incident nor there was any false implication or that he was deposing falsely in the court only because he is belonging to the same community. DW41 Sh. Suresh Kumar is running a shop under the name and style of Suresh Tractor Work situated at Old Hansi Road, Jind which he opens at 7 AM and closes at about 11-12 midnight depending upon the work. According to him, he knows Satyawan S/o Rajender who is his employee and is working with him since 1995-96. He has deposed that Satyawan comes to his shop on daily basis but if the work is more he stays overnight at the shop. He has further deposed that on 21.4.2010 when he reached his shop at about 8 AM Satyawan was already present since it is the job of Satyawan to open the shop daily and
thereafter he remained in the shop for two or three days and did not go back home as there was excessive work. According to him, Satyawan went back home only after two to three days that is on Sunday since it was closed. In his cross examination by Ld. Special Prosecutor the witness has admitted that he did not maintain any day to day attendance record nor he is maintaining any record of employment and has voluntarily explained that there are just three to four workers with him in the shop and therefore the need to maintain a record did not arise. He has admitted that his shop is not registered under the Shop Establishment Act and has informed the court on query that the shop belongs to him. He has also explained that he has a provision for overnight stay on the first floor for the customers who are unable to return at night but he himself returns to his village daily. He has further deposed that his shop is situated in the market and there are other shops in the vicinity and has deposed that Satyawan had been regularly coming to his shop till September after which he stopped as he was arrested in the present case. He has deposed that he (witness) was informed about the arrest of Satyawan by the other misteries who come from his village after which he had also met the Superintendent of Police, Hissar and informed him that on the date of incident Satyawan was present in his shop and the DSP whose name he does not know had taken this information from him in writing. He has deposed that and he was not given a copy of his statement recorded by the DSP and has voluntarily stated that he had gone to these officers twice after which his statement was recorded. He has denied the suggestion that he did not meet any police officer nor he gave anything to them in writing or that Satyawan was not working in his
shop or that he was deposing falsely at his instance being known to his family. DW42 Sh. Deepak Kumar is the Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Ltd., Haryana posted at Ambala, Haryana and duly authorized to depose before this court vide authorization letter Ex.DW42/A. He has proved the summoned record pertaining to the mobile no. 9812628500 which is Ex.DW42/B bearing his certification at point A. The said record had previously been produced by Nodal Officer, Delhi vide Ex.DW34/C which record had been retrieved from the computer in his possession having a protective password. The certificate under Section 65 B of Evidence Act is Ex.DW42/C bearing his signatures at point A. He has also placed before this court the certified copy of the tower details as reflected in the call details which is Ex.DW42/D bearing his certification at point A. On a query from the court the witness has informed that the range of most of their towers installed at Haryana are one kilometers to eight to nine kilometers. He has explained that it would be evident from Ex.DW34/C that till 10.04.56 the location of the user was at village Mirchpur and at 10.04.57 the location is of the tower of Rakhi Hissar and thereafter the location is again of village Mirchpur tower. He has further deposed that Village Rakhi is situated adjoining village Mirchpur and hence there could be an overlapping of the tower frequency and radius. He has further deposed that at 12.28.08 the location of the user has been shown at village Rajpura and thereafter the location of the user has been shown at Jind from 12.41.32 onwards till 20.58.54. He has proved the details of the towers as mentioned by him in his hand against the last column as per the tower details provided vide Ex.DW42/D.
DW43 Sh. Manjeet Singh Dhillon is the General Manager, Nodal Center, Northern Zone BSNL, Chandigarh since 9.2.2007. He has deposed that except for the record of the telephone number 9416200453 the call details record of the numbers 9416359151 in the name of the customer Sanjay S/o Daya Nand R/o village Mirchpur as per the customer application form Ex.DW43/A; no. 9467090205 in the name of Rajender S/o Satpal as per the customer application form Ex.DW43/B, no. 9467532278 in the name of Jitender Singh S/o Satbir Singh as per customer application form Ex.DW43/C and no. 9416120687 in the name of Vinod S/o Sh. Ram Niwas could not be retrieved being over written. He has deposed that this is despite the efforts made from the agencies such as Tata Consultancy Services who are officially responsible for implementation of the project on behalf of M/s ERICSSON that the said record could not be retried. He has further placed on record the communication from DE (B&CCS) CMTS Nodal Centre in this regard which is Ex.DW43/D and has deposed that the data cannot be technically retrieved being more than one year old. According to the witness, BSNL falls under the Ministry of Telecommunication and are governed by its rules and bylaws. This witness has not been crossexamined by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor. DW44 Dr. Sunita Garg was posted as Surgeon at General Hospital, Hissar on 21.04.2010. According to her on that day she had examined the patient Tara Chand S/o Swaroopa, R/o Village Mirchpur, at General Hospital, Hissar at 2:30 PM and on seeing the condition of the patient she urgently referred Tara Chand to PGIMS, Rohtak and her endorsement to this effect is present on Ex.PW52/B at point encircled X1 bearing her signatures. She has deposed that she cannot tell anything
about the police information Ex.PW64/A since it was not made by her and she also cannot tell whether the patient was immediately sent to PGIMS Rohtak and has voluntarily explained that she can only say that Ex.PW64/A is not a referral slip but is only an information to the police. She has further deposed that she cannot tell whether after her referral the patient was treated in the hospital or not because she had not seen him thereafter but had only given the advice for referral. In her cross examination by Ld. Special Prosecutor for the victims and by Ld. Special PP for the State witness has clarified that she had only given the advise for referral but did not check thereafter as to whether the patient was immediately shifted to PGIMS Rohtak or not.
Court witness:
CW1 Amar Lal is the son of the deceased Tara Chand who had accompanied his father to the hospital and is a witness to the Dying Declaration of Tara Chand but was not examined by the prosecution. However, his testimony being relevant and essential he was called and examined as a court witness. On the date of his deposition he was working as clerk at DC Office, Hissar, Govt. of Haryana where he was employed since 1.04.2011. Prior to the same he was doing JBT course 1st year from Jat College, Jind and was residing at village Mirchpur with his family comprising of his parents i.e. Late Sh. Tara Chand, his mother Smt. Kamla Devi, his brothers namely Pradeep and Ravinder and his sister Late Ms. Suman Devi. He has further deposed that he had two other sisters who are already married and staying separately.
Page No. 409
According to the witness on 21.04.2010 he was present at village Mirchpur and on that day at about 8 AM he saw about 300-400 persons of the 'J' community had come to their 'B' Basti and were abusing them. They were armed with lathies and were also carrying stones and bricks in rehries and thereafter surrounded the 'B' Basti and started attacking them with stones and bricks. He has further deposed that on seeing this many persons from their 'B' community also came on their roofs and started pelting stones and bricks for defence and they defended themselves for about one hour and in the meanwhile the SHO of the area Inspector Vinod Kajal (accused before this court ) came in the main gali and intervened due to which the fighting and stone pelting which was going on stopped and they all came down from the roofs. According to the witness the accused Vinod Kajal thereafter requested all of them to assemble at the 'B' Chaupal and told them that the persons from the 'J' community would also be called there and he would intervene to get a compromise affected. He has further deposed that thereafter as per the directions of Vinod Kajal he went towards the side of the 'B' Chaupal but before he could reached there and while he was near the house of Nawab S/o Richmal he found that many persons from their community were returning and also saw that their basti had been surrounded by the persons from the 'J' community who started putting fire to their houses. On this he ran towards his house and on the way he met his brother Pradeep and while he was still in the main gali he saw a large crowd was present in front of their house who first set fire to their bike which was kept inside the bethak. According to the witness he had seen Rampal S/o Prithvi and Rajender S/o Pale leading the crowd and others were behind them and thereafter they came to their other adjoining
house where his father and sister were present inside the house due to fear. He has stated that while Ramphal S/o Prithvi and Kulvinder S/o Ram Mehar sprinkled oil from the cans which they were holding and while Rajender S/o Pale set their house on fire and in the meanwhile the crowd outside was indulging into hurling of abuses/gali galoj, they were hurling caste abuses. He has deposed that when his father and sister came out of the house they were caught by these persons standing outside and oil was sprinkled on them, after which they were pushed inside the house and the door of the house was latched with the help of the kundi (bolt). According to the witness at that time he was in front of the house of Chander Bhan and requesting the crowd not to do such an act but nobody listened to them and during this process he was hit with the stones, one of which hit him on his foot and another on his back due to which reason he backed out and thereafter these persons came out in the main gali and started dancing naked by saying Ab Inka Kaam Ho Gaya Inka Matam Karo. He has deposed that he saw Vipin S/o Ishwar (not charge sheeted) Kulvinder S/o Ram Mehar, Vikas S/o Sunehra, Rishi and Karampal, both S/o Satbir accompanied many other persons who removed their clothes and danced in the gali in front of their house and after about two minutes went away from the spot. He has further deposed that when these persons went away he noticed that the roof of their house started collapsing and the door of their house also collapsed and his father who was in the front portion of the house ran out and entered the house of Deewan S/o Mathura while his sister was in the back portion of the house and could not be saved and was taken out later on. He has further deposed that meanwhile the police also came to the spot and he along with Ashok Kumar S/o Maha Singh shifted his father
Tara Chand to the Govt. hospital Hissar. On a query from the court the witness has stated that he did not recollect the exact time but as soon as his father came out of the house within two minutes he and Ashok shifted him to the hospital in a Govt. vehicle and it must be around 1212.30 PM at that time since they had reached Hissar at about 1PM. He has also deposed that apart from the above persons whom he had identified there were others as well from same village who had accompanied them. When this witness was asked by this court if he knew the reason for the incident, he respondent saying that he was not aware but had been told that on 19.4.2010 there was some quarrel between Rajender S/o Pale and Yogesh S/o Jai Prakash nephew of Karan Singh. He also stated that on 20.04.2010 also he had seen boys belonging to the 'J' community moving around the village in groups of twenties and thirties armed with lathies but by evening everything had cool down. According to him, statement was recorded by the police on many occasions. When this witness was shown his statements recorded by the police on 22.04.2010 (two statements), 27.06.2010 and 27.7.2010 which he read himself stating that he was a Graduate and could read and write Hindi and English, he admitted having made the statements dated 22.04.2010 which are already a part of Ex.PW64/E2 (inquest proceedings) which statements are now Ex.CW1/A and CW1/B and also admitted the statement made by him on 27.6.2010 which is now Ex.CW1/C and statement dated 27.7.2010 which is now Ex.CW1/D. In his cross examination by Ld. Special prosecutor for the victims witness has admitted that Ex.PW64/C which is the dying declaration of his father recorded by SI Bani Singh bears his signatures
at point C. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel the witness has admitted his signatures on the affidavit dated 3.11.2010 which is Ex.CW1/DX1 at point X1, X2 and X3 and has denied the said affidavit had been got prepared, typed and attested by him. He has also denied the suggestion that Ex.PW64/C does not bears his signatures at point C and has voluntarily explained that he signed in two different ways and the above exhibit also bear his signatures. The witness has admitted that in his first statement made to the police on 22.4.2010 which are Ex.CW1/A and Ex.CW1/B no names of any assailants have been mentioned by him and has voluntarily stated that he was disturbed at that time because of the death of his father and sister. When the witness was put another undated statement which is Ex.CW1/DX2 he admitted that the same bear his signatures at point X1 but states that the same was not in his handwriting and he had only signed this statement at his village without reading the same. He has further deposed that he did not tell the doctor the name of any of the assailant at the time of admission of his father and has voluntarily stated that he was not asked by the doctor. He has also admitted that he did not mention the names of any assailant to the police when the inquest papers were being prepared and has voluntarily stated that he was very perplexed at that time but states that had told the police that these persons from the 'J' community who had surrounded the 'B' Basti were armed with lathies. When the witness was confronted with the statements Ex.CW1/A to CW1/D this aspect was not found to be specifically mentioned. According to the witness he had told the Investigating Officer before 27.7.2010 that the SHO had also come to the spot and he
requested all of them to assemble at the 'B' Chaupal and told them that the persons from the 'J' community will also be called there and he would intervene to get a compromise affected and he had also told the Investigating officer that thereafter he went towards the side of the 'B' Chaupal but before he could reached there and while he was near the house of Nawab S/o Richmal he found that many of the persons from their community were returning and also saw that their basti had been surrounded by the persons from the 'J' community who started putting fire to their houses on which he ran towards his house and on the way he met his brother Pradeep and while he was still in the main gali he saw that large crowd was present in front of their house who first set fire to their bike which was kept inside the bethak. However, when the witness was confronted with his statement Ex.CW1/A to CW1/C this aspect was not found mentioned in the same. Witness has denied the suggestion that for the first time he took the name of Inspector Vinod Kajal and made allegations against him on tutoring by Ved Pal Tawar and the investigating agency at the instance of political leaders. Witness has further deposed that he had told the investigation officer that while his father and sister were inside the house due to fear, Ramphal S/o Prithvi and Kulvinder S/o Ram Mehar sprinkled oil from the cans which they were holding and while Rajender S/o Pale set their house on fire; that in the meanwhile the crowd outside was indulging into abuses/gali galoj by hurling caste abuses on which his father and sister came out and were caught by these persons standing outside and oil was sprinkled on them, after which they were pushed inside the house and the house was latched with the help of kundi (bolt); that at that time he was in front of the house of Chander Bhan and
requested the crowd not to do such an act but nobody listened to him and he was hit with the stones, one of which hit him on his foot and another on his back due to which reason he backed out. However, when confronted with the statement Ex.CW1/A and CW1/B these these facts were not found mentioned and when confronted with statement Ex.CW1/C this aspect was found mentioned in a different manner. Witness has denied the suggestion that on 27.6.2010 he had made a false statement to the IO on tutoring of Ved Pal Tawar and under the pressure of political persons. He has further deposed that he further told the Investigating Officer that thereafter these persons came out in the main gali and started dancing naked by saying Ab Inka Kaam Ho Gaya Inka Matam Karo . Vipin S/o Ishwar (not charge sheeted), Kulvinder S/o Ram Mehar, Vikas S/o Sunehra, Rishi and Karampal both sons of Satbir accompanying many other persons removed their clothes and danced in the gali in front of their house and after about two minutes went from the spot. When confronted with statements Ex.CW1/A to CW1/D where this aspect was not found mentioned. Witness has denied the suggestion that he has been tutored and pressurized by some politicians to make a false statement and hence he had made this improvement. He has further deposed that he is not aware if Rajender is in business of distributing milk and having a dairy and is also unable to tell if Rajender did not supply milk to the 'B' Basti on 20.4.2010 as a result of which a large number of boys belonging to 'B' community being annoyed by the same stopped him in the main gali on 21.4.2010 morning along with Karampal and started assaulting him with dandas. He has further deposed that he cannot tell if Karampal ran away and raised an
alarm in the village that Rajender was being beaten on which Dinesh came to the main gali to save him and was also assaulted and hit near the eye after which both Rajender and Dinesh were shifted to the hospital by Prem and Karampal and has voluntarily added that he was having a bath at that time and when he came out on hearing the hue and cry he found a large crowd of persons belonging to the 'J' community had gathered and cannot tell what happened prior to that. Witness has stated that after Rajender and Dinesh were taken away the stone pelting had started and has voluntarily added that he did not know what had happened and who took them away but he only saw the stone pelting which was going on. Witness has denied the suggestion that he has deliberately suppressed the earlier incident and was deposing falsely at the instance of Ved Pal Tanwar and under political pressure. The witness has denied the suggestion that he and his brother were not present in the village at the time of the incident and came later when his father was already present in the house of Deewan Singh after receiving burn injuries and it is for this reason that he does not receive any injury and also does not give any names of the assailants to the police on 22.4.2010. He has however admitted that his brother and his mother did not accompany him to the hospital. Witness has denied the suggestion that they both were not present in the village on that day. Witness has admitted that he is the step son of Smt. Kamla out of the first marriage of Late Sh. Tara Chand and has voluntarily stated that he has two other real sisters and his brothers Ravinder, Pradeep and Suman are his step brothers and sister out of Smt. Kamla.
Page No. 416
FINDINGS:
I have heard the oral submissions made before me and also considered the grounds raised by the parties in the memorandum of arguments filed in the court. Before dealing with the merits of the evidence I first propose to deal with the evidence which has come on record individually in a tabulated form in order to have a bird's eye view of the same and later on comprehensively.
Sr. No. 1. Name of the witness Yogesh Kumar (PW7) Details of deposition
Public witnesses/ eye witnesses/injured He is a resident of the village Mirchpur and has turned hostile both on the incident dated 21.4.2010 and the identity of the accused. He has only deposed that he had seen a large crowd in the street/ gali and was hit with a stone on his leg and therefore feeling scared returned to his house. He has however admitted that on 30.04.2010 he had got his medical conducted from the doctor who had come to the village. He is also a resident of the village Mirchpur and has turned hostile on the identity of the accused and also on the incident dated 21.4.2010 and also with regard to his statement made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.PW8/PX1. He has however admitted having received the compensation on the basis of the same. She is a resident of village Mirchpur and on request of the prosecution examination of this witness was dispensed with. He is a resident of the village Mirchpur and is not a witness to the incident dated 19.4.2010 and his testimony to this extent is based only on hearsay. With regard to the incident dated 21.4.2010 he has deposed as under: 1. That on 21.04.2010 all the persons from 'J' community got together came to the 'B' Mohalla and there was a marapiti. 2. That the persons belonging to 'J' community came with jellies, lathies, oil containers and started abusing by stating chooreya nu jala do which they
Page No. 417
2.
Ram Phal (PW8)
3.
Ms. Bindu (PW9)
4.
Rajbir (PW10)
said while using abuses and also started pelted stones on which he went to his house and hid himself. 3. That the persons from 'J' community (around 300-400 persons) also burnt houses of Tara, Dhupa and large number of other persons belonging to the 'B' community. 4. That he received brick injuries on his ankle and his medical was conducted on 30.04.2010 vide MLC Ex.PW59/A. That he had received a compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- from the Government He has identified the accused Rajender S/o Pale by putting his hand on the accused but not by name) but could not identify the accused Petla. 5. Smt. Madho (PW11) This witness is a resident of the village Mirchpur and has turned hostile on the incident dated 21.4.2010 and with regard to her statement made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.PW11/PX1 and also on the identity of the accused. She is a resident of the village Mirchpur and is the wife of the complainant Karan Singh and has not supported the case of the prosecution in respect of the incident dated 21.4.2010 and with regard to her statement made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.PW12/PX1 and the identity of the accused. She has been declared completely hostile. She has however admitted that she received an injury on her arm as a stone had entered her house. She has also admitted that her medical examination was got conducted on 22.4.2010. She is a resident of the village Mirchpur is the wife of Ved and her actual name is Kanta and has deposed before this court by impersonating herself as Sunita as evident from her election Identity card which is Ex.PW20/DX1 and has been placed before this court by her mother in law Kela (PW20) who has also identified her as her daughter in law Kanta. It is further observed that she has falsely shown the MLC of her son Sunil aged 10 years as her own MLC. Though in her testimony she has deposed about the incident dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused Rajender S/o Pale and Pappu S/o Praye Lal but it has been observed that she has failed to identify Vinod S/o Ram Niwas (the then SHO Police Station Narnaund) despite direct allegations against him. She has however admitted that she received a compensation to the tune of
Page No. 418
Smt. Murti Devi (PW12)
7.
Smt. Sunita (PW13)
Rs.25,000/- from the Government. This court has observed that the witness having impersonated herself as Sunita and hence not being not a reliable witness her testimony being tainted with falsehood is liable to be rejected. 8. Smt. Angoori (PW14) This witness was paralytic in the left half of her body and was brought to the court on a wheel chair and was also blind by one eye(left) and therefore on request of the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor she was not examined and was dropped as their witness. She is a resident of the village Mirchpur who has not supported the prosecution case and has turned hostile on the aspect of the incident dated 21.4.2010 and also the identity of the accused. She has denied having received any injury in the incident and the compensation for the same and also her statement made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.PW15/PX1.
9.
Smt. Krishna (PW15)
10.
Smt. Ishro (PW16) This witness is a resident of the village Mirchpur and has also declared hostile by the prosecution. She has neither supported the incident dated 19.4.2010 nor the incident dated 21.4.2010 nor her statement made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. She has also turned hostile on the identity of the accused. She has however admitted having received Rs.15 thousand from the government as compensation but has stated that since everybody was receiving the compensation so she also received the same and there was no damage to her property. Smt. Shanti (PW17) She is a resident of the village Mirchpur and has been declared hostile. On the date of her deposition before the court she had come along with the persons belonging to the 'J' community and informed the court that she had even stayed at Delhi (Nangloi) with them over night. She has not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the incident dated 21.4.2010 and with regard to the identity of the accused and also her statement made to the police Ex.PW17/PX1. She did not receive any injuries nor did she received any compensation from the government. She is a resident of village Mirchpur and has been declared hostile. She has not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the incident dated 21.4.2010, with regard to the identity of the accused and also with regard to her statement made by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW18/PX1. She has however admitted having received injury and also her MLR Ex.PW18/A
Page No. 419
11.
12.
Smt. Chander (PW18)
and also having received a compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/-. 13. Ms. Pooja (PW19) This witness is a resident of village Mirchpur and has been declared hostile. She has not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the incident dated 21.4.2010 and also with regard to her statement made by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW19/PX1 and her MLR Ex.PW19/A. However, it was observed by this court that she was having burns and bandages extending from her right arm till her legs but when examined she stated that she was getting fits for a last number of years. According to her, she had sustained the burn injuries when on one occasion while cooking she got fits and fell over the Chulha/ fire place. She has further admitted having received a compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- at one time and Rs.10,000/- at another time and states that it was given to her mother since her house had got burnt in the incident dated 21.4.2010. I may observe that these injuries are also not reflected in her MLR. Smt. Kela (PW20) She is a resident of village Mirchpur and is the mother in law of Sunita (PW13). She has turned hostile on the incident dated 19.4.2010 and 21.4.2010, on the identity of the accused and also with regard to her statement made by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW20/PX1. She has however admitted her MLR Ex.PW20/A and states that she had not received any injuries but had only put her thumb impressions on the same on the asking of some lady. She has admitted having received a compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- from the government that is Rs.10,000/- at one time and Rs.15,000/- at another occasion. Smt. Sunita (PW21) She is a resident of village Mirchpur and has been declared hostile. She has not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the incident dated 21.4.2010, with regard to the identity of the accused and also with regard to her statement made by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW21/PX1. She has denied having received injury but admits her thumb impressions on her MLR Ex.PW21/A and has explained that some persons from the village had come who had taken her thumb impressions. She has admitted having received a compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- from the government that is Rs.15,000/- at one time and Rs.10,000/- at other time.
Page No. 420
14.
15.
16.
Aman (PW22)
He is a resident of village Mirchpur and has turned hostile. He has not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the incident dated 19.4.2010 and 21.4.2010, with regard to the identity of the accused and also with regard to his statement made by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW22/PX1. He has however admitted having received injuries and also his MLR Ex.PW22/A and also having received a compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- because his house had got burnt and has explained that he received the injuries on 19.4.2010 evening when he tripped and fell in the main gali. He is a resident of village Mirchpur and has turned hostile on the incident dated 21.4.2010, on the identity of the accused and also with regard to his statement made by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW23/PX1. He has admitted his MLR Ex.PW23/A and also having received a compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- and four kattas of wheat and has denied that the compensation was on account of the injuries received by him by explaining that entire 'B' Mohalla had received the same. He is a formal witness who is the nephew of the deceased Tara Chand. He has proved that on receipt of telephonic from Amar Lal S/o Tara Chand he had gone to Civil Hospital Hissar where he reached on 22.04.2010 at about 10 AM and identified the dead body of Tara Chand and his daughter Suman vide Ex.PW24/A and received the dead bodies vide receipt Ex.PW24/B. He is a resident of village Mirchpur and has partly supported the case of the prosecution. In so far as the incident dated 19.4.2010 he is not an eye witness to the incident and has deposed on the basis of hearsay. However, he has specifically deposed with regard to the incident dated 21.4.2010 wherein he has identified the accused Rajender S/o Pale, Ramphal S/o Prithi, Bobal S/o Teka and Nanha S/o Mai Chand and Satta. In respect of the incident dated 21.4.2010 he has highlighted the following aspects: 1. That on 21.4.2010 at about 11:30 AM a large number of persons belonging to 'J' community around 350 in number started burning houses in the main gali i.e. bichly gali/ main gali. 2. That the persons belonging to 'J' community burnt houses of Sanjay S/o Banney Singh, Rajender S/o
Page No. 421
17.
Satbir (PW23)
18.
Suresh (PW24)
19.
Sushil (PW25)
Mahender, Manoj S/o Mahender. 3. That the persons belonging to 'J' community were carrying oil cans, gandase and jellies in their hands and were working the houses belonging to the 'B' community and started pelting stones and surrounded/ gheraoed the 'B' Basti. 4. That they also burnt the house of Tara Chand where Tara Chand and his daughter Suman were burnt to death in the fire and they also did torphor in the basti and the houses which were situated near the water tank near the house of Gulab Singh were all burnt. 5. That he could identify some of these boys who were residents of village Mirchpur amongst whom they are Ramphal S/o Prithi, Bobal S/o Teka and Nanha S/o Mahi Chand. The witness has identified Rajender S/o Pale and Satta whose father's name he is unable to tell, by putting his hand on them as the persons who were mainly responsible for the incident. 1. He has also identified Ramphal and Rajbir S/o Mahi Chand, who is known as Nanha in the village. 2. The witness has further identified Bobal @ Langra as the same person who was bringing out the house hold articles like TV, fridge etc. and damaging/ breaking them. 3. That Ramphal had removed his clothes and started dancing in front of ladies totally naked. 4. That Nanha (i.e. accused Rajbir S/o Mah Chand) was present along with Ramphal in the torphor and dancing. 5. That he had received injuries in this incident and his medical was conducted on 30.4.2010 in the village itself at the water tank vide MLC Ex.PW25/A. 6. That his household articles were also damaged and his TV, fridge, chairs, bed, container of grains were all damaged. 7. That his Godreg almirah was opened and cash and jewelery articles were taken and his mobile phone was also taken by them. 8. That it was the accused Bobal who had come to his house along with other boys whom he is unable to identify at present, who had come to his house and damaged the property and looted it. 9. That he had received a total compensation for a sum of Rs.15,000/- only and his statement was recorded by the police but he is unable to tell the date.
Page No. 422
20.
Raju (PW26)
He is a resident of village Mirchpur and has been declared hostile. He has not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the incident dated 21.4.2010 and on identity of the accused and also with regard to his statement made by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW26/PX1 dated 30.4.2010. He has however admitted his medical conducted vide MLR Ex.PW26/A on 30.4.2010 bearing his signatures at point A and also having received a compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/-. He is a resident of village Mirchpur and has been declared hostile. He has not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the incident dated 21.4.2010 and also with regard to his statement made by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW27/PX1 dated 30.4.2010. He has however admitted his medical conducted vide MLR Ex.PW27/A on 30.4.2010. He is a resident of village Mirchpur and has supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the incident dated 21.4.2010 but has turned partly hostile on the identity of the accused. He has only identified the accused Anil S/o Prem Singh and Amir S/o Tara Chand and has deposed as under: 1. That on 21.04.2010 he was at his house, when 300400 persons belonging to the 'J' community came to the 'B' Mohalla where his house is situated and had brought stones in a rehri and had also brought containers of oil. 2. That the persons belonging to 'J' community started burning the houses of the members of 'B' community in the mohalla and the first house which was set on fire belonged to his brother Sanjay. 3. That the boys were also carrying lathies, gandases etc. and all of them gathered in the middle of the 'B' Mohalla where there house is also situated. 4. That they all were scared and apprehensive and he had gone on the roof of his house where he saw that these boys belonging to the 'J' community were indulging into arson (putting fire to houses), looting and some of them were dancing naked. 5. That he had received injuries on his chest as he was hit with a brick and his medical was conducted after 5-7 days of the incident at Hissar hospital vide MLC Ex.PW28/A. 6. That Police might have made some inquires from him but he does not recollect if his statement was also
Page No. 423
21.
Ravi (PW27)
22.
Sandeep (PW28)
recorded. The witness has specifically identified accused Anil S/o Prem Singh and Amir S/o Tara Chand though he was unable to tell their names but has identified as the persons who were setting houses on fire. 23 Dhoop Singh (PW29) He is a resident of village Mirchpur and has supported the case of the prosecution in respect of the incident dated 21.4.2010 and identified Sanjay S/o Daya Nand, Jogal S/o Hawa Singh and Bobal S/o Tek Chand and has deposed as under: 1. That on 21.4.2010 morning the persons from the 'J' community created a rolla/ jhagra near the 'B' Mohalla and initially the boys slapped one or two persons who backed out and thereafter more than 400 persons including ladies belonging to 'J' community came along with buggies filled with stones, bricks, cans filled with oil and tried to enter inside the 'B' Mohalla which was not permitted by the 'B' so they started pelted stones and surrounded the entire 'B' Mohalla and started burning houses belonging to persons of 'B' community. 2. That he was lying down at his shop when he heard loud voices/ rukka pukar and when he came out, he saw that four boys i.e. accused Ramphal S/o Prithvi, Sanjay S/o Daya Nand, Jogal S/o Hawa Singh, Bobal S/o Tek Chand entering into his house by breaking the gate/door of the compound. 3. That one of these boys i.e. accused Ramphal S/o Prithvi gave a lathi blow on his left arm as a result of which he received fracture. 4. That Sanjay S/o Daya Chand gave a danda blow on his left leg and the other two boys broke the cemented water tank and they set fire on all his four shops where his articles were burnt including his record/ behi khata containing details of the credit transaction. 5. That the fire from his shop also spread to his house and his entire house was burnt. 6. That his family members had run away and a large number of persons also came who were setting fire to various houses and they broke the locks of his peti/ trunk containing money which was kept in the house and removed the cash which was almost to the tune of Rs 10 thousand. 7. That in the meantime at around 11 AM a government vehicle came and removed him to the hospital along
with daughter of Tara who had got burnt, Raj Kumar S/o Kapoora. 8. That they all three were first taken to a hospital at Hansi where they were given first aid and bandage were put on his arm, later he was taken to hospital at Hissar. 9. That he was medically examined vide his MLR Ex.PW29/A and states that he could not put his thumb impression on the MLR because of injuries. 10. That he had initially received a compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- when he was admitted in the Hissar hospital and later again received a compensation of Rs.1,15,000/-. 11. That the dispute had arisen between the boys belonging to the 'J' community and Karan Singh on 19.04.2010 and not on 20th and it was in the evening hours of 19.04.2010 when the dispute took place but it was on 20.10.2010 that Karan Singh had made a complaint to the police. 12. That the dispute of 19.04.2010 was between Rajender S/o Pale and sons of Karan Singh. 13. That Raj Kumar S/o Kapoora, Sandeep S/o Raj Kumar, Gulab Singh Chowkidar, Maharjan S/o Satpal and other persons belonging to the 'B' community had also received injuries. 14. That apart from Suman, her father Tara Chand had also expired on account of the arson as his house has burnt. The witness has correctly identified the accused Sanjay S/o Daya Nand, Jogal S/o Hawa Singh and Bobal S/o Tek Chand in the court as the boys who had entered his house but he has turned hostile on the identity of the accused Ram Phal S/o Prithvi and states that the accused Ram Phal who has been arrested is not the same Ram Phal who had inflicted injuries to him. 24. Santra (PW30) She is a resident of village Mirchpur and is not an eye witness to the incident dated 19.4.2010 and states that she was at her relative's house on 19.4.2010 and returned in the afternoon of 21.4.2010 and saw the incident. She claims herself to be an eye witness and has identified the accused Ramphal S/o Prithvi, Ved Pal S/o Dayanand, Ramesh S/o Dalip Singh, Bijender S/o Hoshiar Singh, Rajender S/o Pale, Pradeep S/o Rampahl, Roshi S/o Satbir, Pradeep S/o Satbir, Rajender S/o Sadhu Ram and Jagdish @ Jangla S/o Lehna Ram. She has denied that police had ever recorded her statement under Section
Page No. 425
161 Cr.P.C. She admits having received injuries and states that she had fallen down and received injuries and was treated in the village when the medical team had come and her MLR is Ex.PW30/A. The aspects on which she has deposed are as under: 1. That the dispute between the persons from the 'B' and 'J' community arose on 21.4.2010 after a rumor spread in the village that son of Pale had either been killed or abducted by the 'B' on which the persons from the 'B' community were attacked and there was stone pelting on them. 2. That the persons from 'J' community brought cans of oil and started burning the houses of persons belonging to the 'B' community and the house of Tara Chand was first set on fire and wherein both Tara Chand and his daughter Suman were burnt to death. 3. That she saw this incident and also saw that it was the son of Pale who started this incident when the house of Tara Chand was set on fire and other persons joined him. 4. That she had fallen down because of the stone pelting and received injuries for which she was treated in the village when the medical team had come and her MLC is Ex.PW30/A. 5. That the accused Ram Phal S/o Prithvi was the boy who had the oil container and was setting houses on fire. 6. That the accused Ved Pal S/o Sh. Daya Nand was the boy who had jellie gandase and was indulging into stone pelting. 7. That accused Ramesh S/o Dalip Singh who is known as Gardulla in the village was the person who was carrying lathi and was also indulging into stone pelting. 8. That accused Bijender S/o Hoshiar Singh was the person who was indulging into stone pelting. 9. That accused Rajender S/o Pale was the person who was carrying oil and had set the houses of persons of 'B' community on fire while others were indulging into stone pelting and dance naked before the girls of the village belonging to the 'B' community. 10. That accused Pardeep S/o Ramphal was the person who was dancing naked before the ladies of the 'B' community. 11. That accused Rishi S/o Satbir was the person who was carrying lathi and jellies in his hand and was throwing stones.
12. That accused Pardeep S/o Satbir was the person who was in the front and was entering the houses of the persons of the 'B' community by jumping the walls and shouting utha leye dedo ki ladkiya ne inko gaon se kada gae and after entering their houses he was pulling the girls belonging to the 'B' outside. 13. That accused Rajender S/o Sadhu Ram was pelting stones. 14. That accused Jagdish @ Jagla S/o Lehna Ram who is also known as Fauji in the village and his father is known as Tara was the person who had stated maro in dedya ne bhanjod ne kutya ne was carrying jellie and had indulged into stone pelting and also into beating with jellie. 25. Abhishek (PW31) He is a resident of village Mirchpur and is a child witness aged about 10 years who has only proved the incident dated 21.4.2010 but has turned hostile on the identity of the accused. He has deposed as under: 1. That there was a quarrel in the village when persons belonging to 'J' community were armed with lathis and weapons came towards their basti and made caste based abuses and pelted stones after which they set the houses on fire. 2. That there was a stone pelting when one stone hit on the left side of his head above the temple. 3. That persons from the 'J' community set one house on house as well as his house after which his father took him to the house of his grandfather which is situated at a little distance from his house. 4. That he had received a compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/-. 5. That he could not identify any of the assailant nor he had name any of the accused in his statement given to the police. She is a resident of village Mirchpur and was employed as Safai Karamchari at Government Girls School, Mirchpur and has only deposed with regard to incident dated 21.4.2010 and has identified Rajender S/o Pale and Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar. She has deposed as under: 1. That on 19th of last year almost eleven months back there was a quarrel/rolla on a she-dog belonging to Karan Singh and the persons from the 'J' community called Karan Singh and Veer Bhan in the village in their mohalla and were beaten.
26.
Sheela (PW32)
Page No. 427
2. That on 20th the dispute had almost died down but on 21st again there was a rolla in the morning and first there was stone pelting by persons from the 'J' community and thereafter the children/boys belonging to the 'J' community came to their 'B' Mohalla and set fire to the houses of Tara Chand, Sube Singh, Sanjay and thereafter one by one to all the houses of 'B' which were situated on the outer side of the 'B' Mohalla. 3. That they did not enter inside the 'B' Mohalla but set the houses of 'B' situated on the outer side of the mohalla and Tara Chand and Suman expired due to burns. 4. That she had come back from the school where she was working as Safai Karmachari and had sustained brick injury on her knee. 5. That her aged parents were alone at home along with her children when this tor phor was going on and she tried to hide herself and could reach her house much later. 6. That Tara Chand who had got burnt had come to her house for shelter and it was their neighbours who brought her parents out of the house even before she reached there and she had seen Rajender S/o son of Pale indulging into arson who had set the house of Tara Chand on fire and was setting other house on fire. 7. That she had seen Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar who had broken the door of her house and come inside and broken her water tank and damage her property. 8. That her medical was conducted after a number of days of incident in village Mirchpur vide MLR Ex.PW32/A. 9. That she had received a sum of Rs.10 thousand as compensation. 10. That Rajender S/o Pale is doing the job of sale of milk and on 20.4.2010 Rajender did not supply milk to the 'B' and on 21.4.2010 when Gulaba Chowkidar had gone to Rajender for fetching milk he was beaten. I may observe that this witness is working as a Safai Karamchari in a school and remains on duty from 8 AM to 2 PM. It is not her case that she was on leave on the date of the incident that is 21.4.2010 and hence the presumption that she returned to the village only later. Though the witness has tried to explain that she normally comes back early after orally informing the Principal of her school but there is no independent corroboration to
her statement to prove the same. Though the possibility of the witness returning early after coming to know of the incident in the village cannot be ruled out yet the Rule of Prudence requires that her statement should be read with due care and caution and independent corroboration would be required. 27. Rani (PW33) She is a resident of village Mirchpur and is the wife of Sanjay (PW44). She is not an eye witness to the incident dated 19.4.2010 and has deposed on the basis of hearsay. In respect of the incident dated 21.4.2010 she claims to be an eye witness and has duly identified the accused Karambir S/o Tara Chand, Rajender S/o Dhoop Singh, Balwan S/o Inder and Rajender S/o Pale as assailants. The main aspects on which she has deposed are as under: 1. That on 21.4.2010 there was a quarrel and initially there was mar pitai and then persons from the 'J' community brought jellies, gandases, lathies and brought stones and brick in a rehri to the 'B' Mohalla, through the main gali. 2. That thereafter they set about 20-25 houses belonging to the members of 'B' community on fire amongst which the houses of Satey, Tara, Dhupa, Mahender were also set on fire. 3. That Suman D/o Tara and Tara himself were burnt alive. 4. That the persons from the 'J' community entered their houses and threw the house hold articles out of the houses and damaged them. 5. That she was going to attend the call of nature and was pregnant at that time and out of fear she started running away on which she fell down. 6. That she received injuries on her head and also on her knees and was medically examined vide MLC Ex.PW33/A. 7. That she was given a compensation of Rs.25 thousand by the government. 8. That she has identified the accused Karambir S/o Tara Chand and accused Balwan S/o Inder as the persons who were having lathi in their hands (ye lathi lekar peche par rahe thei); accused Rajender S/o Dhoop Singh as the person who was indulging into stone and brick pelting; accused Rajender S/o Pale as the person who was throwing bricks and it was this accused (Rajender S/o Pale) from whom she was trying to save herself as he was running after her with bricks in which process she fell down.
Page No. 429
28.
Raj Kumar (PW34)
He is a resident of village Mirchpur. He is not an eye witness to the incident dated 19.4.2010 and has deposed on the basis of hearsay. He has also turned hostile on the aspect of incident dated 21.4.2010 and on the identity of the accused. He has also not admitted his statement made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.PW34/PX1. He has however admitted his MLR Ex.PW34/A and having received a compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- from the government. He is a resident of village Mirchpur. He is not an eye witness to the incident dated 19.4.2010 and has deposed on the basis of hearsay. In respect of the incident dated 21.4.2010 he has supported the incident but has turned hostile on the identity of the accused and also on the role of the SHO Vinod Kumar. He has also not admitted his statement made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.PW35/PX1. He has however admitted his MLR Ex.PW35/A and having received a compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- from the government. He has deposed as under: 1. That on 20.04.2010 he went to Jind where he used to work in a printing press and at about 8-8:30 PM he received a telephone call from his brother Amar informing that there was a dispute between the persons from the 'J' community and the 'B' community and therefore he should avoid coming on that day and come on the next day. 2. That despite this warning by his brother, he came back to the village Mirchpur but did not see any dispute. 3. That on 21.04.2010 at about 10-10:30 AM about 300400 persons belonging to the 'J' community came towards the 'B' Basti and he heard the voices coming from them that Jala do, aag lago do dheda ne and thereafter they started pelting stones. 4. That he was with his father at his house which was situated in the middle of the 'B' Mohalla on the corner of the main gali and about 40-50 stones were thrown towards his house and that he was also hit on his legs and back. 5. That first of all there were stone pelting then they (persons from 'J' community) started setting the houses of the members of 'B' community situated on the outer side of the main gali on fire and thereafter all the persons belonging to the 'B' community got scared and started running towards their houses to
Page No. 430
29.
Ashok (PW35)
save their children. 6. That he could not see any of the persons as they were in muffled faces. 7. That he was given medical treatment after about 1015 days at Hissar vide MLC dated 02.05.2010 which is Ex.PW35/A. 8. That he had received a compensation to a tune of Rs.25,000/- from the government for the injuries received by him. 30. Sanjay (PW36) He is a resident of village Mirchpur and is the husband of Rani (PW33) and had received no injuries in the incident dated 21.4.2010. Though he claims that he is a Mason by profession but has admitted his involvement in criminal cases at district Jind regarding pick pocketing and sale of illicit liquor. Keeping in view his background his testimony is required to be weighed with caution. He is not an eye witness to the incident dated 19.4.2010 not being present in the village and his testimony is based on hearsay. In respect of the incident dated 21.4.2010 he has deposed on the following aspects: 1. That on the 21.4.2010 there was rolla/ dispute in the village at about 9-10 AM resulting into stone pelting. 2. That the boys belonging to 'J' community first assembled in their Chaupal i.e. the 'J' Chaupal where they were scheming and thereafter they surrounded the 'B' Basti and thereafter started pelting stones and arson where they burn houses belonging to the 'B' in the basti. 3. That first of all they (persons belonging to 'J' community) burnt the house of Tara where his daughter Suman was burnt to death and Tara himself was burnt. 4. That thereafter they (persons belonging to 'J' community) had burnt the house of Satta, Sube Singh, Pala Ram, Chander, Dhoop Singh, Rajmal. 5. That police was present there when the houses were being burn but despite request to restrain these boys and stop them all the police men ran away towards the water tank. 6. That he received a brick injury on his shoulder on the back side and on the collar bone and his wife who was pregnant and was coming back after attending the call of nature, when she started to run on seeing the incident and fell down and received injuries. 7. That he immediately took his children and went to the roof of the house of Veer Bhan to save themselves
Page No. 431
from where he saw that thereafter these boys from from the 'J' community damaging the property and house hold articles (tor phor). 8. That on the next day he along with his family went to Jind to his father's house and returned after about 1015 days. 9. That on the next day of the incident his medical was also conducted in the village vide MLC Ex.PW36/A. 10. That on the same day police made inquiries from him and he told them what had happened. 11. That he had also received a compensation from the government and initially Rs.50,000/- which was collectively for him, his wife and other family members and thereafter he received another sum of Rs.25,000/-. 12. That he identified the accused Rajender S/o Pale as the person who had set the houses on the fire; accused Rishi S/o Satbir as the person who had set the houses on fire; accused Jugal (Jogal @ Dogar S/o Hawa Singh) as the person who was indulging into stone pelting and damaging household articles and properties by entering the houses; accused Anil @ Neel S/o Prem who was indulging into stone pelting and damaging house hold articles and properties by entering the houses; accused Pardeep S/o Jaibir as the person who was indulging into stone pelting and damaging house hold articles and properties by entering the houses; accused Dharmveer @ Fauji S/o Tara as the person who was indulging into burning of houses; accused Balwan S/o Jai Lal as the person who was having jellie, gandases and lathi and was indulging into beating persons from the 'B' community under the influence of alcohol; accused Sunil S/o Jaibir Singh as the person who was indulging into stone pelting; accused Rajbir @ Nanha S/o Mahi Chand as the person who was indulging into stone pelting and damaging household articles and properties by entering the houses; accused Roopesh S/o Tek Ram as the person who was indulging into stone pelting and damaging household articles and properties by entering the houses; accused Daya S/o Ajeet as the person who was indulging into burning of houses of the members of 'B' community; accused Sanjay @ Handa S/o Daya Nand as the person who had entered the house of Dhoop Singh and broken his arm and thereafter burnt his house; accused Sattey S/o Karan Singh as
the person who was indulging into stone pelting and damaging household articles and properties by entering the houses; accused Jasbir @ Leelu S/o Raja Ram as the person who was having a lathi in his hand and was first indulging into stone pelting and then was roaming around in the galies with lathi in his hand while they had climbed on their roofs; accused Pardeep S/o Satbir as the person who was indulging into stone pelting and was having a lathi in his hand; accused Baljeet S/o Inder who was having jellie in his hand and was running towards him and other persons from the 'B' community when he ran to his roof out of fear; accused Satyawan S/o Rajender as the person who was indulging into stone pelting; accused Bobal S/o Tek Ram as the person who was intoxicated after consuming alcohol and was roaming around with other boys of the 'J' community who were indulging into stone pelting, arson and burning of houses etc; accused Dharmavir @ Illa S/o Mai Chand as the person who was indulging into stone pelting and damaging household articles and properties by entering the houses; accused Rajender S/o Belu Ram as the person who was indulging into stone pelting; accused Kulwinder S/o Shri Ram Mehar as the person who was indulging into stone pelting and accused Karampal S/o Satbir as the person who was indulging into stone pelting. 31. Meena Kumar (PW37) He is a resident of village Mirchpur and claims to be an eye witness to both the incidents dated 19.4.2010 and 21.4.2010 and has duly identified the accused Rajender S/o Pale, Dharamvir @ Illa S/o Mahi Chand, Satey S/o Karan Singh and Rajbir @ Nanhe S/o Mahi Chand. He has deposed as under: 1. That on 19.04.2010 some boys from the 'J' community were passing in front of the house of Karan Singh being under the influence of alcohol on which the she-dog of Karan Singh started barking at them on which these boys threw a dalla/ brick on her which entered the house of Karan Singh to which the son of Karan Singh objected. 2. That this dispute was between the son of Pale whose name he is not aware and there was a quarrel. 3. That after some time Karan Singh and Veer Bhan were called in front of the house of Pale by these persons belonging to the 'J' community where they (Karan Singh and Veer Bhan) were beaten when they
Page No. 433
received injuries due to which they had to be hospitalized at Hansi. 4. That on 20.04.2010 they came to know in the village that these boys from the 'J' community would again commit some problem due to which reason they called Karan Singh and Veer Bhan back to the village. 5. That on 21.04.2010 at about 9-10 AM he was standing at the main gali when he saw about 400-500 persons belonging to the 'J' community came from the side of the 'J' Chaupal and came towards 'B' Mohalla in large number and were armed with jellies, gandases, a rehri/ boogie containing bricks and stones and with cans of oil. 6. That the persons from the 'J' community surrounded the 'B' Mohalla from all the four sides and started setting the houses of persons belonging to 'B' community on fire. 7. That firstly they put fire to the house of Satyawan Fauji and thereafter to the houses of Mahender, Tara Chand, Gulab Singh and both his sons, Dhoopa, Chander, Pale Ram, Rajender, Manohar and others. 8. That when the house of Tara Chand was set on fire his daughter Suman and Tara Chand who were both inside the house sustained burns and while Suman expired at the spot Tara Chand expired later. 9. That there was stone pelting from all the sides directed towards the houses belonging to the members of 'B' community and some of these boys started dancing naked and at that time he was standing in the main gali then he was hit with a brick on his back side towards the right shoulder on which he entered his house which is also situated in the main gali. 10. That his medical examination was conducted after about a week vide MLC Ex.PW37/A. 11. That he had received a compensation for a sum of Rs.25,000/- from the government for the injuries which he had received. 12. That from the crowd he could recognize Illa S/o Mahi Chand who was having a lathi in his hand and was attacking on the 'B' community and was also indulging into stone pelting; Nanha S/o Mahi Chand who was indulging into stone pelting and was having a lathi in his hand with which he was attacking persons of 'B' community; Rajender S/o Pale who was first indulging into burning houses of 'B' and thereafter indulging into stone pelting and Satey S/o
Karan Singh who initially was burning houses belonging to 'B' community and thereafter indulging into stone pelting. In respect of the incident dated 19.4.2010 and 20.4.2010 the witness has for the first time made a statement in this regard in the court which is in total improvement over his statement made to the police Ex.PW37/DX1 and in so far as the incident dated 21.4.2010 is concerned he has mentioned about this incident in his statement to the police but has deposed in a different manner in the court. 32. Mahajan (PW38) He is a resident of village Mirchpur and claims himself to be the witness of incidents dated 19.4.2010, 20.4.2010 and 21.4.2010 and has deposed as under: 1. That on 19.4.2010 there was a dispute on she-dog of Karan Singh and that it was around 9-9:30 PM when some boys belonging to the 'J' community one of whom was Rajender S/o Pale who were intoxicated came in a drunken state and were passing in front of the house of Karan Singh whose she-dog was lying on the road. 2. That they (boys belonging to 'J' community) hit the she-dog with a dalla,when a portion of thedalla hit the dog and the other portion entered the house of Karan Singh on which Karan Singh protested. 3. That these boys said abhi to kutiya ne mara hai dalla, tumko bhi marenge on which there was a dispute after which the said boys went back and after some time one boy whom he has identified as Ajeet S/o Sukhbir belonging to the 'J' community came and called Veer Bhan and Karan Singh and took them to the house of Pale on the pretext of a settlement/ compromise where they beat up Veer Bhan and Karan Singh on which Veer Bhan received injuries on his head whereas Karan Singh was hit with a lathi and when they came back to their houses they were in the injured condition and hence went to the hospital but he was not sure whether they went to Hissar or Hansi. 4. That on the next day i.e. 20th there was a talk in the village by the boys belonging to the 'J' community when they were going around the village threatening that they would burn the houses of the chooras and would throw them out of the village choora ne kada ge, choora ne ghara ne aag lageye gai and on hearing this Veer Bhan who was in the hospital came back to the village.
Page No. 435
5. That on 21st i.e. the next day in the morning at about 9-9:30 AM Rajender S/o Pale passed through the main gali in his boogie while he was coming back from his fields and threatened some of the boys sitting in the gali who were from the 'B' community saying that abhi dekhege tare ko, ektha ho kar angeye, aag lanageye. 6. That after about half an hour about 500-600 persons all from the 'J' community came to the 'B' Mohalla in the main gali and were having stones, bricks, lathies, containers of oil in their hands and started stone pelting on the 'B' of the village and started burning the houses of the persons belonging to the 'B' community and they first burnt the house of Mahender, then they burnt the houses of Sanjay, Tara Chand, Gulabo, Dhoopa, Chander, Ram Phal, Ram Niwas, Pala, Satta all belonging to the 'B' community. 7. That they also did mar pitai to many persons from 'B' community and also committed loot pat, tor phor. 8. That in this Tara and his daughter Suman lost their lives and they were burnt. 9. That he also got sustained injuries on his forehead as he was hit with a brick when he was standing in the main gali where he was trying to save himself and that on receiving the injuries he immediately ran to his house where he remained till such time the police brought him out and took him to the hospital at Narnaund for treatment and thereafter to the Hissar vide MLC Ex.PW38/A. 10. That the police had come after two hours and he had received a compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- on one occasion and Rs.10,000/- a few days for his injuries. 11. That some of these boys from the 'J' community had also come to his house and indulged into tor phor/damaged his property whose name he could tell but he could identify them. 12. That police had come to him and made inquires after two to three days of the incident and he had also told them that he could identify the boys involved in the incident and had told their names but he is not aware whether they had recorded their names or not. 13. That the accused Dharambir @ Illa S/o Mai Chand was indulging into stone pelting and tor phor/damage to property; accused Jugal @ Doggar S/o Hawa Singh was indulging into tor phor/damage the
property; accused Baljeet S/o Inder was indulging into arson and burning houses belonging to the members of 'B' community; accused Sattu @ Satish S/o Randhir Singh who had entered into his house and also indulged into loot pat/ looting the property; accused Kulvinder S/o Ram Mehar was indulging into arson and burning the houses belonging to the members of 'B' community; accused Monu S/o Suresh was indulging into stone pelting; accused Rupesh S/o Tek Ram was indulging into burning houses belonging to the members of 'B' community along with the accused Kulvinder; accused Ajeet S/o Sukhbir Singh had called Veer Bhan and taken him to the house of Pale on 19.04.2010 but says that he did not see him at the time of incident dated 21.04.2010; accused Jasbir @ Lillu S/o Raja Ram was indulging into beating persons from the 'B' community with a lathi; accused Rajender S/o Pale was indulging into burning the houses belonging to the members of 'B' community and was involved in the incident dated 19.04.2010 and the accused Deepak S/o Krishan Kumar was indulging into burning of houses belonging to the members of 'B' community. I may observe that this witness has improved upon his statement made to the police Ex.PW38/PX1 to the extent that Veer Bhan had received injuries on 19.4.2010 and had to be hospitalized and further with regard to incident dated 20.4.2010 to the extent that the boys from the 'J' community were moving about in the village threatening that they would burn the houses of the chooras and throw them out of the village (choora ne kada ge, choora ne gharan ne aag lagayenge) or that boys from the 'J' community had looted the household articles from his house. 33. Sube Singh (PW39) He is a resident of village Mirchpur. He is not an eye witness to the incident dated 19.4.2010 and has deposed on the basis of hearsay. In respect of the incident dated 21.4.2010 he has deposed as under: 1. That on 20.04.2010 both Karan Singh and Veer Bhan were brought back from the hospital so that the disputes be amicably settled and on 21.04.2010 at about 10-11 AM all the persons of the 'J' community residing in the village got together in their Chaupal and from there they carried lathies, jellies, dandas, gandases and came to their ('B') basti where they
Page No. 437
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
started shouting choorya ne dedha ne phook do, mar do . That thereafter they (persons from the 'J' community) started setting the houses belonging to the members of 'B' community on fire and he was at that time sitting in his house when he saw that lot of houses were being put on fire and first his house was set on fire. That he left his house and in order to save himself he climbed on the roof of the house of Tara from where he saw that his house was being put on fire, after which they came towards the house of Tara to set it on fire and in order to save himself he went to the adjoining house of Tara towards the chabutra (room on the roof) from where he saw that the adjoining house of Tara was put on fire, where Tara and his daughter Suman were burnt to death. That thereafter 10-12 of those boys came to him on the roof as the kunda was opened and started kicking the door of the room where he was hiding and broke the latches and picked up the empty cylinder from the room and threw it on the ground and thereafter sprinkled oil. That he pleaded them with folded hands to spare him as he was an old man when one of the boys from the group asked the others to leave him saying dada bath jayo. That thereafter they (persons from the 'J' community) all left by bolting him in the room from outside and went a head to set the other houses in the same lane on fire. That they (persons from the 'J' community) were also indulging into stone pelting due to which his other children went into hiding at other places but he did not receive any injuries. That he could recognize many of these boys whom he had seen and had come to his house, he remember seeing the son of Ram Mehar who is commonly known as Baniya in the village, Karambir, Son of Hoshiyara called as Handa in the village, Rajender S/o Pale amongst others. That he identified the accused Karam Veer S/o Tara Chand as the person who had come into his house and set it on fire; accused Ramesh S/o Dalip Singh who was indulging into stone pelting and burning of houses; accused Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar who is commonly called as baniya in the village who was
Page No. 438
indulging into stone pelting and burning of houses and damage to the property by breaking TV sets of his house and also of the other houses and accused Rajender S/o Pale as the person who was indulging into burning of houses. I may observe that this witness is an old man of seventy years who had got his eyes operated for Cataract just a month prior to the incident a fact which is established from the photograph Ex.PW3/A-40. 34. Vijender (PW40) He is a resident of village Mirchpur. He is not an eye witness to the incident dated 19.4.2010 and has deposed on the basis of hearsay. In respect of the incident dated 20.4.2010 and 21.4.2010 he has deposed as under: 1. That on 20.04.2010 there was a talk of compromise in the village between the two communities and therefore Karan Singh and Veer Bhan were called back from the hospital and on that day all these boys of the 'J' community were consuming alcohol while sitting at the water tank. 2. That on 21.04.2010 at about 9 to 10 AM about 700800 persons from the 'J' community armed with bricks and gandases came and started setting the houses of 'B' on fire. 3. That they (persons from the 'J' community) first set the house of Sanjay on fire and thereafter set the house of Tara Chand on fire in which Tara and his daughter Suman were burnt on which they all got scared and climbed the roofs of their houses and when he was standing on his roof he sustained a brick injury on his foot. 4. That these boys armed with gandases thereafter started hitting persons from the 'B' community and some of these boys from the 'J' community started dancing naked while others were indulging into arson and stone pelting. 5. That these boys (belonging to the 'J' community) entered his house and started breaking his household articles and damaged his cots, chairs, tables, containers of grains, color TV. 6. That he had seen these boys and he could identify them and he had seen Bobbal @ Langra, Illa S/o Mahi Chand who had both entered his house whom he saw from the roof. 7. That he had told the doctors who had come to the village on 21.04.2010 that he had sustained brick injuries but they did not treat him.
Page No. 439
8. That he had received a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the government on one occasion and Rs.15,000/- on other occasion as compensation. 9. That he has identified the accused Jogal @ Dogar S/o Hawa Singh as the person who was setting the houses on fire; accused Daya @ Chinni S/o Ajeet as the person who was having jellie in his hand and was attacking persons of 'B' community; accused Dharambir @ Illa S/o Mahi Chand as the person who was having oil containers in his hand and sprinkling the same on houses; accused Bobbal @ Langra S/o Tek Ram as the person who was having stones and bricks in his hand and throwing the same on them ('B') and was also exhorting saying choora ne dodya ne mar do phook do; accused Satish @ Sattu Singh S/o Randhir as the person who was indulging into stone pelting; accused Ajeet S/o Dalip as the person who was having a lathi in his hand and was running and beating the 'B'; accused Ram Phal @ Petla S/o Prithvi Singh as the person who was indulging into burning houses belonging to the members of 'B' community; accused Ramphal who had set the house of Tara on fire; accused Rajesh S/o Dhoop Singh as the person who was having a gandase in his hand and running after the members of the 'B' community stating maro inhe and the accused Rajender S/o Pale who according to him is the main person due to whom the dispute arose in the village and was one of the boy who had set the house of Tara Chand on fire. 35. Smt. Sunita (PW41) This witness has been declared hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the incident dated 21.4.2010, on identification of the accused and has denied her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW41/PX1. According to the witness her son Vijay aged 22 years had expired about a month prior to the incident and she had gone to her father's house where she came to know that some incident of arson had taken place in the village but she is unable to tell who had put the houses on fire and what had happened. He is a resident of village Mirchpur and is the son of Dhoop Singh (PW39). He is not an eye witness to the incident dated 19.4.2010 and came to know of the incident after Veer Bhan was brought back in an injured condition and therefore his testimony to the extent of what transpired thereafter only would be admissible in
Page No. 440
36.
Vicky (PW42)
evidence. He has deposed as under: 1. That Veer Bhan who sustained serious injuries had to be hospitalized first at Hansi and thereafter at Hissar. 2. That on 20.04.2010 some persons from the panchyat comprising of 'J' community went to the Hissar hospital and requested Karan Singh and Veer Bhan not to get the FIR registered and said that they would get the matters compromised and in the evening Veer Bhan was also brought back from the hospital and Karan Singh had already come back to his house before that. 3. That in the evening of 20.04.2010 there was an atmosphere of fear in the village since a large number of boys from the 'J' community had gathered and the 'B' of the village were afraid, apprehending that they might attack and they all from the 'B' community remained alert and awake during the night. 4. That in the morning of 21.04.2010 at about 8 AM Rajender S/o Pale was passing through the main gali in his boogie while he was going to his house then he had some verbal altercation with some boys of the 'B' community but he was not there. 5. That he (Rajender S/o Pale) ran from that place raising alarm choorya ne mar diya, choorya ne mar diya. 6. That he (Rajender S/o Pale) went to the main Chaupal of the 'J' community and collected large number of boys from where all these boys came towards 'B' houses duly armed with dandas, gandases, stones and when they came to their houses there was a quarrel between them and 'B' (apas mein jhagra hua). 7. That after some time all these boys ran away back towards the houses belonging to the 'J' community. 8. That Gulab Singh, Chowkidar was coming from the gali and was crossing from the gali of Rajender S/o Pale when he (Gulab Singh) was stopped by Rajender S/o Pale and Rishi S/o Satbir and beaten with dandas after which Gulab Singh came towards houses of persons belonging to 'B' community and informed them that he was injured on his knees and legs and was beaten with dandas. 9. That thereafter these boys from the 'J' community called more persons and boys belonging to the 'J' community from out side areas (out side the village) and about 1000-1500 persons from the 'J' community gathered at the 'J' Chaupal from where they came to
the 'B' Basti and were armed with lathies, gandases, stones, oil cans and petrol. 10. That while these boys were still coming from Chaupal side, some persons from the village from the 'J' community came to them and told them to gather at their Chaupal for a settlement and while they were at the Chaupal these 'J' boys who were coming from the Chaupal in the meanwhile started burning houses of persons from the 'B' community. 11. That they started pelting stones on them while they were still standing in the main gali. 12. That the persons from the 'J' community surrounded their basti from all the four sides and burnt the house of Tara Chand, Sube Singh, Chander Singh, his own house, the house of Gulab Singh and all three sons of Gulab Singh and burnt about 20-25 houses and they ('B') were surrounded from all the four sides and it became difficult for them to save their lives and they did not know whether to save themselves, or their children, or what to do. 13. That his father Dhoop Singh was unwell as he was suffering from respiratory problem and was alone at their house and his mother and two nephews were also at home and when he saw what was happening he ran back to his house apprehending danger to the lives of his family members and at that time these boys were in the process of setting the house of Chander on fire which was on the corner of the main gali. 14. That he informed his father to move out in view of the prevailing circumstances but since his condition was serious he could not move and therefore in order to save his other family members his mother and two nephews escaped from the back side of the house whereas he himself remained in the house with his ailing father who could not move. 15. That they were having four shops and had shut the main gates but these boys came there and while he and his father were hiding inside the house behind the shops, he saw that the gates of their shops were broken and a large number of boys jumped inside and started setting the shops on fire. 16. That he could see Ramphal S/o Prithvi, Sanjay S/o Daya Nand, Pardeep S/o Jaiveer, Sonu S/o Wakil, Pardeep S/o Suresh, Satyawan S/o Rajender, Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand, Bobbal S/o Tek Ram who were sprinkling oil on the walls of their shop and setting it
on fire along with many other boys. 17. That when these boys jumped and came inside his father pleaded to them with folded hands and asked them what was their fault on which Ramphal hit his father with a lathi on his arm and Sanjay S/o Daya Nand hit his father with a lathi on his legs on which the arm of his father was fractured and he received injuries and the accused Sanjay then shouted to the others Vicky ko dundo kare hai while he was hiding inside the house on which his father fell down and while these boys were still searching for him, his father shouted to him from outside to run away as these boys would otherwise kill him and on getting an opportunity he escaped by jumping from the terrace. 18. That two or three of these boys saw him and also followed him but he managed to escape and while his house was set on fire and was burning, he saw two to three police persons watching the same and these boys were also exhorting and shouting choora ne aag lage do, dheda ne aag lago de. 19. That they burnt their houses and many of these boys were dancing naked on the streets which he saw when he climbed on the roof in order to save himself and out of them he could recognize Sumeet S/o Satyawan, Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar. 20. That when the police came at about 1-1:30 PM while the houses were still on fire and he had come back to his house to search for his father, he found Sanjay S/o Amar Lal on the back side of his house standing with a danda in his hand shouting koi choora marya ya nahi. 21. That his uncle Jaiveer had entered the house from the back side and saved his father and removed him to his grandfather's house. 22. That an ambulance came to the village and his father Dhoop Singh was removed to the hospital along with Tara and his daughter Suman who were burnt to death but he did not accompany him since there were large number of other persons who were also to be removed to the hospital. 23. That in the month of January that is on 19.01.2011 when there was a 'J' agitation after the persons from the 'J' community sat on the railway tracks protesting, one vehicle was brought to the village Mirchpur with a public announcement system and five to six boys sitting in the said vehicle were making an announcement that they would ensure that their
brothers who are in judicial custody are set free even if 50 more persons have to die and this announcement was made on two occasions since this gari/ vehicle took the round of the village twice and it was in the afternoon that the police had seized this vehicle. 24. That persons belonging to the 'B' community felt scared and started leaving the village on account of the same and he and his family also left the village and ever since they were staying at Hissar, at the Tanwar Farm House. 25. That he did not receive any injuries but his family was given compensation for their house which was burnt and initially they were given Rs.1 lac and Rs.15 thousand and thereafter again they received Rs.1 lac. 26. That police made inquires from him and also recorded his statement on one or two occasions. 27. That he has identified the accused Sonu S/o Dalbir, Pardeep S/o Jaiveer, Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand, Pawan S/o Hoshiayar Singh, Sandeep S/o Chander, Sanjay S/o Daya Nand, Dharambir @ Illa S/o Mahi Chand, Pawan S/o Ram Mehar, Daya Kishan S/o Ajeet, Balwan S/o Inder, Pardeep S/o Satbir, Rupesh S/o Tek Ram, Kuldeep S/o Balbir, Parveen S/o Jagdev, Sunil S/o Daya Nand, Jasbir S/o Raja Ram, Jitender S/o Satbir, Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar, Sanjay S/o Amar Lal, Karam Pal S/o Satbir, Pardeep S/o Balwan, Jagdish S/o Lehna Ram, Ajeet S/o Sukhbir, Kuldeep S/o Om Parkash, Sonu S/o Ramesh, Rishi S/o Satbir, Bobbal S/o Tek Ram, Joginder Singh S/o Inder Singh, Jugal S/o Hawa Singh, Ramphal S/o Prithvi, Roshan S/o Ram Swaroop, Manbir S/o Zile Singh, Deepak S/o Krishan, Satyawan S/o Rajender, Jagdish S/o Barru Ram, Sumeet S/o Satyawan, Tinku S/o Sewa Singh, Rajender S/o Pale, Pardeep S/o Suresh, Baljeet S/o Inder and also the accused Sandeep S/o Chander, Rajesh S/o Tek Ram, Hitender S/o Satbir, Kuldeep S/o Ram Mehar, Sanjay S/o Amar Lal, Karam Pal S/o Satbir, Kuldeep S/o Om Parkash, Sonu S/o Ramesh, Jogal S/o Hawa Singh, Roshan S/o Ram Swaroop, Satyawan S/o Rajender, Jagdev S/o Lehna Jagdish S/o Barru, Pardeep S/o Satbir, as the boys who were having dandas in their hands and were hitting persons from 'B' community and also indulging into tor phor and damage to property of the 'B'. 28. That he has specifically identified the accused Baljeet S/o Inder as the boy who was having jellie in his
hand and was running after the members of 'B' community and was hitting with the same; Sumeet S/o Satyawan as the boy who was dancing naked on the roof; Ajeet S/o Sukhbir as the person who had come to call Veer Bhan and Karan Singh on 19.04.2010 and said that Ajeet was present in the crowd indulging into stone pelting having gandases in his hand; Pardeep S/o Satbir, Jasbir S/o Raja Ram as the persons who had entered into his shop committed looting of the articles in his shop and damaged the property; accused Pawan S/o Hoshiyar Singh, Balwan S/o Inder, Parveen S/o Jagdev, Karam Pal S/o Satbir, Sonu S/o Ramesh, as the persons who were indulging into stone pelting and exhorting by using caste abuses and accused Deepak S/o Kishan as the person who was having a oil container in his hand and setting the houses on fire. 37. Dilbagh (PW43) He is a resident of village Mirchpur and is the brother of Sanjay (PW44) and son of Gulab Singh (PW48). He is not an eye witness to the incident dated 19.4.2010 and has deposed on the basis of hearsay. He has not supported his statement made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C Ex.PW43/PX1 to the extent of the names of many of the accused. I may further observe that this witness had also filed an affidavit and made a statement before the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Iqbal Singh (Retd.) Commission of Inquiry (Mirchpur), Haryana wherein he had stated that he could not identify the assailants. In this regard the provisions of Section 6 of the Commission of Inquiry Act provide that the statement of a statement cannot be used to contradict him therefore under these circumstances, the statement made by Dilbagh before the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Iqbal Singh (Retd.) Commission of Inquiry (Mirchpur), Haryana cannot be used for contradicting him under Section 162 Cr.P.C. However, the conduct of the witness can always be looked into by the Court to determine the credibility and truthfulness of the witness including the manner in which he conducted himself before the Commission. With regard to the incident dated 21.4.2010 he has deposed on the following aspects: 1. That on 21.4.2010 at about 11-11:30 AM he was in the village when he saw that in the main gali a large number of persons from the 'J' community got together duly armed with stones many of whom were
Page No. 445
dancing naked. 2. That they (persons belonging to 'J' community) started pelting stones towards the houses belonging to the 'B' community and started raising a shor sharaba and surrounded the 'B' Mohalla from all the four sides after which they started burning the houses belonging to the members of 'B' community by hurling caste abuses saying jala do dheda ne and they burnt about 18 houses. 3. That he along with his children and other persons from 'B' community gathered in the middle of the mohalla to save themselves and his house was towards the outer side and was totally burnt and all his property was burnt in the said arson. 4. That Tara Chand and his daughter Suman lost their lives when their house was burnt and he had seen two to three boys carrying the oil can who had come towards his house and sat it on fire but he he does not recollect their names and can identify them by faces but not by name. 5. That he did not receive any injuries but he had got compensation for lost of his property to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- from the government. 6. That he has identified the accused Karamvir S/o Tara Chand as the person who was indulging into stone pelting; accused Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand as the boy who had broken the door of his house and set it on fire; accused Kulwinder S/o Shri Ram Mehar as the person who was quarreling and was indulging into stone pelting; accused Rishi S/o Satbir who had beaten and hit his father with the lathies; accused Rajender S/o Pale as the person who along with Rishi had hit his father with a lathi and accused Ramphal S/o Prithvi as the boy who was setting the houses on fire and had followed him on the roof with a gandases. 7. That he appeared before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Iqbal Singh (Retd.) Commission of Inquiry (Mirchpur), Haryana on 21.1.2011 and had made a statement before the said Commission but has deposed that the version given by him before this court is correct. 38. Sanjay (PW44) He is a resident of village Mirchpur and is the brother of Dilbagh (PW43) and son of Gulab Singh (PW48). He is not an eye witness to the incident dated 19.4.2010 and has deposed on the basis of hearsay.
Page No. 446
I may further observe that this witness had also filed an affidavit and made a statement before the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Iqbal Singh (Retd.) Commission of Inquiry (Mirchpur), Haryana wherein he had stated that he could not identify the assailants. In this regard the provisions of Section 6 of the Commission of Inquiry Act provide that the statement of a statement cannot be used to contradict him therefore under these circumstances, the statement made by Sanjay before the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Iqbal Singh (Retd.) Commission of Inquiry (Mirchpur), Haryana cannot be used for contradicting him under Section 162 Cr.P.C. However, the conduct of the witness can always be looked into by the Court in the background of these proceedings to determine the credibility and truthfulness of the witness. In respect of the incident dated20.4.2010 and 21.4.2010 he has deposed as under: 1. That on 20.04.2010 there was a meeting amongst the persons from the 'J' community in the village and they decided that they would do mar pitai with the 'B'. 2. That on 21.04.2010 at about 9 AM he had gone for doing some work in the house of one Brahmin of the village and while he was working, he came to know that his father Gulab Singh was injured and on receipt of this information he immediately came to his house which is situated in the 'B' Basti towards the kacchi sarak. 3. That he saw his father lying on a khat/charpai and he had been beaten on his arms, knees and back with lathies and he could see the injuries. 4. That outside there was a lot of hue and cry/ halla on the main gali where a large number of persons from the 'J' community numbering about 300-400 were standing in groups and were shouting maro, jala do,. 5. That they (persons from the 'J' community) were abusing using names of maa and bebe and they came from the front side and started pelting stones and burning houses belonging to the members of 'B' community. 6. That about 18-19 houses belonging to the members of 'B' community were burnt by them. 7. That his small children were inside his house at the time when his house was set on fire and they were hiding under the bed when the house was set on fire and after the rioters went away on setting fire to the house they ran out to save themselves.
8. That he came to know that Tara Chand and his daughter Suman both belonging to 'B' community lost their lives when their house were set on fire. 9. That police came after about two hours and he had seen a large number of these persons who had been indulging into rioting, arson, looting and beating and he could identify them by faces. 10. That his wife had sustained injuries in the stone pelting but her medical had not been conducted since they were very much perplexed at the time of the incident. 11. That he had received a compensation to the tune of Rs.1,12,000/- for the damage to his property caused on account of fire. 12. That on 21.04.2010 the police had come to the village and interrogated him and also recorded his statement wherein he had given the names of large number of boys whom he had seen and recognized as assailants during the incident. 13. That he has identified the accused Dharambir @ Illa S/o Mahi Chand as the person who was indulging into stone pelting and beating by dandas; accused Rishi S/o Satbir as the person who was indulging into stone pelting and beating with dandas; accused Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar as the person who was carrying a oil can and sprinkling on his house; accused Ram Phal S/o Prithvi Singh as the person who was sprinkling oil and was setting his house on fire; accused Pardeep S/o Satbir as the person who was carrying a gandases and had damaged his container of anaj/grains with the same; accused Dalbir @ Bobbal S/o Tek Ram who was the root cause of all the dispute and had damaged his property inside the house and thereafter set the house on fire; accused Rajender S/o Pale as the person who had set his house and other houses on fire and had also beaten his father and accused Monu S/o Dr. Suresh as the boy who was indulging into stone pelting and was having jellies in his hand and was indulging into rioting and arson. 14. That he had appeared before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Iqbal Singh (Retd.) Commission of Inquiry (Mirchpur), Haryana and had made a statement before the said Commission wherein he had told the Hon'ble Commission that he was making a statement without pressure or coercion and states that whatever he has now told the court is correct.
39
Manoj (PW45)
He is a resident of village Mirchpur. He is not an eye witness to what actually happened in front of the house of Karan Singh on 19.4.2010 and came to know of the incident after Veer Bhan and Karan Singh were injured and they told him what had happened. However, Karan Singh (DW13) himself not having supported the version given by Manoj and Veer Bhan not been examined by the prosecution being hostile the testimony of Manoj is inadmissible with regard to the initial incident. In respect of the incidents dated 20.4.2010 and 21.4.2010 he has deposed as under: 1. That on 19.4.2010 Veer Bhan and Karan Singh were beaten and there was stone pelting in the area and then both Veer Bhan and Karan Singh were taken to hospital at Hansi. 2. That on 20.04.2010 the panchayat of the village intervened and tried to settle the disputes. 3. That on 21.04.2010 at about 10 AM there was a rolla danga and then patharbajiand around 250-300 boys belonging to the 'J' community came to their ('B') basti in the main gali. 4. That they (persons from the 'J' community) were carrying jellies, gandases and started pelting stones and there was marapiti while 20-25 policemen from Haryana Police were standing there and the stone pelting continued for a long time and thereafter these boys started burning houses. 5. That first his house was burnt by these boys of the 'J' community and amongst the boys he saw Rajender S/o Pale, Satyawan and his son. 6. That his children were inside the house but they manage to escape from the house and fled towards the basti. 7. That they (persons from the 'J' community) also burnt the house of Satyawan, his brother Rajender, Suresh, Sube Singh, Tara Chand, Mahender, Gulaba, Dilbagh, Sanjay, Chander, Ramphal, Pappu, Jagpal @ Pale, Kuldeep S/o Raja Ram, Dhoopa and Sanjay S/o Bane Singh all 'B'. 8. That a large number of persons had received injuries in the stone pelting and Tara Chand and his daughter Suman lost their lives when their houses were burnt. 9. That their properties were damaged and looted but many of them managed to escape by going towards the middle of the basti. 10. That apart from the above boys whom he had seen at his house, he had also seen Kulwinder, Pawan, Daya,
Page No. 449
Jogal amongst many other boys whom he can identify by faces but whose names he does not recollect. 11. That he did not receive any injuries but he had got compensation from the government to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- for damages to his property. 12. That the stone pelting, arson and looting continued till about 1:00 PM and the police came thereafter when many of the houses had already got burnt down and as many as two to three buses of police came and started apprehending the assailants but who started fleeing the village. 13. That the police came to him and also made inquiries when he told them the details of what ever damages had been done to his property and he had got his statement recorded with the police on the same day i.e. 21.04.2010 but thereafter he was never called or asked about the same. 14. That his statement was recorded by the police on 21.4.2010 wherein he had told the police that Bobal @ Langra, S/o Tek Ram, Ramphal S/o Prithvi, Daya S/o Jeet Singh, Satyawan S/o Tara Chand had come armed with lathies, to the 'B' Basti and indulged into stone throwing and causing injuries to the persons from the 'B' community with lathies and Rajender and Bobal @ Langra had sprinkled kerosene oil on his house. 15. That he had given the name of Sumeet S/o Satta who had come to his house and it was Sumeet S/o Satta and Satta S/o Karan Singh who had set on fire the motorcycle belonging to Sunil S/o Brij Bhan 'B' who was his brother-in-law. 16. That in the court he has identified the accused Amit S/o Satyawan as the person who was indulging into arson and burning of houses; accused Sumeet S/o Satyawan as the person who had set his house on fire; accused Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar as the person who broke the door of his house and entered the same and damaged his property and conducted loot mar; accused Ramphal S/o Prithvi as the person who had set his house on fire and also broke the motorcycle of his brother-in-law and burnt the same; accused Dharamvir @ Bobal S/o Tek Ram as the person who was present along with the other boys when his house was set on fire; accused Pawan S/o Ram Mehar as the person who is his neighbour who was present at the spot but did not stop the others from setting his house on fire and Pawan sprinkled
kerosene oil on his house; accused Satyawan S/o Karan Singh as the person who was having a gandases in his hand and damaged his petties almirahs and other property; accused Daya S/o Ajeet as the person who was present along with the other to set his house on fire; accused Rajender S/o Pale as the main accused at whose instance the entire incident had taken place and who was in front of the crowd and leading them while others were following him while the houses were set on fire. 17. He has also identified the accused Rishi S/o Satbir, Dalbir S/o Tara Chand, Satish S/o Randhir Singh, Pawan S/o Rajbir, Deepak S/o Krishan Kumar, Baljeet S/o Inder, Karamvir S/o Tara Chand, Pardeep S/o Suresh, Pardeep S/o Satbir, Kuldeep S/o Om Parkash, Roshan S/o Ram Swaroop, Jugal S/o Hawa Singh, Sanjay S/o Daya Nand and Karampal S/o Satbir as the boys who were a part of the crowd and were indulging into stone pelting, arson and burning of other houses in the 'B' basti. 40. Rajesh (PW46) He is a resident of village Mirchpur. He is not an eye witness to the incidents dated 19.4.2010 and 20.4.2010 and has deposed on the basis of hearsay. He has admitted the incident dated 21.4.2010 and his statement made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW46/PX1 but has turned hostile on the identity of all the accused except Rajender S/o Pale and Ramphal. He has deposed on the following aspects: 1. That on 21.4.2010 while he was in the fields he came to know from his wife who came with the roties to the fields that there was a jhagra in the village and she told him that a large number of persons had gathered and there was a jhagra between the members of 'B' and 'J' community and there was mara mari with roras and bricks being thrown. 2. That on hearing the same he came back to the village found that there was fire in the village to a number of houses and thor phor had happened. 3. That he found that some persons were carrying ent/bricks, gandases, jellies and these boys numbering about 500-600 were all from the 'J' community and were pelting stones in the houses of the members of 'B' community and setting them on fire. 4. That on seeing this he climbed on the roof of Veer Bhan's house to save himself from where he saw the
Page No. 451
5.
6.
7.
8. 9.
aggressors and he could see Ramphal and the son of Pale (Rajender) from the roof but other boys he could not identify. That thereafter he also went to his house where his paralytic mother who was partially blind was lying and he saw that there was tora phori done at his house and his mother told him that the aggressors were trying to enter the house after breaking the gate but his mother pleaded to them and therefore the boys spared the house from burning but committed tora phori. That thereafter the police came at about 12:00 1:00 PM and the aggressors ran away and he had received brick injury on his foot and after five to six days his medical was also got conducted That the houses of Mahender, Rajender, Manoj, Tara, Gulaba, Sanjay, Pale and Dhoopa were burnt wherein Tara and his daughter Suman were burnt to death and the properties were destroyed in the fire. That after the police came to the village they had also made inquiries from him and he had given his statement to the police. That the police interrogated him on 21.04.2010 and also recorded his statement and he was also interrogated on 26.04.2010 but he is not sure if his statement was also recorded and what statement was recorded.
41.
Satyawan (PW47) He is a resident of village Mirchpur. He claims that he came to know of the incident dated 19.4.2010 after Veer Bhan and Karan Singh were brought back in an injured condition. Therefore he is not a witness to what what actually transpired before the same and has deposed on the basis of hearsay. According to him, it is Ramesh S/o Mange Ram who had shifted Karan Singh and Veer Bhan to Jindal Hospital Hissar. I may further observe that this witness has for the first time in the Court come up with a new story of a 'J' Panchayat meeting in the village on 20.4.2010 and deciding that the matters should be compromised, an aspect which does not find mention in his earlier statement to the police Ex.PW47/PX1 nor any corroboration from any other source and therefore being a total improvement is liable to be ignored. He further claims himself to be an eye witness to the incident dated 21.4.2010 and has deposed as under:
Page No. 452
1. That on 19.4.2010 there was a dispute when Karan Singh and Veer Bhan were both beaten while they (persons belonging to 'B' community) were standing in the main gali and came to know of the same when they heard a hue and cry and saved Karan Singh and Veer Bhan and brought them back. 2. That Veer Bhan had sustained a lot of injuries and was unconscious at that time but Karan Singh was still conscious though he also sustained injuries and they immediately shifted them to the hospital. 3. That first they were taken to Narnaund hospital but since the doctors refer him to a bigger hospital they were then taken to government hospital Hissar by Ramesh S/o Mange Ram, since Veer Bhan was more serious he was then shifted to Jindal Hospital, Hissar. 4. That on 20.04.2010 the 'J' Panchayat met in the village and it was decided that the matter should be compromised in the village and on account of the above Veer Bhan was brought back from the hospital after getting him discharged and Karan Singh also came back with him. 5. That on 21.04.2010 at about 7:00 AM the panchayat of the village came to the house of Veer Bhan and asked him to compromise the dispute to which Veer Bhan agreed and while the panchayat members were still sitting at the house of Veer Bhan, Gulab Singh the chowkidar of the village who had gone to collect milk and lassi from the village, was beaten by Rajender S/o Pale and other boys of the 'J' community who had started gathering in the village in large number. 6. That Gulab Singh some how manage to come back to the 'B' Basti and told the persons residing in the 'B' Basti as to what had happened with him on which they ('B') also got together and made a call to the Narnaund police station and informed them and also requested the SHO to come to the spot as he was apprehending the matters could get aggravated. 7. That the SHO first sent four to five police persons in the village but in the meanwhile at about 9 AM large number of persons from the 'J' community gathered and came towards the 'B' Basti and initially they were about 100-150 persons but later on the numbers swelled to about 300-400. 8. That he (Satyawan) again called up the SHO from his mobile and told him that the matter would going out of hand and that a large number of boys from the 'J'
community had gathered and had come to the 'B' Mohalla and requested the SHO to come to the village personally. 9. That the SHO Inspector Vinod Kajal then came to the village along with one gypsy and then he along with the officials went to boys belonging to 'J' community. 10. That after some time he (Inspector Vinod Kajal) came back and told them that there would be no problem as he has already advised these boys and and also asked them ('B') to collect at the 'B' Chaupal so that he could get a compromise affected between them. 11. That on this they all i.e. males of the village belonging to the 'B' community went to the 'B' Chaupal but in the meanwhile these persons who had collected in the village belonging to the 'J' community surrounded the 'B' Mohalla and they heard the cries of their ladies informing them that the mohalla had been surrounded by the members of 'J' community. 12. That they (members of 'B' community) all ran from the Chaupal and found that the entire mohalla had been surrounded by these persons from the 'J' community who were throwing stones. 13. That while he was coming out from the Chaupal he told the SHO SHO sahab ye kya kara diya on which the SHO told him mein kya karo bhai. 14. That he further told the SHO apne to hame marva diya on which the SHO told him mein ke karo, jessi bhaga jata ho to bhag ley. 15. That they (members of 'B' community) also pleaded with the SHO and the other police officials to save them but they all started running away from the village from the kacha rasta going towards Rakhi village and the SHO said jab mera hi bachna muskil hai to tumhe kya bachau and he also ran away from the village. 16. That in order to save themselves they also started throwing stones and there was stone pelting from both the sides after which the boys from 'J' community started setting the houses belonging to the members of 'B' community. 17. That they (persons from the 'J' community) set fire to the house of Sanjay S/o Satpal situated on the main road and since he had climbed to the roof of Jaswant in order to save himself from where he saw the incident. 18. That thereafter they (persons from the 'J' community) went to the house of Tara Chand where Tara Chand
and his daughter Suman lost their lives in the fire and in the meanwhile the smoke filled the galies and came to the place where he was standing i.e. on the roof of the house of Jaswant due to which reason he came down and went inside his house to save his small children. 19. That from his telephone he called the SP Hissar Sh. Subhash Yadav and told him about the incident and also told him that 'B' Mohalla had been surrounded by the members of 'J' community and they were setting the houses of the 'B' on fire and he should save them. 20. That SP Hissar promised to come to the spot and help them and Sh. Subash Yadav came to the spot at about 12:30-12:45 PM but by that time the boys from 'J' community had inflicted injuries to large number of persons with the help of jellies, lathies etc. and also indulged into loot pat, arson/ burning of houses belonging to the members of 'B' community and some of these boys also started dancing naked by removing their clothes. 21. That when SP Sh. Subhash Yadav come to the spot about 14-15 persons of 'B' community including his family members were standing on the roof of the house of Chander which was a two storied house which had been put on fire and there was fire on the ground floor with smoke going to the top floor. 22. That it was SP Sh. Subhash Yadav who saved these persons or else they would all have been charred to death and a large number of police men also came along with SP Hissar who apprehended a large number of these boys at the spot itself who were assailants and were moving out in the village along with jellies and gandases. 23. That after the police came to the spot they all came out from house and found that large number of houses were set on fire and fire brigade had also come to the spot to drowse the same. 24. That he had seen Rajender S/o Pale, Ram Phal @ Petla, Bobal @ Langra when they had set the houses of Sanjay and Tara Chand on fire. 25. That the police had interrogated him on the same day i.e. 21.04.2010 but thereafter the said interrogation continued for number of days and DSP Hansi used to come to the village and also took his statement on number of occasions.
Page No. 455
26. That he was aware that his statement was being recorded but he used to say something and police recorded something else. 27. That his house was also damaged on account of the tor phor done by these boys but they all escaped unhurt and he had received a compensation to the tune of Rs.15,000/- on one occasion and Rs.10,000/on another occasion. 28. He has identified the accused Rajender S/o Pale, Bobal @ Langra S/o Teka and Ramphal @ Petla S/o Prithvi as the persons who had set the houses of Sanjay and Tara Chand on fire. I may observe that material improvements have been made by the witness while deposing before the court and previously the witness had never told the police about being present at the time of incident dated 19.4.2010. He has also come up with an altogether new story with regard to the conduct of the accused Vinod Kajal (the then SHO Police Station Narnaund) which does not find corroboration from the other evidence on record. 42. Gulaba (PW48) He is a resident of village Mirchpur and the village Chowkidar. He is the father of Dilbagh (PW43) and Sanjay (PW44). He is not aware of the incident dated 19.4.2010 and has deposed only in respect of the incident dated 21.4.2010 as under: 1. That on 21.4.2010 at about 8.00AM he was coming back to his house in the village and on one hand he was having his walking stick and in the other hand he was carrying the lassi. 2. That he saw that wife of Satbir (a member of 'J' community) was having an oil can (container) in her hand, when he went ahead he found an oil Peepi (container) in the hand of wife of Kapoora and when he came ahead and reached the house of Rajender S/o Pale he found Rajender S/o Pale, Karampal S/o Satbir, Ramphal S/o Prithvi along with 10-15 other boys who were standing there. 3. That Rajender S/o Pale caught hold of his collar, Karampal snatched his Lathi/ walking stick and hit him on his back and when he fell down Ramphal hit him on his head and at that time they were unarmed. 4. That he was lifted from there by persons from the Mohalla and taken to his house and put on a cot/ charpai and after about one one and a half hours of his coming back to his house, he heard the cries of Phook do dedhan ne, Chooraya ne phoonk do.
Page No. 456
5. That his house is on the main road and the number of persons could be 400 to 500 and even more came and started setting the houses belonging to the members of 'B' community on fire. 6. That the boys from the village were all from the 'J' community and a large number of other outsiders had also been called by them from colleges etc. and they suddenly came and started setting the houses belonging to the members of 'B' community on fire and they came to his house and burnt the same. 7. That all his household articles were burnt and his wife who was in the house at that time got injured on her head on account of stone pelting as she was in the house and she thereafter in order to save his grand children ran away with the children and went to the other house of his cousin brother in the neighbourhood. 8. That the medical of his wife was not conducted since she was taken by his daughter to her house at village Dablain, Tehsil-Narvana, after the incident. 9. That the house of Tara was burnt where he and his daughter Suman lost their lives and house of Chander, Rajmal, Ramphal, Jagpal, Dhupa were also burnt and these boys also indulged into arson, rioting, dancing naked after removing their clothes, Tor-phor. 10. That he had seen these boys carrying gandases, iron rods, jellies, rodas (stones and bricks) which they were throwing at the 'B'. 11. That when his house was burnt there was also looting and his Rs.20,000/- cash which was kept in the house could not be found in the house and he also could not find his two gold rings and three tabeez. 12. That he was taken to the hospital by an ambulance on 21.4.2010 itself and his medical was conducted vide MLR Ex.PW48/A. First they went to Narnaund Hospital and then referred to Hissar Hospital. 13. That the witness has identified the accused Karampal S/o Satbir, Rishi S/o Satbir, Rajender S/o Pale, Daya S/o Ajit, Dharambir @ Illa S/o Mai Chand, Baljeet S/o Inder, Ramphal S/o Prithi Singh, Bobal @ Langra S/o Teka and has also identified accused Pradeep S/o Satbir, Balwan S/o Inder, Manbir S/o Jile Singh, Sunil S/o Daya Nand, Nasib S/o Prem Singh by pointing towards them as the persons who were indulging into arson, burning of houses, stone throwing and rioting.
I may observe that this witness Gulab Singh does not depose anywhere regarding his sons Dilbagh and Sanjay being present with him at the time of the incident or having accompanied him to the hospital. Further, his testimony that he received injuries on his head does not find due corroboration from his MLR Ex.PW48/A. 43. Pradeep (PW49) He is a resident of village Mirchpur and is the son of deceased Tara Chand and Smt. Kamla (PW50) and step brother of Amar Lal who has been examined as CW1 and the brother of the deceased Suman. At the time of his deposition in the court he was working as a Clerk in the SDM Office, Hissar which job was given by the government after the incident when his father and sister were burnt alive and prior to this he was studying in the first year at government college Jind. He has a family comprising of his mother and three brothers out of whom one brother is married. He claims himself to be the witness of incident dated 19.4.2010, 20.4.2010 and 21.4.2010 and has deposed as under: 1. That at about five to six PM on 20.04.2010 there was a dispute in the village between Yogesh S/o Jai Pal (a member of 'B' community) nephew of Karan Singh and Rajender S/o Pale (members of 'J' community) on a she-dog belonging to Karan Singh. 2. That Rajender S/o Pale, Karam Pal S/o Satbir, Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar, Rishi S/o Satbir along with other 'J' boys had a hata pai with Yogesh on this dispute which arose on the barking of the she-dog of Karan Singh and after some time they went away and persons from the 'J' community had a meeting in the village that they would teach a lesson to the members of 'B' community/ chooras. 3. That on 20.04.2010 Karan Singh and Veer Bhan went to the persons from the 'J' community to settle and compromise the dispute and seek pardon for whatever had happened when they were beaten and had to be taken to the hospital. 4. That thereafter all the persons from the 'J' community got together and had a meeting and after the meeting collected at water tank where they consumed alcohol and thereafter passed through the main gali of the village while abusing the 'B' while they were in an intoxicated condition. 5. That on 21.04.2010 at about 8AM Gulab Singh chowkidar who is 'B' was inflicted injuries by the
Page No. 458
boys from the 'J' community when he was passing through the village and at about 8-9AM large number of boys and persons belonging to the 'J' community collected and came towards the 'B' Basti and attacked the 'B' and started pelting stones on them. 6. That in order to ward off the attack some of the 'B' also related by throwing stones and while the stone pelting was going on the police from PS Narnaund also came to the spot. 7. That SHO Vinod Kajal who had come with the police force was mixed up with the persons of 'J' community and he saw him going towards these boys from the 'J' community who had collected in the village and talking to them and thereafter came towards the 'B' and told them to collect at the Chaupal stating that he would get a compromise effected in respect of the dispute between both the communities. 8. That on this some persons from the 'B' community went to the Chaupal but in the meanwhile the persons from the 'J' community surrounded the 'B' Basti from all the four sides and attacked the 'B' with jellies, gandases and lathies and also started burning the houses of the members of 'B' community while simultaneously indulging into stone pelting and came towards his house and set his house on fire. 9. That his sister Suman who was handicapped from one leg was inside the house and his father was also inside the house. 10. That on hearing the noise his father Tara Chand and sister Suman came out but these assailants from the 'J' community who were also accompanied by the ladies of the 'J' community sprinkled petrol on them and set them on fire and pushed them inside the house. 11. That at that time he was standing in the gali near the house and when he tried to save them stones were also thrown on him and he did not go forward to save them fearing for his life. 12. That after some time the ladies of the 'J' community gone away and his father who was still alive at that time rushed to the house of their neighbour Dewan Singh S/o Muthra in a burnt condition while his sister was burnt to death inside their house only. 13. That some of these boys from the 'J' community also removed their clothes and started dancing naked in front of ladies belonging to the 'B' who were standing in the gali and abused them.
14. That SP Hissar Subash Yadav came to the village while the stone pelting, arson, rioting was still going on in the village and on seeing him these boys from the 'J' community ran away and the fire brigade also came to the village to drowse the fire. 15. That the houses of Satyawan, Rajender, Manoj, Bani Singh, Chander, Jagpal, Dhoop Singh and many more houses were put on fire by the persons from the 'J' community. 16. That amongst the assailants he had seen Rajender S/o Pale, Pawan S/o Ram Mehar, Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar, Vipin S/o Joginder, Suresh S/o Balbir, Vikas S/o Suresh, Monu S/o Suresh, Dharambir S/o Tara, Gagar S/o Tara, Rishi S/o Satbir, Karampal S/o Satbir, Ramphal @ Petla, Rinku S/o Daya Nand, Pardeep S/o Jaiveer, Monu @ Sumeet S/o Daya Nand, Sumeet and Amit both sons of Satyawan, Vikas S/o Sunehra and many more boys. 17. That there were some ladies i.e. wife of Pale, wife of Pappu and wife of Pappu who were also involved with them in the incident and come to his house and set it on fire and were part of the crowd who were indulging into arson and rioting. 18. That all the articles lying in their house were completely burnt including his Motor Bike which was in the bethak and his sister's handicapped rickshaw. 19. That the assailants also committed looth pat in their house and all the other houses which they were burning and nothing remained in their house. 20. That he had lost his senses on the date of the incident having lost his father and sister and he was interrogated after the date of the incident and he told the police the details. 21. That police had come to the village on 21.04.2010 and taken away the burnt motorcycle Ex.P-2 and the handicapped rickshaw of his sister Ex.P-3 (including ashes) which was seized vide memos Ex.PW49/A and Ex.PW49/B which is the seizure memo of the rickshaw and ashes bears his signatures at point A respectively. 22. That he did not make any statement Ex.PW49/PX1 dated 21.4.2010 and Ex.PW49/PX2 dated 27.07.2010 but admits having made a statement to the police on 27.06.2010 which is Ex.PW49/PX3. 23. He has identified the accused Sonu S/o Ramesh; accused Pardeep S/o Jagbir, Pardeep S/o Suresh Kumar, Dharamvir @ Dalbir S/o Dalip Singh,
Jogender S/o Inder Singh, Naveen @ Tina S/o Rajbir; Rajender S/o Pale, Pawan S/o Ram Mehar, Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar, Vipin S/o Joginder, Suresh S/o Balbir, Vikas S/o Suresh, Monu S/o Suresh, Dharambir S/o Tara, Gagar S/o Tara, Rishi S/o Satbir, Karampal S/o Satbir, Ramphal @ Petla, Rinku S/o Daya Nand, Pardeep S/o Jaiveer, Monu @ Sumeet S/o Daya Nand, Sumeet and Amit both sons of Satyawan, Vikas S/o Sunehra. 44 Kamla Devi (PW50) She is a resident of village Mirchpur and is the wife of Late Tara Chand and the mother of Pradeep (PW49) and step mother of Amar Lal (CW1). She claims herself to be an eye witness to the incident dated 21.4.2010. I may observe that Kamla in her testimony has made a casual reference to the incident dated 19.4.2010 but it is evident from her cross-examination that she is not an eye witness to the incident and states that she had been informed about it by her deceased daughter Suman and this being so her testimony to that extent is inadmissible in evidence being hearsay. With regard to the incident dated 21.4.2010 she has deposed as under: 1. That on the date next to the day when the dispute on the she-dog had taken place Gulaba Chowkidar had gone to take lassi from the village in the morning when he was surrounded by these boys (persons from the 'J' community) and injured. 2. That on the next day thereafter Rajender S/o Pale called the other boys from the 'J' community and collected stones and bricks and started pelting stones on the houses of the members of 'B' community and were shouting choore dheda ne maro. 3. That after some time police from Police Station Narnaund came to the village and the SHO Vinod Kajal also came and they pleaded with him to save them. 4. That he (SHO Vinod Kajal) took their ('B') children to the Chaupal and all the ladies were left behind and she saw him and she pleaded with him to save her husband and children but he told the 'J' boys dheda ne ek ghante mein aag laga do. 5. That their men folk had been taken to the Chaupal by that time and the boys started setting their houses on fire and son of Sishu (a member of 'J' community) instigated the other 'J' boys to burn the houses belonging to the members of 'B' community on fire by
Page No. 461
saying na daro choorya sae aag laga do and he further said jo kar sansi neikale tha nu choorya ne neikal do. 6. That the Narnaund police did not help them and her house was set on fire due to which her husband Tara Chand and her daughter Suman were burnt to death. 7. That her husband was beaten with dandas outside the house and kerosene was poured on him and after setting him on fire he was pushed inside the house by Pawan, Kulwinder, Hoshiyara Rajender and SHO Kajal. 8. That Bharpai the wife of Pale and along with the wife of Pappu whose name she is not aware but she can recognize by face, sprinkled kerosene on her daughter Suman, set her on fire and pushed her inside the house. 9. That they (persons from he 'J' community) also looted their property and out of fear she was hiding behind the small boundary wall of the house of her husband's nephew (son of her jeth) namely Chander. 10. That she had seen the entire incident from there as it was just adjoining her house and these 'J' boys were armed with jellies, gandases, lathies etc and many of them thereafter removed their clothes and started dancing naked before their girls. 11. That she remember having seeing Dr. Suresh and both his sons in the crowd committing rioting, arson, looting etc. 12. That her sons have been given a government job after the incident but she is not aware of the compensation. 13. That on the date of incident i.e. 21.04.2010 and had interrogated her but she does not recollect if they had recorded her statement which is Ex.PW50/PX1 and states that she had given only three to four names as stated herein above to the police but she could identify the assailants as they were all residents of village Mirchpur and she had told the police that there were more than 300-400 persons in her gali alone. 14. That she had also taken the name of elder son of Tek Ram whom she had seen with kerosene oil container (tel ki pipi). 15. That she had also taken the name of Dharamvir S/o Tara Chand, Pawan S/o Ram Mehar, Karambir @ Ghagar S/o Tara Chand, Balwan S/o Dharamvir, son of Hoshiyara who is called Handa in the village.
Page No. 462
16. That both the daughter-in-laws of Hoshiyara were also present along with oil container and she had further taken the name of son of Kapoora and Bharpal. 17. That her husband had kept Rs. 4 lacs for the marriage of her daughter along with jewellery in her house which had been looted. 18. That she has pointed out towards the accused Ajit S/o Sh. Sukhbir, Ajit S/o Sh. Dalip, Amit S/o Sh. Satyawan, Anil @ Neela S/o Sh. Prem Singh, Anup S/o Sh. Dharma, Balwan S/o Sh. Inder Singh, Balwan S/o Sh. Jeela, Bobal @ Langra S/o Sh. Tek Ram, Dalbir S/o Sh. Dalip Singh, Dalbir S/o Sh. Tara,Daya Singh S/o Sh. Ajeet Singh, Deepak @ Sonu S/o Sh. Krishan @ Pappu, Dharambir S/o Sh. Tara Chand, Dharambir @ Illa S/o Sh. Mai Chand, Dinesh S/o Sh. Prem, Hoshiar Singh S/o Sh. Mangal, Jagdish @ Hathi S/o Sh. Baru Ram, Jagdish @ Jangla S/o Sh. Lahna Ram, Jaibir S/o Sh. Balbir, Jaibir S/o Sh. Manphool, Jasbir S/o Sh. Ishwar, Jasbir @ Lillu S/o Sh. Raja Ram, Jitender S/o Sh. Satbir, Jogal @ Doger S/o Sh. Hawa Singh, Joginder @ Jogar S/o Sh. Bhim Singh, Jokhar @ Joginder S/o Sh. Inder Singh, Jora Singh S/o Sh. Balwan, Karambir S/o Sh. Tara Chand, Karampal S/o Sh. Satbir, Krishan S/o Sh. Karan Singh, Krishan Kr. @ Dhaula S/o Sh. Satyawan, Kuldeep @ Midda S/o Sh. Balbir, Kulvinder S/o Sh. Ram Mahar, Manbir S/o Sh. Jile Singh, Monu S/o Sh. Suresh, Nasib S/o Sh. Prem Singh, Naveen @ Tina S/o Sh. Rajbir, Pappu S/o Sh. Pyara, Pardeep S/o Sh. Ramphal, Pardeep S/o Sh. Balwan, Pawan S/o Sh. Hoshiar Singh, Pawan S/o Sh. Rajbir, Pawan S/o Sh. Ram Mahar, Pawan @ Tinku S/o Sh. Sewa Ram, Pradeep S/o Sh. Satbir, Pradeep S/o Sh. Jagbir, Pradeep S/o Sh. Suresh, Praveen S/o Sh. Jagdev, Rajbir @ Nanha S/o Sh. Mai Chand, Rajesh S/o Sh. Dupa, Rajinder S/o Sh. Pali, Rajinder S/o Sh. Balu, Rajinder S/o Sh. Dhup Singh, Rajinder Kr. S/o Sh. Sadhu Ram, Rajpal S/o Sh. Sheo Chand, Rakesh @ Kala S/o Sh. Satyawan, Ramesh S/o Sh. Karan Singh, Ramesh @ Mahesh S/o Sh.Dalip Singh, Ramphal S/o Sh. Prithvi, Rishi S/o Sh. Satbir, Roshan Lal S/o Sh. Ram Swarup, Sandeep S/o Sh. Mahinder Singh, Sandeep S/o Sh. RajKumar, Sandeep S/o Sh. Rattan Singh, Sandeep @ Langra S/o Sh. Chander, Sanjay @ Sanjeep S/o
Sh. Amar Lal, Satta Singh S/o Sh. Karan Singh, Sattu Singh @ Satish S/o Sh. Randhir Master, Satyawan S/o Sh. Tara Chand, Satyawan S/o Sh. Rajinder, Sheela @ Sunil S/o Sh. Bira, Sonu @ Monu S/o Sh. Ramesh, Sunil S/o Sh. Daya Nand, Sunil @ Sonu S/o Sh. Jaibir, Surender S/o Sh. Jagda, Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Balbir, Vedpal S/o Sh. Dayanand, Vedpal @ Bedoo S/o Sh. Karan Singh, Vijender @ Handa S/o Sh. Hoshiar Singh, Vikash S/o Sh. Sunehera @ Sumer Singh, Vinod S/o Sh. Ram Niwas, Vinod S/o Sh. Jagdeep and Viren S/o Sh. Yashpal as the persons who were indulging into rioting, arson, looting and burning of houses. She has also identified the accused Vinod Kajal/ SHO before whom she had gone and pleaded. MEDICAL WITNESSES/ EVIDENCE 45. Dr. Sandeep Kumar (PW51) He has proved the MLR of Gulaba Ram S/o Jai Lal dated 21.4.2010 prepared at 9:30 PM which is Ex.PW48/A showing simple injuries on his body details of which are given on the MLR. Thereafter he informed the SHO on the same day with regard to the admission of Gulaba Ram in the hospital vide Ex.PW51/A. This witness has proved the Medical Examination sheet of Tara Chand S/o Swaroop Singh dated 21.04.2010 which is Ex.PW52/A which ME was prepared by Dr. Dinesh and the bed head ticket of Tara Chand which is Ex.PW52/B. He has also proved that on 22.04.2010 he had carried out the postmortem on the dead body of Tara Chand S/o Swaroop Singh vide report Ex.PW52/C and he found the following injuries:1. Superficial to deep burns were present all over the body except both axillary region and inguinopubic region. Red line of demarcation was present between healthy and burnt tissue. 2. Membrance of brain were oedematous and congested. 3. In thorax both lungs were congested and oedematous. On cut sections, both the lungs were containing soot particles and were congested and were oedematous. 4. Whole body organs were congested. This witness has further proved that the cause of death was due to extensive burns and its complications which were antemortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature which opinion is mentioned at point mark X of the report.
Page No. 464
46.
Dr. Puneet (PW52)
He has also proved the postmortem report of the deceased Suman which is Ex.PW52/D which shows that all clothing were semi-burnt, soiled with soot particles and mud. Further and the following injuries present on her body:1. Superficial to deep burns were present all over the body except pubic region right upper thigh region. Whole body was oedematious. Burn fractures were present in both hands over distal phalanges. Red line of demarcation was present between burnt and unburnt area. 2. Trachea was congested and contained secretions with a mixture of black soot particles. Both lungs were congested. On cut sections soot particles oozed out. He has proved that the cause of death was due to shock as a result of extensive burns which were antemortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature which opinion has been given at point mark Y. He has also proved the MLRs of the following injured: 1. MLR of the injured Sunita which is Ex.PW52/D1 which does not show any injury as she was only kept under observation. 2. MLR of Sunita which is Ex.PW21/A who had been referred for X-Ray. 3. The MLR of Aman which is Ex.PW22/A showing simple injuries. 4. MLR Sandeep S/o Satpal which is Ex.PW28/A who had received simple injuries. 5. MLR of Sunil S/o Ved which is Ex.PW13/A showing that he had received simple injuries. (This is the MLR which PW13 falsely showed as her own). 6. MLR of Angoori W/o Dalip which is Ex.PW52/E which MLR does not show any injuries. 7. MLR of Suman W/o Raghubir which is Ex.PW52/F which MLR shows simple injuries. 8. MLR of Pooja D/o Surta which is Ex.PW19/A showing simple injuries. 9. MLR of Isro W/o Pasha Ram which is Ex.PW16/A showing simple injuries (no marks of injury but opined simple injury). 10. MLR of Krishna W/o Raghubir which is Ex.PW15/A showing simple injury (no marks of injury but opined simple injury).
Page No. 465
47.
Dr. Subhash Arora This witness has proved the following MLRs of the (PW53) injured: Ex.PW34/A MLR of Raj Kumar S/o Kapoora showing as many as five injuries (all simple) and was kept under observation MLR of Dhoop Singh S/o Ratan Singh showing three injuries (all simple) and the patient was kept under observation. Injuries were later opined as grievous. MLR of Sanjay S/o Satpal showing three injuries and the patient was kept under observation MLR of Abhishek S/o Sanjay showing one injury of simple nature MLR of Sandeep @ Sanjip S/o Raj Kumar showing two injuries, one of which was opined as simple and for the other injury he was kept under observation Information regarding admission of Raj Kumar and Dhoop Singh to the SHO PS Narnaund
Ex.PW29/A
Ex.PW53/A
Ex.PW53/B Ex.PW53/C
Ex.PW53/D
48.
Dr. Vishal Goel (PW56)
This witness has proved the following MLRs of the injured/ victims: Ex.PW25/A Ex.PW23/A Ex.PW56/A Ex.PW18/A Ex.PW20/A Ex.PW56/B Ex.PW56/C MLR of Ashok S/o Maha Singh showing two injuries both of which were Simple MLR of Satbir S/o Bhale Ram showing two injuries both of which were Simple MLR of Ajmer Singh S/o Balbir showing three injuries all of which were Simple MLR of Chanderpati W/o Sajna showing two injuries both of which were Simple MLR of Kelawati W/o Jai Singh showing three injuries all of which were Simple MLR of Satbir S/o Risala showing only one injury which was Simple MLR of injured Sunita W/o Surta showing only one injury which was Simple blunt
49.
Dr. Arun Kumar
He has proved that on 21.04.2010 he examined one
Page No. 466
(PW58)
Mahajan S/o Satpal who was brought by the police from village Mirchpur for examination since he was having injuries on his forehead. He has proved having examined him vide MLC which is Ex.PW38/A and that he observed three injuries two of which were blunt and the third one was lacerated. The witness has also proved that the opinion was reserved because he had head received injury and there was nasal bleeding and the patient was referred on the next day to General Hospital, Hissar for further management where it was found that he did not suffer any bony injury and no opinion was given by the Doctor. This witness has proved the following MLRs: Ex.PW25/A Ex.PW59/A MLR of Sushil S/o Surta showing that there were no signs of injury MLR of Rajbir S/o Baje Singh showing one simple injury which was of five to ten days old MLR of Sanjay S/o Raja Ram showing that there was no apparent sign of injury MLR of Ravi S/o Mahender showing there were two partially healed wounds of seven to fourteen days old which were simple in nature MLR of Raju S/o Pasha Ram showing that there was no apparent sign of injury MLR of Monica D/o Ramesh showing two injuries 5 to 10 days old which were simple in nature MLR of Bindu D/o Suresh showing one injury 5 to 10 days old which was simple in nature MLR of Raj Mal S/o Poker showing two injuries 5 to 10 days old which were simple in nature MLR of Priya D/o Jagdish showing one injury 5 to 10 days old which was simple in nature MLR of Rani D/o Sanjay showing that she did not have any injury nor she complained of any injury MLR of Karambir S/o Balbir showing one
Page No. 467
50.
Dr. Pale Ram (PW59)
Ex.PW36/A Ex.PW27/A
Ex.PW26/A Ex.PW59/B
Ex.PW59/C
Ex.PW59/D
Ex.PW59/E
Ex.PW33/A
Ex.PW59/F
injury 5 to 10 days old which was simple in nature Ex.PW59/G MLR of Pali W/o Jagdish showing one injury 5 to 10 days old which was simple in nature MLR of Nawab S/o Laxman showing one injury 1 to 3 days old which was simple in nature MLR of Sheela W/o Subhash showing that she was not suffering any injury nor she complained of anything MLR of Jai Prakash S/o Tek Ram showing one injury 5 to 10 days old which was simple in nature MLR of Karan Singh S/o Tek Ram showing two injuries 5 to 10 days old which were simple in nature MLR of Naseem S/o Karan Singh showing one injury 5 to 10 days old which was simple in nature MLR of Santra W/o Satyawan showing that she did not have any injury nor she made any complaint MLR of Yogesh S/o Jai Prakash showing that he did not have any apparent injury but he was complaining of pain in the right index finger. MLR of Poonam D/o Chander Pala showing one injury 5 to 10 days old which was simple in nature MLR of Jagbir S/o Nawab showing one injury 5 to 10 days old which was simple in nature MLR of Ashok S/o Jagdish showing that he was having no injury and had no complaint MLR of Ram Phal S/o Risala showing that he was not having any injuries nor any complaint MLR of Kamlesh W/o Jai Prakash
Page No. 468
Ex.PW59/H
Ex.PW32/A
Ex.PW59/I
Ex.PW59/J
Ex.PW59/K
Ex.PW30/A
Ex.PW59/M
Ex.PW59/N
Ex.PW59/O
Ex.PW59/P
Ex.PW8/A
Ex.PW59/Q
showing that she was having no injury nor she was having any complaint Ex.PW37/A MLR of Meena Kumar S/o Satpal showing that he was having no injury nor he was having any complaint MLR of Radha W/o Sandeep showing that she was having no injury nor she was having any complaint MLR of Madho W/o Tek Ram showing that he having no injury nor he was having any complaint MLR of Murti W/o Karan Singh showing that he was having no injury nor he was having any complaint
Ex.PW59/R
Ex.PW59/S
Ex.PW59/T
51.
Dr. T.P. Sharma This witness has proved the X-ray reports of the injured (PW63) as under: Ex.PW63/A X-Ray report of Raj Kumar S/o Kapoora showing that he did not suffer from any bony injury X-Ray report of Dhoop Singh S/o Rattan Singh showing that he had suffered fracture of left humerus X-Ray report of Gulaba Ram S/o Jai Lal showing no bony injury
Ex.PW63/B
Ex.PW63/C
Ex.PW 63/D X-Ray report of Mahajan S/o Satpal showing no bony injury 52 Dr. Dinesh Kumar This witness is the Medical Officer who was posted at (PW68) General Hospital, Hissar on 21.4.2010 and has deposed as under: 1. That he was on duty when Tara Chand S/o Swaroopa had been brought to the hospital with alleged history of burns sustained at Village Mirchpur, Narnaund. 2. That he medically examined the patient Tara Chand who was found with superficial to deep burns all over the body with skin denuded at multiple places, bulla filled with water and burns sparing the perineal area. A red line was present between the burnt and unburnt area. 3. That the burnt area correspondent to 99% and the injured was kept under observation for surgeon's opinion. 4. That he has proved the MLR of Tara Chand which is
Page No. 469
already Ex.PW52/A bearing his signatures at point A and endorsement encircled at point B showing that when Tara Chand was brought to the hospital, he was conscious and oriented. 5. That he has also proved the bed ticket which is already Ex.PW52/B bearing his signatures at point A and also proved the portion written by him at points encircled X. 6. That at 2:30 PM the patient Tara Chand was examined and he was unconscious and not oriented. His Blood Pressure and pulse were not recordable and at that time he was given IV fluids. 7. That his duty was till 8PM but at 6 PM the patient was referred to PGIMS Rohtak. 8. That the Judicial Magistrate had come to the hospital and recorded the statement of the patient at about 5:15-5:30 PM and at that time the patient was conscious. 9. That before the statement of the witness was recorded, the fitness was given by him on Ex.PW55/A at point already mark B bearing his signatures at point D and also at point encircled C bearing his signatures at point E. 10. That the said fitness was given by him before and after recording of the statement by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate. 11. That the police had also recorded the statement of the patient and prior to the same he had given the fitness to the police on the application of SI Bane Singh already Ex.PW64/B at point already encircled B bearing his signatures at point X. 12. That he has identified his signatures on the statement of the patient recorded by the police which is already Ex.PW64/C at point D and has proved the police information already Ex.PW64/A bearing his signatures at point X1 and endorsement encircled at point X2. 13. That Tara Chand was shifted from the hospital only at 6PM and not prior to that. POLICE/ OFFICIAL WITNESSES 53. 54. 55 ASI Raghubir Singh (PW1) EASI Manohar Lal (PW2) This witness has proved having taken the pullandas to FSL Madhuban This witness has proved having delivered the envelopes to senior officers.
ASI Miyan Singh He has proved having taken 109 photographs from a
Page No. 470
(PW3)
digital camera which photographs are Ex.PW3/A-1 to Ex.PW3/A-109 and also having prepared the CD of the said photographs which CD is Ex.PW3/B. Here I may observe that there is another set of 88 photographs which is a part of the video clippings and would bear the same exhibit number. He has proved having prepared the video CD of the postmortem and the cremation which is Ex.PW4/A and the seizure memo of the said CD which is Ex.PW4/B. This witness has proved having prepared the Video CD of the spot of incident which is Ex.PW5/A which was seized vide memo Ex.PW4/B. He is a formal witness who has proved having made the entry no.510 and 511 in register no.19 copy of which is Ex.PW6/A. He is the Draftsman who went to village Mirchpur on 27.04.2010, 28.04.2010, 29.04.2010 and on 30.04.2010 and after examining the spot prepared the scaled site plans of the places where the houses were burnt and properties were damaged which site plans are Ex.PW54/A1 to Ex.PW54/A33. He had also prepared the consolidated scaled site plan of the village along with the marginal notes which is Ex.PW54/B.
56
Ct. Devi Lal (PW4) Ct. Anil Kumar (PW5) EASI Bir Bhan (PW6) HC Subhash Chand (PW54)
57.
58.
59.
60.
Sh. Harish Goyal, He is the Judicial Magistrate, First Class who had J.M.1st Class, recorded the Dying Declaration of the deceased Tara Ambala (PW55) Chand. He has proved the following aspects: 1. That on 21.4.2010 Investigating Officer ESI Bani Singh had moved an application before him for getting the statement of Tara Chand recorded which application of ESI Bani Singh is Ex.PW55/A. 2. That thereafter he recorded the statement of Tara Chand which is Ex.PW55/B. He has also proved the fitness certificate of Dr. Dinesh Kumar Prajapat in respect of the patient Tara Chand which he had given before he had proceeded to record his statement is present at point Mark B and the certificate of fitness given by him after he completed the recording of Tara Chand is present at point Mark C. Thereafter he made his endorsement and gave his certificate which is Ex.PW55/C.
61.
SI Manjeet Singh This witness had joined investigations along with Sh.
Page No. 471
(PW57)
Abhay Singh, DSP Hansi and has deposed on the following aspects: 1. That on the directions of DSP Sh. Abhay Singh, he had lifted the ashes from five houses of Sanjay, Sunita, Dilbagh, Gulab @ Gulaba and Chander Bhan and sealed the same and handed over to DSP Sh. Abhay Singh who seized the same vide memo Ex.PW57/A. 2. That on 23.4.2010 DSP Sh. Abhay Singh arrested three assailants namely Viren, Dinesh and Naresh (not an accused before this court) and interrogated them in his presence, the disclosure statement of Viren S/o Yashpal is Ex.PW57/B and of Dinesh S/o Prem Singh is Ex.PW57/C.
62.
ASI Sadhu Ram This witness had joined investigations along with Sh. (PW60) Abhay Singh, DSP Hansi and has proved that he had lifted the ashes from two houses pointed out by him which had been completely burnt i.e. the houses of Rajesh and Dhoop Singh and sealed the same and the DSP Sh. Abhay Singh seized the same vide memo Ex.PW57/A. ASI Satbir Singh (PW61) He is also a formal witness who has proved that on the directions of DSP Sh. Abhay Singh, he had lifted the ashes from six houses pointed out by him which had been completely burnt i.e. the houses of Sube Singh, Satyawan, Manoj, Rajesh, Sanjay and Rajender and sealed the same which were seized by DSP Sh. Abhay Singh vide memo Ex.PW57/A. This witness had also joined investigations along with Sh. Abhay Singh, DSP Hansi and has proved having lifted the ashes from two houses pointed out by him which had been completely burnt i.e. the houses of Ramphal and Ram Niwas both sons of Raj Mal (belonging to 'B' community) and sealed the same which were seized by DSP Sh. Abhay Singh vide memo Ex.PW57/A. He is the initial investigating officer and the has proved the following documents: Ex.PW64/A Ex.PW64/B Ex.PW64/C Ex.PW64/D Ex.PW64/E Rukka Application for getting the statement of the injured Tara Chand recorded Statement of Tara Chand Death rukka prepared by Dr. Sunil Kumar Inquest papers of Tara Chand
Page No. 472
63
64
ASI Om Prakash (PW62)
65.
ASI Bani Singh (PW64)
Ex.PW64/E1 Form 25 pertaining to Tara Chand Ex.PW64/E2 Dead identification statement by Amar Ex.PW64/E3 Inspection of the dead body and the inspection of the mortuary Ex.PW64/E4 Copy of FIR Ex.PW64/F Application for constituting a board to conduct the postmortem of the deceased Tara Chand Handing over of dead body handing over of Tara Chand to Amar Lal Application for recording the statements of the injured Disclosure statement of Rajender S/o Pale
Ex.PW64/G Ex.PW64/H Ex.PW64/I 66. ASI Bhim Singh (PW65)
This witness is the subsequent Investigating Officer who has proved the following documents: Ex.PW65/A Inquest proceedings deceased Suman in respect of
Ex.PW65/A1 Form 25 pertaining to Suman Ex.PW65/A2 Statement of identification of dead body of deceased Suman by Amar Lal Ex.PW65/A3 Statement of identification of dead body of deceased Suman by Suresh Ex.PW65/B Ex.PW65/C Seizure of sealed pullandas handed over by the doctor Application for constituting a medical board for conducting the postmortem of Suman
67.
DSP Sh.Abhay Singh (PW66)
He is the Investigating Officer who has proved the various investigation proceedings conducted by him. Apart from the documents proved by other witnesses, he has proved the following documents: Ex.PW66/A Ex.PW66/B Statement of Karan Singh Rukka
Ex.PW66/C1 Site plan of the burnt and the damaged to houses Ex.PW66/C33 Ex.PW66/D1 Arrest memos of the accused Dharambir to PW66/D18 S/o Tara Chand, Pawan S/o Ram Mehar,
Karam Bir S/o Tara Chand, Joginder @ Jogar S/o Bhim Singh, Dalbir S/o Dalip Singh, Balwan S/o Inder, Satyawan S/o Tara Chand, Jai Bir S/o Manphool , Ajeet Singh S/o Sukhbir, Balwan S/o Dharam Singh, Roshan S/o Ram Swaroop, Pradeep S/o Ram Phal, Vijender S/o Hoshiar Singh, Hoshiar Singh S/o Mangal Singh, Ajeet S/o Dalip Singh, Rajinder S/o Dhupa, Surender Kumar S/o Jagde Ram and Rajbir S/o Mai Chand Ex.PW66/E Joint disclosure statement of the accused Dharam Bir, Pawan, Karambir, Joginder, Dalbir, Balwan S/o Inder, Satyawan, Jaibir, Ajeet Singh, Balwan S/o Dharam Singh, Roshan, Pradeep S/o Ram Phal, Vijender, Hoshiar Singh, Ajeet S/o Dalip Singh, Rajinder S/o Dhupa and Surender Kumar S/o Jagde Ram
Ex.PW66/E- Arrest memos of accused Rajbir S/o Mai 18 to Chand, Dinesh and Viren PW66/E-20 Ex.PW66/F Ex.PW66/G Ex.PW66/ CX-1 68. DSP Tula (PW67) Application handed over to him by Karan Singh Seizure memo of the documents State of Sushil under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
Ram He is the investigating officer who has proved the following documents: Ex.PW67/A1 to Ex.PW67/A 78 Arrest memos of accused Dharambir S/o Mahi Chand, Deepak S/o Krishan, Insp. Vinod Kumar Kajal, Kuldeep, Rajender S/o Belu Ram, Jagdish S/o Baru Ram, Suresh S/o Balbir, Rajender S/o Sadhu Ram, Ramphal S/o Prithvi Singh, Daya S/o Ajeet, Pardeep S/o Balwan Rishi S/o Satbir, Jasbir S/o Ishwar Karampal S/o Satbir, Sunil Kumar @ Soni S/o Jaiveer, Sumit S/o Satyawan, Rajender S/o Pale, Jogender S/o Inder, Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand, Jaiveer S/o Balbir, Ramesh @ Mahesha S/o Dalip, Rupesh S/o Tek
Page No. 474
Ram, Bobal @ Langra S/o Tek Ram, Jagdish S/o Nehna, Pawan @ Tinku S/o Sewa Singh, Balwan S/o Jai Lal, Pardeep S/o Suresh, Satish S/o Randhir, Pawan S/o Hoshiyar Singh, Jora S/o Balwan, Ved Pal S/o Daya Nand, Kuldeep S/o Om Parkash, Jogal @ Dogar S/o Hawa Singh, Naseeb S/o Prem Singh, Pardeep S/o Jaiveer Singh, Pardeep S/o Satbir, Shamsher S/o Rajender, Rakesh @ Meenu S/o Ramesh, Jitender S/o Satbir, Charan Singh S/o Sadhu Ram, Parveen S/o Jagdev, Sandeep S/o Ram Swaroop, Sandeep S/o Ratan Singh, Vikas S/o Sunehra, Ved Pal S/o Karan Singh, Kala @ Rajesh S/o Satyawan, Pawan S/o Rajbir, Sandeep S/o Raj Kumar, Monu S/o Suresh Kumar, Amit S/o Satyawan, Ramesh S/o Karan Singh, Sata S/o Karan, Dalbir S/o Tara Chand, Pardeep S/o Jagbir, Sanjay @ Sanjeev S/o Amar Lal, Sunil @ Shila S/o Bhira, Naveen @ Tina S/o Rajbir, Vinod S/o Jagdev, Manbir S/o Zile Singh, Pappu S/o Pyare Lal, Rakesh @ Nikli S/o Amar Lal , Vipin S/o Jogender, Sandeep S/o Mahender, Sandeep S/o Jogender, Satyawan S/o Rajender, Sunil S/o Daya Nand, Radhey S/o Dhoopa, Baljeet S/o Inder, Dhaula S/o Satyawan, Anoop S/o Dharma, Sandeep S/o Chander, Lilu @ Jasbir S/o Raja, Krishan S/o Karan Singh, Ameer Singh S/o Tara Chand, Anil S/o Prem Singh, Sonu S/o Dalbir, Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar, Sanjay @ Handa S/o Daya Nand Ex.PW67/ CX1 Ex.PW67/ CX2 Statement of Gulab Singh under section 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of Chanderwati under section 161 Cr.P.C.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
Page No. 475
The details of the various witnesses examined by the defence and the nature of their deposition is briefly reflected in a tabulated form for the sake of convenience as under:
Sr. Name of the witness No. 1. HC Ram Singh (DW 1) Details of deposition This witness has proved the application of Vinod Kumar, the then SHO, PS Narnaund for sanction of 10 days casual leave w.e.f. 09.04.2010 to 19.04.2010, photocopy of which is Ex.DW1/A and the grant of sanction to prosecute the then SHO Insp. Vinod Kajal under Section 4 of the SC/ST (POA) Act which is Ex.DW1/B
2.
Ct. Ravinder (DW2) This witness has proved the log book showing the entries made with regard to the calls sent and received on the wireless set issued to the police station which remained with the SHO, which is Ex.DW2/A. Sh. Surender Kumar, This witness has proved the attendance record dated Assistant, DC Office, 27.07.2010 of Pradeep Kumar S/o Tara Chand Hissar, Haryana employed as clerk which record is Ex.DW3/A. (DW3) Baru Ram (DW4), from Sub Tehsil Uklana He has proved the attendance of Amar Lal S/o Tara Chand dated 27.07.2010 which record is Ex.DW4/A showing that Amar Lal was present in the office from 9 AM to 5 PM (the day his supplementary statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer.
3.
4.
5.
HC Lachman Singh This witness has proved the DD registers for the period (DW5) 16.03.2010 till 10.04.2010 and from 11.04.2010 till 02.05.2010 pertaining to the PS Narnaund and the DD No.34 which is Ex.DW5/A; DD No.13 which is Ex.DW5/B; DD record of 19.04.2010 which is Ex.DW5/C collectively running into 06 number of pages; DD record of 20.04.2010 which is Ex.DW5/D collectively running into 08 number of pages; DD record of 21.04.2010 which is Ex.DW5/E collectively running into 08 number of pages and the entire DD record of 22.04.2010 which is Ex.DW5/F collectively running into 08 number of pages. Sh. Virender (DW6) This witness is a resident of village Mirchpur belonging to the 'B' community. He has orally deposed regarding the present of accused Pawan and Kulwinder in their fields throughout the day on 21.4.2010 where he was
Page No. 476
6.
working. He has deposed on the following aspects: 1. That on 21.04.2010, he was with Pawan and Kulwinder (accused before this court) in their fields for harvesting of wheat along with his younger brother Kulvinder @ Kullu @ Surender. 2. That he came to know about the quarrel which took place in the village in the evening at 5'O Clock when they all i.e. he himself, his brother Kullu, Pawan and Kulvinder came back to their village. 3. That they were all together in the fields since 4.004.15 am and remained there till evening. 4. That at about 3.00-3.15 PM they came to know that something had happened in the village because their lunch had not reached the fields which is normally served by 12-00-1.00 noon. 5. That the lunch reached at about 3.00-3.30PM and they that is he, Pawan and Kulwinder were working in the fields for harvesting of wheat throughout this time. 7. Sajjna (DW7) This witness is also a resident of village Mirchpur and belong to 'B' community. He was a cited witness of the prosecution but never examined by the prosecution. He has appeared in the court as a witness of defence and has deposed about the boys belonging to 'B' community being the first aggressors' and the dispute getting aggravated thereafter on the rumor being spread in the village that the boys belonging to 'B' community had killed a boy belonging to 'J' community namely Rajender. He has deposed on the following lines: 1. That on 21.04.2010 he was present in the village for the entire day and his house is situated in the 'B' Basti near the main gali. 2. That on that day at about 8.00-9.00 AM he was standing outside his house towards the main gali when he saw Rajender S/o Satpal and one more boy coming from the fields side towards the village and while they were passing through the gali some boys belonging to 'B' community stopped them and there was a Maar Pitai wherein Rajender (a member of 'J' community) and the other boy was assaulted. 3. That he saw that Rajender and other boy sustained injuries and were saved by the villagers and removed to Jind Hospital. 4. That in the meanwhile a rumor spread in the village that Rajender had been killed by the 'B' Rajender
Page No. 477
Ko balmikiyon ne maar diya. 5. That on this a large crowd collected and there was tension in the main gali and a large number of 'B' gathered towards the 'B' Mohalla whereas a large number of persons from the 'J' community gathered towards the 'J' Mohalla and there was stone pelting. 6. That this rumor also spread in the village temple where there is a Mela every Wednesday and a large number of persons from other villages also come to have Darshan of the Deity in the temple and when this rumor spread there in the Temple many outsiders who had come to the temple also came to the village and there was stone pelting and rioting. 7. That the police officials about 10-12 in number had initially come at about 9.00AM but later a large number of police officials came at about 12.00 or 1.00 Noon. 8. Shamsher Singh (DW8) This witness is the Secretary of the Jyoti Education Society which is running Jyoti Senior Secondary School at village Mirchpur. He has proved the attendance record of Rakesh S/o Satyawan who was working as a driver in the school as on 21.04.2010 showing his presence in the school throughout the day. He has placed on record the attested copy of the attendance register which is Ex.DW8/A; certified copy of the memorandum of association which is Ex.DW8/B and photocopy of the registration certificate issued by the Registrar in favour of the society which is Ex.DW8/C. He is the Principal of Vidya Vihar Sr. Sec. School, Rajpura, Jind and has proved the attendance register of the staff dated 21.04.2010 showing the presence of Sunil Dhanda S/o Jaiveer from 8.00 AM to 2.00 PM which is Ex.DW9/A, Sanjay S/o Amar Lal from 7.40AM to 12.45PM which record is Ex.DW9/B and Vinod S/o Jagdev from 7.50 AM to 12.45PM which record is Ex.DW9/C. He has also deposed regarding the accused Naseeb being present in the school from 8:00 AM to 2:00 PM on 21.4.2010. This witness is a Veterinary Surgeon posted at village Mirchpur, Hissar. He has proved the attendance record of Manbir S/o Ziley Singh who is a VLD (Veterinary Live Stock Development Assistant) in the Mirchpur Hospital on 21.04.2010 from 8.00AM to 2.00PM which attendance register is Ex.DW10/A.
9.
Dalsar Lohan (DW9)
10. Dr. Rajesh Malik (DW10)
Page No. 478
11. Jagdish (DW11)
He is a group four employee and working in the veterinary Hospital Mirchpur as peon. He has deposed that on 21.04.2010 he along with accused Manbir had gone to village Mirchpur towards the hospital side for vaccination of cattle under the National Programme of FMD and in the entire day covered the two kilometer area of the village around the hospital and vaccinated about 700 to 800 cattle. This witness is a Teacher in Rishikul Public School, Narwana Road, Jind who has proved the attendance of Rupesh S/o Tek Ram (clerk) on 21.04.2010 which is Ex.DW12/A. This witness is a resident of village Mirchpur and belong to 'B' community. He is the complainant in the present case and the FIR was registered on the basis of his complaint. Despite the aforesaid and also despite being cited as a witness, the prosecution has not examined him as their witness on the ground that he has been won over by the accused. In fact it is the accused before this court who have produced him as their witness in order to prove that the first aggression was made by the boys belonging to 'B' community after which the incident got aggravated. He has deposed on the following aspects: 1. That on 19.04.2010 he was present at his house in the evening and was having his dinner on the first floor when the she-dog of his brother Jai Prakash started barking very loudly. 2. That he came down to inquire what the matter was when he found some boys from the village some of whom were from 'J' community and others were 'B' community were quarreling with each other on account of the barking of the dog on which he separated them and went back to his house to sleep. 3. That he was on the first floor of his room when after some time when he heard the noise of a tractor passing through the gali in front of his house and its driver called out in the gali stating that large number of boys were collecting on one side and they should be dispersed least they start fighting. 4. That he along with Veer Bhan went to the place where those boys were standing but before they could reach them, suddenly those boys started throwing stones on them. 5. That it was 9'O clock in the night and it was completely dark and he could not recognized any
Page No. 479
12. Manoj Kumar (DW12)
13. Karan Singh (DW13)
one of them and both he and Veer Bhan came back. 6. That Veer Bhan sustained some injuries on his head on account of the stone pelting and he also sustained little injuries on his left side. 7. That he along with one or two other persons took Veer Bhan to Narnaund Hospital and from there where they were referred to General Hospital, Hissar and on 20.04.2010 evening Veer Bhan was got discharged from General Hospital, Hissar. 8. That he had gone to the police station on 20.04.2010 and orally informed the officer on duty about the incident and while he was standing outside Veer Bhan had gone inside the police station and when they came back to home, everything was peaceful in the village. 9. That on 21.04.2010 he was at his house throughout the day and in the morning at about 10.00-11.00AM he heard a lot of commotion in the gali and he came to know that there was stone pelting was going on outside from the sides of the members of 'J' community and also from the side of the 'B' but he did not go outside the house. 10. That police came to the village at about 1.00 PM when he came out and his signatures were taken by the police on a number of papers but he did not know what papers were got signed from him since he cannot read or write and can only sign. 11. That he did not see any of the assailants and he had also told the court at Hissar about this fact and had also made a similar statement before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Iqbal Singh (Retd.) Commission of Inquiry (Mirchpur), Haryana at Chandigarh and his affidavit in this regard is Ex.DW13/A along with his statement which is Ex.PW13/B. 14. Ramesh (DW14) This witness is a resident of village Mirchpur and belong to 'B' community. He has deposed on the following lines: 1. That on 21.04.2010 he was employed as a labour in the fields of Rajinder S/o Belu since it was harvesting season for wheat and he went to the fields in the morning at about 6 AM. 2. That apart from himself Anand (a member of 'J' community) who owns a tractor, Rajinder and his wife were also in the fields for harvesting purposes and they remained there till the evening and returned by 7 PM.
Page No. 480
3. That after he returned home he came to know about the quarrel in the village. 4. That when he returned from the fields Rajinder remained there in the fields for purposes of taking care of the harvested crop. 15. Pasha (DW15) He is a resident of the village Mirchpur and belong to 'B' community. He has deposed on the following lines: 1. That on 21.4.2010 he left the village at 7 AM and went to the fields for collecting honey and he went to the fields of Ramesh S/o Bal Kishan whose son is Sonu. 2. That he also went to the fields of Satta @ Satyawan S/o Karan Singh and also to many other fields and when he went to the field of Ramesh he saw Ramesh and his son Sonu who were harvesting wheat with the help of a tractor and there were 15-16 other labourers also working in the fields. 3. That when he went to the fields of Satta he saw Satta along with his wife and his son whose name he is not aware but identified him in the court (Sumit S/o Satyawan) 4. That the distance between the fields of Ramesh and that of Satta is hardly 2 Killas and when he left the fields of Ramesh at 11 AM Ramesh and his family including his son Sonu were still in the fields. 5. That when he left the fields at 12 noon Satta and his family including his son were still in the fields harvesting wheat. 6. That the fields of Ramesh are visible from the fields of Satta and vice-a-versa and he saw these persons in their fields from morning 7 AM to 12 noon. This witness is a resident of village Mirchpur belonging to 'B' community. I may observe that despite the fact that Ajmer was cited as witness of the prosecution, he has not been examined by the prosecution on the ground that he is a witness of repetitive facts. However, he has appeared in the court as a witness of defence and rather than supporting the prosecution case has corroborated the defence version of the incident. When his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.DW16/PX1 recorded by DSP Tula Ram on 18.5.2010 was put to him, he has denied the same and has deposed on the following aspects: 1. That on 21.4.2010 he was present at his house situated in 'B' Basti at village Mirchpur and his house is situated near the 'B' Chaupal.
Page No. 481
16
Ajmer (DW16)
2. That at about 8 AM in the morning he had gone to the shop of Pawan 'B' situated in the main gali for purchase of some items of daily use for his house and when he reached the main gali he saw that Rajinder S/o Pale and Karam Pal S/o Satbir were coming in their boogie with an iron pipe kept in the boogie which pipe is used for tubewells/pumps. 3. That when they had just crossed the shop of Pawan and went slightly ahead they were stopped by 15-20 boys belonging to 'B' community who started quarreling with Rajinder and Karam Pal over distribution of milk. 4. That he was standing and watching this from a distance when he saw the boys belonging to 'B' community assaulting Rajinder and Karam Pal who were inflicted injuries. 5. That he saw that Karam Pal manage to run away in the village towards the 'J' Mohalla shouting that Rajinder Mar Diya, Rajinder Mar Diya then he saw Dinesh S/o Prem ran to the spot to rescue Rajinder but he was hit in the eye/ temples by those 'B' boys and he was injured and started bleeding and large chunk of his skin had peeled off. 6. That thereafter Prem, father of Dinesh came to the spot in his car and took Dinesh, Rajinder and Karam Pal to the doctor. 7. That he could not identify any of the boys belonging to 'B' community who had attacked Rajinder, Dinesh and Karam Pal since they were present in large numbers and he was standing away from them but he knew that they were boys of the 'B' Basti because he could identify them as they reside in their Basti. 8. That the entire incident of quarrel when Rajinder was stopped and beaten and till such time Prem took all of them to the hospital in his car lasted for about 10-15 minutes and till such time he kept standing at the shop of Pawan from where he was seeing the incident. 9. That after Prem had taken all the boys to the hospital in his vehicle there was a rumor in the village that son of Pale had been murdered by 'B' Pale Ka Mar Diya, Pale Ka Mar Diya Balmikiyon Ne. 10. That when this rumor spread in the entire village large number of persons from all the communities gathered towards the 'B' Basti where the incident
had taken place and thinking that all these persons had come to attack them the 'B' who were residing in the main gali started throwing stones on those persons who had gathered in the gali and thereafter the situation aggravated and there was stone pelting from both the sides and this stone pelting continued for about 15-20 minutes. 11. That about 15-20 police personals came to the spot and separated the parties. 12. That on that day there was a Mela of Devi Maa at the temple situated at village Mirchpur which is on the other side of the 'B' Basti and on every Wednesday people come there in large numbers. 13. That one of the routes to the temple is from the main gali through the village and outsiders who had come to the mela in the temple started coming to the village to inquire what had happened. 14. That he went back to his house and later on he saw smoke arising from the main basti and then he saw large number of other police personals had also come to the village. 15. That the police does not make any inquiries from him on that day but later on they did make inquiries and he told them the same fact which he was telling in the court. 17 Rajesh (DW17) He is a resident of village Mirchpur belonging to the 'B' community. I may observe that this witness has a shop at the same place in the main gali where the stone pelting had commenced. He has supported the defence version of the incident and states that it was the boys belonging to 'B' community who were the first aggressors with regard to the incident dated 21.4.2010. He is running a kirana shop which is situated in the main gali and he opened his shop at 7 O'clock in the morning and close it at about 9 PM. This witness has corroborated the testimony of DW16 Ajmer in toto and has deposed as under: 1. That on 21.4.2010 he had opened his shop at 7 AM and at about 8 AM while he was sitting at his shop which is towards the beginning of the village in the 'B' Basti Main gali he saw Rajender S/o Pale and Karam Pal S/o Satbir both from their village were coming in a boogie from outside and entering the village. 2. That they (Rajender and Karam Pal) were having
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
iron pipes in the boogie which are used for handpumps and when they crossed his shop and reached about twenty meters ahead towards the village about five to six boys belonging to 'B' community stopped them and thereafter the number of such persons all from the 'B' community increased to forty to forty five and they were quarreling with Rajender who has a dairy over non supply of milk to them. That thereafter he saw them beating Rajender and Karam Pal and Rajender was injured while Karam Pal ran away towards his house situated in 'J' Mohalla and after sometime Dinesh S/o Prem Singh came to the spot to save Rajender when the said boys belonging to 'B' community also inflicted injuries on Dinesh in his eye. That he saw the father of Dinesh namely Prem who came to the spot who put Dinesh and Rajender in his car and took them away and after they were taken away somebody started saying that Rajender had been killed by 'B' Balmikiyon ne Rajender Mar Diya. That after about fifteen to twenty minutes many persons from the village started collecting at the spot of the incident in the main gali and the persons belonging to 'B' community residing in the gali thought that these persons had come to quarrel with them due to which reason they (persons from 'B' community) started pelting stones on these persons from the village who were from all community and there was retaliation when the said persons standing in the street/ gali also started throwing stones. That this whole episode continued for half an hour or forty five minutes when ten to twelve police personnel's came to the spot and tried to disperse the crowd but they could not control the crowd and on seeing this he (witness) shut down his shop and went to the roof of his house which is behind the shop since the shop is in the same premises as his house and from there he saw smoke coming from various places. That after about one and a half hours a large number of police personnel's and force came to the spot along with the Superintendent of Police Hissar and the fire brigades. That police did not make any inquiry from him nor recorded his statement.
Page No. 484
18. Suman (DW18)
She is a Multi Purpose Health Worker (Female) who was on training at General Hospital, Jind from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m on 21.4.2010. In this regard I may observe that her presence at General Hospital Jind stands duly corroborated from the testimony of Dr. Rajesh Gandhi (DW32) from General Hospital Jind and Dipender Singh (DW39) from Shri Balaji School of Nursing, Uchana Mandi. She has deposed on the following lines: 1. That on 21.4.2010 she was posted at General Hospital, Jind from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m and on that day Rajinder S/o Pale had come to GH Hospital Jind. 2. That Rajinder was known to her previously being friend of her deceased husband and she saw him in the hospital between 11.30-11.45 AM and hence she inquired how he had come to the hospital when he told her that he had sustained some injuries as there was a quarrel in the village with some boys belonging to 'B' community who had inflicted injuries upon him and on another boy who was also with him. 3. That she saw Rajinder along with two or three other persons and Rajinder had injuries on his hand and the other boy whose name she was told by him was Dinesh had injuries on his eyes. 4. That she stayed with them for sometime but then she was called by the Head nurse/sister and therefore she had to leave and she saw them, when they were present in the hospital and getting treatment from Dr. Gandhi till about 12.30 p.m. 5. That the other boy Dinesh remained admitted in the hospital since she was on duty on next day also and bandaged the injuries received by Dinesh at about 11 AM when two police officials were also with them. He is resident of village Mirchpur and is a Brahmin by caste. He has deposed on the following aspects: 1. That he resides at least one kilometer away from the area where the quarrel had taken place but his fields are adjoining the fields of Jaibir S/o Manphool. 2. That on 21.4.2010 he was at his fields from 6 AM and returned by 7.30-7.45 PM and he and Jaibir had left the village together when they went to their fields and also returned together. 3. That Jaibir was present in his fields for the entire day since he and himself were working together in
Page No. 485
19. Ram Chander (DW19)
their fields and he was helping him in harvesting of wheat in his fields. 20. Ram Niwas (DW20) This witness is a resident of the village Mirchpur and belong to 'B' community. I may observe that Ram Niwas had been cited as witness by the prosecution but was dropped having allegedly turned hostile. He has now appeared and deposed as a defence witness and has not supported the prosecution version of the incident. Rather, he has supported the defence version and has also alleged that the persons from the 'B' community were the first aggressors and the incident got aggravated. When his statement Ex.DW20/PX1 dated 21.4.2010 recorded by DSP Abhay Singh was put to him, he has denied the same and has deposed as under: 1. That on 21.4.2010 he was present in the village and at about 7 a.m. he was going to the vegetable vender to purchase vegetable for his family from the shop of Pawan 'B' situated in the main gali. 2. That he saw that Rajender S/o Pale accused and one more boy that is Karam Pal S/o Satbir were coming in a boogie from the side of the fields and entered the village. 3. That they (Rajender and Karam Pal) were carrying a pipe meant for submersible pump in the boggie and when they crossed the shop of Pawan and must have reached about hardly 20 feet he heard there was some hathapai. 4. That at that time he was purchasing vegetable and he came out of the shop of Pawan and saw some boys of the 'B' community had assaulted Rajender and the other boy (Karam Pal), then he saw that one of the boys i.e. Karam Pal ran away towards the village and started shouting Pale Ko Mar diya Balmikiyon Ne. 5. That he then saw Dinesh who is son of Jamindars (belonging to 'J' community) came to save Rajender and he was hit on his eye but he cannot tell whether it was by jellie or stone but there was injuries on his eye. 6. That more persons from the village came and brought a car and put Rajender and Dinesh in the car and took them away and after these boys were taken away large number of persons from the village came to the spot of occurrence because somebody spread a rumor that son of Pale had been killed.
Page No. 486
Pale Ko Mar Diya aur Balmiki laash nahi de rahe hai. 7. That it was because of this rumor that persons from all communities gathered and the 'B' who were residing in the vicinity thought that the villagers had come to attack them that they started pelting stones on the villagers. 8. That on that day since it was Wednesday there was Mela at the Mata Mandir and when the rumor reached the temple the public who was present in the Mela from other villages also came to the village and there was a counter attack and stone pelting was done from both the sides and after sometime he saw smoke coming from the other side of the road. 9. That at the time when the incident had happened in the morning there were only 10-12 police officials in the village but later on large number of police force alongwith the SP Sh. Subhash Yadav also came to the village along with the fire brigades. 10. That police never made inquiries from him. 21. Dharambir (DW21) He is a resident of the village Mirchpur and belong to 'B' community. I may observe that Dharambir had been cited as a witness by the prosecution but was not examined on the ground that he was a witness of repetitive facts. He has appeared to deposed as a defence facts and has supported the defence version of the incident alleging that the 'B' were the first aggressors and the incident got aggravated thereafter. When his statement Ex.DW21/PX1 dated 21.4.2010 recorded by DSP Abhay Singh was put to him, he has denied the same and has deposed as under: 1. That on 21.4.2010 he was present in the village at his house and between 7 AM8 AM when he came to know that there was some quarrel in the 'B' Basti on the other side of the Chaupal after which he reached the spot that is the main street/ gali situated in the middle near the shop of Pawan and Veerbhan. 2. That when he reached the spot he came to know that some boys from the 'B' Basti had attacked Rajender and Dinesh who had sustained injuries. 3. Thereafter he saw that two boys were being put in a vehicle/car and he was told that they were Rajender and Dinesh who were being taken to the doctor. 4. That after these boys were taken away a large number of persons from the village gathered at the
Page No. 487
spot of occurrence in the main gali because a rumor had spread in the entire village that Rajender had been killed Rajender Mar Diya, Rajender Mar Diya, Balmikiyon ne Mar Diya and it was because of this rumor that public persons from all communities gathered and the persons from 'B' community who were residing in the vicinity thought that the villagers had come to attack them that they started pelting stones on the villagers. 5. That thereafter stone pelting continued from both the sides and after about one and half hours police came at the spot and dispersed the crowd. 6. That he had seen the police at the spot only once when they came in large numbers and he came back to his house after seeing what was happening after which he does not know what transpired. 7. That the police never made inquiries from him nor recorded his statement. 22. Praveen (DW22) He is a resident of the village Mirchpur and belong to 'B' community. I may observe that Praveen had been cited as a witness by the prosecution but was not examined on the ground that he was a witness of repetitive facts. He has appeared to deposed as a defence facts and has supported the defence version of the incident alleging that the 'B' were the first aggressors and the incident had got aggravated thereafter. He has denied his statement dated 27.6.2010 recorded by DSP Tula Ram under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.DW22/PX1 and has deposed as under: 1. That on 21.4.2010 morning, he was present in the village and was sitting in the shop of Pawan situated in the main gali when he saw that Rajender S/o Pale and Karam Pal S/o Satbir (both of whom have been identified by the witness in the court) were coming in a boogie from the side of the fields and entered the village. 2. That they were carrying a pipe meant for submersible pump in their boogie and after they crossed the shop of Pawan and must have reached about hardly 30 to 40 steps ahead he saw that Rajender was stopped by about eight to nine boys who were from the 'B' Basti who were carrying lathies who thereafter started assaulting him on which Karampal ran away but Rajender got injured. 3. That he saw Dinesh S/o Prem who came to the spot
Page No. 488
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
to save Rajender but he was also beaten and hit with the Rora (stone) on his temples and these boys were abusing Rajender and threatening him because Rajender had not supplied milk to them. That Rajender owns a dairy in the main gali near 'B' Basti whereas the other dairies are situated away from the Basti and are near the bus stand which is about one and a half kilometers away from the 'B' Basti. That when Karampal was running away, some boys belonging to 'B' community also ran after him and Karampal raised an alarm in the entire village saying that Rajender had been killed by shouting that Pale ka maar diya, balmikiyan ne. That Dinesh sustained injuries on his temples and became unconscious and in the meanwhile Prem, the father of Dinesh came to the spot and removed both Rajender and Dinesh to the hospital at Jind which fact he came to know later from the persons standing there. That after these boys were taken away large number of persons from the village came to the spot of occurrence because of the rumor and gathered at the main gali and the the persons from their community ('B') who were residing in the vicinity thought that the villagers had come to attack them on which they started pelting stones on the villagers which stone pelting was done from both the sides but thereafter arson and burning of houses also started. That nobody knows who first started the incident of fire which spread and after the time one vehicle of police personnel's came to the village. However, later large number of police force came to the village. That he was present in the village in the main gali but his statement was never recorded nor any inquiry was made from him.
23. Ranbir Singh (DW23)
He is employed as Assistant in the Sugar Mill Jind and has proved the entry of Hoshiyar Singh S/o Mangal Ram who is employed as a Coolie in the Sugar Mill from 9:10 AM to 2:50 PM on 21.4.2010, which entry was made at main gate in the entry register maintained by the security guard is Ex.DW23/A. He has also identified the accused Hoshiyar Singh as the person who is employed in the Mill.
Page No. 489
24. Ram Mehar Singh (DW24)
This witness has proved the attendance record of accused Sandeep S/o Raj Kumar Roll. No. 43 who is a student of D Ed. (Diploma in Eduction) in Kinder King College of Education Ahar, Panipat Haryana on 21.4.2010 from 9:00 AM to 3:30 PM, copy of which attendance register is Ex.PW24/A. This witness has proved the attendance record of accused Pradeep S/o Jagbir who was employed as a supervisor in their company i.e. JSM Engineers, Patiala Chowk, Narwana Road, Jind from April 2010 and was posted at Base Corporation, VPO Nagali, Ochhghat, Distt. Solan, Himachal Pradesh where the construction work was going on, copy of which attendance register is Ex.DW25/A. This witness is the owner and physician of Punia Hospital and Nursing Home, Urban estate, Safidoon Bypass, Jind. He has proved the record pertaining to the medical treatment as under: Ex.DW26/A Ex.DW26/B Ex.DW26/C Ex.DW26/D Ex.DW26/E Ex.DW26/F Ex.DW26/G Prescription slip of Ajeet S/o Sukhbir Treatment slip of Ajeet S/o Sukhbir Treatment papers of Kuldeep S/o Balbir Singh Discharge summary of Kuldeep S/o Balbir Singh Treatment paper of Viren S/o Yashpal Discharge summary of Viren S/o Yashpal OPD register containing the relevant entries pertaining to accused Ajeet S/o Sukhbir, Kuldeep S/o Balbir and Viren S/o Yashpal
25. Jai Bhagwan (DW25)
26. Dr. Balbir Singh Punia (DW26)
27. Suresh (DW27)
He is the accused in the present case and has examined himself as his own witness and has deposed that he suffered the Polio attack at the age of three years, as a result of which he develop physical disability to the extent of 70%, the Medical certificate issued by CMO, Hissar dated 1.06.1989 is Ex.DW27/A. This witness is the Incharge of DM Poultry Research and Breeding Farm, Uchana Khurd, Jind and doing the business of sale of chicks to various farmers into poultry business. He has proved the sale record pertaining to the sale of chicks to Vikas S/o Sumer
Page No. 490
28. Dalbir Singh (DW28)
Singh on 21.4.2010. According to him, Vikas remained with him till 6 PM on 21.4.2010 for purposes of vaccination of chicks purchased by him. The receipt regarding the sale of the chicks on 21.4.2010 to Vikas is Ex.DW28/A. I may observe that the driver of the vehicle that is Sajjan has also been called to the court and examined as DW36. 29. Vikas S/o Sumer (DW29) He is the accused before this court and has examined himself as his own witness. He has placed on record the certificate issued by the State Bank of India, Safiddon Gate, Main Branch, Jind regarding the sanction of loan which is Ex.DW29/A. He is the accused before this court and has examined himself as his own witness. He has placed on record the certified copy of the affidavit of Sanjay S/o Gulab Singh (PW44) before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Iqbal Singh (Retd.) Commission of Inquiry (Mirchpur), Haryana, copy of which affidavit is Ex.DW30/A and copy of the statement is Ex.DW30/B. He has also placed on record the certified copy of the statement of Dilbagh Singh S/o Gulab Singh recorded by the Commission which is Ex.DW30/C. He was the Sarpanch of the village Mirchpur from the year 2005 to 2010. He has proved the grant of offering rights to Dharamvir S/o Mai Chand in the year 2007 and 2009 and has deposed as under: 1. That they have an ancient temple in the village known as Mata Phoolen Dev Mandir and the management of the temple is with the village panchayat and yearly offering rights are auctioned and the rights are then given to the person offering the highest bid. 2. That in the year 2007 and also in the year 2009 the offering rights had been given to Dharamvir S/o Mai Chand being the highest bidder and the record of the rights are maintained the Secretary Panchayat. 3. He has placed on record the copy of the patta/ lease register showing the relevant entries which are Ex.DW31/A (for the year 2007) and Ex.DW31/B (for the year 2009). This witness was posted in the Casualty General Hospital Jind from 8 AM to 2 PM on 21.4.2010 and has deposed as under:
Page No. 491
30. Rajinder S/o Satpal (DW30)
31. Ramphal (DW31)
32. Dr. Rajesh Gandhi (DW32)
1. That on 21.4.2010 he examined Dinesh S/o Prem Singh as an indoor patient, which record is Ex.DW32/A who had suffered injuries on the frontal region on account of which an opinion had been sought from the surgeon and subsequently it was reported by the surgeon that no surgical intervention was required and the patient was referred to PGIMS, Rohtak for the opinion of the eye surgeon on 22.4.2010. 2. That Dr. Kuldeep was known to him for the last twelve years as they were both posted in the same district since the year 1999. 3. That on 21.4.2010 prior to examining the patient Dinesh one person had come to him and told him that Dr. Kuldeep Singh from village Channa (Jalalpur Kalan) wanted to have a word with him and though normally he does not attend to such calls and if anybody has to call him they normally call him on his number but since Dr. Kuldeep was known to him, he attended to the call. 4. That he was told by Dr. Kuldeep that the person who had come to him was known to him and had suffered some injuries and he requested him to attend to them first. 5. That when he examined the person he found that his clothes were smeared with blood and therefore he attended to him on priority. 6. That the injuries on the accused Dinesh S/o Prem Singh correspond to the injuries on the patient whom he had treated and the accused Dinesh is the same person who was treated by him on 21.4.2010. 7. That Suman D/o Sh. Tek Ram was under training as MPHW (F) (Multi Purpose Health Worker Female) at GH, Jind on 21.4.2010, the duly attested record of her attendance is Ex.DW32/B (running into four pages). The attendance certificate issued by Nursing sister (N/S) in the Record Matron Office at the time of her joining is Ex.DW32/C. 8. I may observe that the witness Dipender Singh DW39 has also produced the corresponding record of attendance from the training institute which confirms the presence of Suman (DW18) as trainee nurse at General Hospital Jind both on 21.4.2010 and 22.4.2010. 33. Dr. Kuldeep Singh This witness was doing MD in Department of (DW33) Community Medicine from PGIMS, Rohtak and has
proved being the used of mobile connection bearing no. 9416193328 for the last 8-9 years. He has deposed as under: 1. That accused Rajinder S/o Satpal is the son of his Mausi Mrs. Bharma and is residing at village Mirchpur. 2. That on 21.4.2010 he received a call from Rajinder S/o Satpal and told him that he was present at General Hospital Jind along with a friend and they had both received injuries. 3. That Rajender further told him that there was a lot of crowd in the hospital and requested him to tell some doctor to attend to them early. 4. That he told Rajender to connect him to whichever doctor who was on duty in the emergency, pursuant to this Rajender connected him to Dr. Rajesh Gandhi and he made a request to Dr. Gandhi to attend to Rajender and his friend on priority, on which Dr. Gandhi assured him that he will do the needful. I may observe that after the examination of Dr. Kuldeep, Dr. Gandhi was recalled by the court and examined on the aspect of the telephone call made by this witness which he confirmed. In fact the oral testimony of both Dr. Gandhi (DW32) and Dr. Kuldeep (DW33) also find due corroboration from the call detail record placed before this court and proved by DW34 Pawan Singh. 34. Pawan Singh (DW34) This witness has placed on record the record pertaining to mobile no. 9812628500 and no. 9540151131 and has proved the following: 1. That Mobile No. 9812628500 is in the name of Rajinder Singh S/o Satpal Singh R/o H.No.48, Village Mirchpur, Block-2, Tehsil Narnaund, copy of the customer application form is Ex.DW34/A, election identity card is Ex.DW34/B and the call details of the customer for 21.4.2010 since 5.37 AM to 20.58 PM i.e. 8.58 PM which are Ex.DW34/C. 2. That the user was present in the same area till 10.04.56 except at one time at 9.23.18 when this location appeared to be different. 3. That thereafter the location of the user changed till 10.25.07 and was continuously changing and the entry at 9.23.18 at point X1 shows the location of the user at Jind Vita Milk Plant. 4. That entries at 10.04.57 and 10.25.07 at point X2 are of the tower situated at Rakhi, Hissar.
Page No. 493
5. That the presence of user has been shown at Jind as per the point mark X3 at point 13.07.00 during which time an outgoing call was made at the number 9416193328 duration of which call was lasted for about 59 seconds. 6. That the mobile no. 9540151131 is in the name of Sandeep Kumar S/o Mahender Singh R/o H.No.284, village Mirchpur, Tehsil Narnaund, District Hissar, Haryana, the copy of the customer application form is Ex.DW34/D, election identity card of the customer is Ex.DW34/E and the call details for 20.4.2010 and 21.4.2010 are Ex.DW34/F showing the location of the user at Gurgoan on both the days. 7. That the location of the user on 21.4.2010 was at sector 14, Gurgoan at 8.59 AM as per the entry at point encircled Y1. 8. That at 10.59 AM the location of the user has been shown to Payal Cinema, Gurgaon as per the entry at point encircled at point Y2. 9. That at 12.07 PM the location of the user has been shown at Payal Cinema, Gurgaon which is encircled point Y3. 10. That at 1.02 PM the location of the user is shown at Sector 14, Gurgaon which is encircled at point Y4. 11. That at 7.10 PM the location of the user is shown at Payal cinema, Gurgaon which is encircled at point Y5. The witness was recalled, on which he placed on record the authorization letter issued which is Ex.DW34/G and the certificate under Section 65-B of Evidence Act is Ex.DW34/H bearing his signatures at point A. 35. Om Prakash (DW35) This witness has placed on record the record pertaining to mobile no. 9416200453 in the name of SHO PS Narnaund, District Hissar, the copy of the customer application form is Ex.DW35/A and the call details record pertaining to 21.4.2010 is Ex.DW35/B. 36. Sajjan (DW36) This witness is a driver employed with DM Poultry Research and Breeding Farm, Uchana Khurd, District, Jind, on Tata 407 tempo bearing no. HR 56 0695. He has deposed that on 21.4.2010 he had made the delivery of chicks to V & V Poultry Farm, village Mirchpur from DM Poultry Research Farm vide challan ExDW28/A.
Page No. 494
37. Ranbir (DW37)
This witness a resident of village Faridpur and is known to the accused Pawan and Kulvinder both sons of Ram Mehar who is his real mama. He has deposed on the following lines: 1. That on 20.4.2010 he had gone to village Mirchpur to pick up his mother from his mama's house and stayed overnight at mama/ Ram Mehar's house. 2. That on 21.4.2010 in the morning at about 8 AM he was sitting outside the house of his mama, when he saw Rajinder S/o Satpal and Karampal S/o Satbir who are neighbours of his mama were coming in their boogie from the main gali and were having an iron pipe in the boogie. 3. That while they were coming towards 'B' Basti and reached near Vir Bhan's house, seven to eight boys belonging to 'B' community suddenly stopped the boogie and surrounded Rajinder and Karampal and started beating Rajinder with lathies and also started beating the bullock. 4. That Karampal managed to escape and in the meanwhile some other boys from the 'B' Mohalla also joined the earlier boys. 5. That while running from the spot, Karampal was shouting Rajinder ko 'B' ne peeth diya, after which he saw Dinesh S/o Prem ran to help Rajinder but when he reached near Rajinder one of the 'B' boy hit him with the jellie on his face due to which reason he became unconscious and all the boys belonging to 'B' community left him there. 6. That thereafter he saw Prem, father of Dinesh came to the spot and he along with Rajender and Karampal picked up Dinesh and put him in a Jeep and took him away to hospital at Jind and after some time a rumor spread in the village that Rajender S/o Pale had been killed by the 'B'. Rajender pale ka balmikiyon ne mar diya 7. That on that day there was a Mela in the village of Phoolan Devi Mata being a Wednesday when large number of persons from the surrounding village visit the temple. 8. That this temple is situated near the 'B' Basti and the road leading to the temple adjoining 'B' Basti in the western side and on hearing that Rajinder had been killed large number of villagers gathered at the spot where Rajinder had been beaten i.e. in the main gali 'B' Basti. 9. That the 'B' residing there panicked and thought that
Page No. 495
these persons had come to attack them and they started throwing stones on the crowd as a result of which stone pelting started from both the sides and there was rioting and after some time some smoke arising from the western side. 10. That after some time the police came to the village and later on more force came to the village, Fire brigade also came to the village to drowse the fire. 11. That after police came to the spot they disbursed the crowd and went to the spot where the smoke was arising. 12. That he was witnessing the entire incident from the roof of his mama /Ram Mehar's house. 38. Dalip Singh (DW38) This witness was posted as District Welfare Officer, Hissar and he has placed on record the details of the compensation provided to the victims / affected families of Mirchpur village in respect of the incident dated 21.4.2010, copy of which details is Ex.DW37/A (running into 29 pages). 39. Dipender Singh (DW39) This witness has placed on record the attendance record from Shri Balaji School of Nursing, Uchana Mandi showing that Suman D/o Sh. Tek Ram (DW18) who was a trainee nurse at GH Hospital Jind had reported to General Hospital Jind on 21.4.2010 in the shift 8 AM to 2 PM, copy of which attendance register is Ex.DW39/A. This witness is a resident of village Mirchpur belonging to 'J' community and is a Teacher by profession. He has deposed as under: 1. That on 21.4.2010 he was present in the village and on that day at about 8.30-8.45 AM he had gone to the 'B' Basti in search of agricultural labour since thrasher had been taken on rent by him for harvesting of wheat at the fields. 2. That when he reached the main gali he saw a boogie parked near the house of Veer Bhan, he also saw a vehicle apparently a jeep in which he saw some people carrying some persons and putting him in the vehicle. 3. That out of curiosity he went to the spot but before he could reached the vehicle it was taken away and he was told by the people standing there that one Rajinder S/o Pale and Karam Pal were getting their
40. Chander Prakash (DW40)
Page No. 496
boogie to the village and when they reached near 'B' Basti some boys belonging to 'B' community surrounded them and Rajinder was brutally assaulted, while Karam Pal managed to escape and raised alarm in the village stating that Rajinder had been killed by the members of 'B' communityRajinder Ko Balmikion Ne Mar Diya. 4. That he was also told that Dinesh who was from the family of Rajinder had gone to save him on hearing the alarm of Karam Pal when he was also assaulted and received injuries near his eyes as a result of which some red colored flesh had come out near the eye and Dinesh had become unconscious. 5. That after this a rumor spread in the village that Rajinder had already been killed and whoever heard of the same came out to the spot of the incident out of curiosity to find out what had happened. 6. That not many people of the village were present at that time being the crop/ harvesting season and a few of the elders of the village whoever were present came to the spot to find out what had happened. 7. That they have a temple in their village of Phoolen Devi Maa and every Wednesday there is a Mela in the temple where large number of people/devotees come from not only from the neighbouring village but even from far off places and being a Wednesday a large number of devotees/ pilgrims were also present in the temple of the village and when the news that Rajinder had been killed reached the temple, many persons who had come to the temple also came to the spot at 'B' Basti. 8. That when the 'B' residing around the main gali saw the crowd collecting and coming towards their side they also felt that Rajinder had been killed and became apprehensive, as a result of which they started pelting stone on the crowd which was collecting in the main gali. 9. That during this period police force from Police Station Narnaund headed by the SHO reached the village and took a stock of the situation and tried to control the same but was unable to control the crowd. 10. That later about about half an hour more force/ reinforcement started reaching the village and while the stone pelting was going on in the main gali they noticed some smoke coming out from one of the bySt. Vs. Dharambir Etc, FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaund (Haryana) Page No. 497
lanes where the fuel in the form of Uplas and Thansras were lying stacked. 11. That the fire from these dumps of fuel started spreading to the neighbouring houses situated in the gali as a result of which the fire brigades had to be called and SP Hissar also came to the spot and inspected the houses which had got fired and it was then that he found Tara Chand and his daughter Suman in a burnt condition in his house. 12. That Suman had already expired by the time but Tara Chand was still alive and the police immediately shifted him to the hospital in their vehicle. 13. That at that time there was no other person present in the house of Tara Chand but when he was being shifted to the hospital in the police vehicle his elder son Amar Lal came to the spot and accompanied the injured Tara Chand. 14. That at the time when the ambulance had lifted and taken Tara Chand from the spot no other person from his family were present there except Amar Lal who had come when Tara Chand was being shifted. 15. That in his presence police did not arrest any person from the spot and it was in the evening when Chaudhary Bhajan Lal, the former CM Haryana followed by Maan Singh Manhera from the BSP also came to the village and they started politicizing the issue by giving it the colour of a caste conflict. 16. That till the evening when they all from the village belonging to all communities had a meeting with the SP Hissar and none of them including the police could explain why and how the rioting/ arson had taken place. 17. That thereafter many political leaders started visiting the village including Sh. Rahul Gandhi, Kumari Shelja, Sh. Ajay Chautala, Sh. Ram Vilas Paswan, Sh. Jaibir 'B' from Congress, Sh. Phool Singh, INLD (Indian National Lok Dal), 27 members Lok Sabha Committee of MPs and one lady politician from West Bengal of CPM, Sh. Bhupinder Singh Hudda, CM, Sh. Randeep Singh Surjawala, Ms. Geeta Bhukal and met the 'B' of the village and spoke to them but none of the above leaders met any other persons from any other community in the village except the 'B'. 18. That all these political leaders started enticing the persons from the 'B' community by promising them
land and money in case if the dispute is shown to be a caste atrocity. 41. Suresh Kumar (DW41) This witness is running a shop under the name and style of Suresh Tractor Work situated at Old Hansi Road, Jind and has deposed as under: 1. That he knew Satyawan S/o Rajinder who is an employee in his shop which he is running under the name and style of Suresh Tractor Work shop situated at Old Hansi Road, Jind. 2. That he open his shop at 7 AM and close at about 11-12 midnight depending upon the work and Satyawan is working with him since 1995-96. 3. That on 21.4.2010 when he reached his shop at about 8 AM Satyawan was already present since it is the job of Satyawan to open the shop daily and he remained at the shop for two to three and did not go back home as the work was more. 4. That he (Satyawan S/o Rajinder) went back home only after two three days i.e. on Sunday since it was closed. He is the Nodal Officer, Idea, Haryana and has proved the following documents: Ex.DW42/A Ex.DW42/B Ex.DW42/C Ex.DW42/D Authorization letter Record pertaining to the mobile no. 9812628500 Certificate under Section 65 Evidence Act Certified copy of the tower details
42. Deepak Kumar (DW42)
The witness has deposed that as per Ex.DW34/C till 10.04.56 the location of the user has been shown at village Mirchpur; at 10.04.57 the location is of the tower of Rakhi Hissar and thereafter the location is again of village Mirchpur tower. He has deposed that Village Rakhi is situated adjoining village Mirchpur and hence there could be an overlapping of the tower frequency/radius and at 12.28.08 the location of the user has been shown at village Rajpura and thereafter the location of the user has been shown at Jind from 12.41.32 onwards till 20.58.54. 43. Manjeet Singh Dhillon (DW43) This witness is the General Manager, Nodal Center, Northern Zone, Chandigarh. He has proved that except for the record of the telephone number 9416200453, the call details record of the numbers 9416359151 in the
Page No. 499
name of the customer Sanjay S/o Daya Nand R/o village Mirchpur as per the customer application form Ex.DW43/A; mobile no. 9467090205 in the name of Rajinder S/o Satpal as per the customer application form Ex.DW43/B, phone no. 9467532278 in the name of Jitender Singh S/o Satbir Singh as per customer application form Ex.DW43/C and mobile no. 9416120687 in the name of Vinod S/o Sh. Ram Niwas no other record could be retrieved. 44 Dr. Sunita Garg (DW44) She was posted as Surgeon at General Hospital, Hissar on 21.04.2010 and has deposed as under: 1. That on 21.4.2010 she had examined the patient Tara Chand S/o Swaroopa R/o Village Mirchpur, at General Hospital, Hissar at 2:30 PM and on seeing the condition of the patient she urgently referred Tara Chand to PGIMS, Rohtak and her endorsement to this effect is present on Ex.PW52/B at point encircled X1 bearing her signatures. 2. That she cannot tell anything about the police information Ex.PW64/A since it was not made by her and she also cannot tell whether the patient was immediately sent to PGIMS Rohtak. 3. That she can only say that Ex.PW64/A is not a referral slip but is only an information to the police. 4. That she cannot tell whether after her referral the patient was treated in the hospital or not because she had not seen him thereafter but had only given the advice for referral.
COURT WITNESS:
Sr. Name of the witness Detail of deposition No. 1. Amar Lal (CW1) He is the son of the deceased Tara Chand who had accompanied his father to the hospital and is a witness to the Dying Declaration of Tara Chand but was not examined by the prosecution. However, testimony being relevant and essential he was called and examined as a court witness. On the date of his deposition he was working as clerk at DC Office, Hissar, Govt. of Haryana where he was employed since 1.04.2011. Prior to the same he was doing JBT course 1st year from Jat College, Jind and was residing at village Mirchpur with his family comprising of his parents i.e. Late Sh. Tara Chand, his
Page No. 500
mother Smt. Kamla Devi, his brothers namely Pradeep and Ravinder and his sister Late Ms. Suman Devi. He has deposed as under: 1. That on 21.04.2010 he was present at village Mirchpur when at about 8:00 AM he saw that about 300-400 persons of the 'J' community came to their 'B' Basti abusing them duly armed with lathies and were also carrying stones and bricks in rehries and surrounded the 'B' Basti and started attacking them with stones and bricks. 2. That on seeing this many persons from their 'B' community also came on their roofs and started pelting stones and bricks for defence. 3. That they defended themselves for about one hour and in the meanwhile the SHO of the area Inspector Vinod Kajal (accused before this court) came in the main gali and intervened due to which the fighting and stone pelting which was going on stopped. 4. That they all came down from the roofs after which he requested all of them to assemble at the 'B' Chaupal and told them that the persons from the 'J' community would also be called there and he would intervene to get a compromise affected. 5. That as directed he went towards the side of the 'B' Chaupal but before he could reached there and while he was near the house of Nawab S/o Richmal he found that many of the persons from their community were returning and their basti had been surrounded by the persons from the 'J' community. 6. That the members of 'J' community started putting fire to their (persons belonging to 'B' community) houses on which he ran towards his house and on the way he met his brother Pradeep and while he was still in the main gali he saw that large crowd was present in front of their house who first set fire to their bike which was kept inside the bethak. 7. That he had seen Rampal S/o Prithvi and Rajinder S/o Pale leading the crowd and others were behind them and thereafter they came to their other adjoining house where his father and sister were inside the house due to fear. 8. That Ramphal S/o Prithvi and Kulvinder S/o Ram Mehar sprinkled oil from the cans which they were holding while Rajinder S/o Pale set their house on fire. 9. That in the meanwhile the crowd outside was indulging into hurling of abuses/ gali galoj and were
hurling caste abuses. 10. That his father and sister came out but they were caught by these persons standing outside and oil was sprinkled on them, after which they were pushed inside the house and the house was latched with the help of kundi. 11. That he was in front of the house of Chander Bhan at that time and requesting the crowd not to do such an act but nobody listened to them. 12. That he was hit with the stones,one of which hit him on his foot and another on his back due to which reason he backed out and thereafter these persons came out in the main gali and started dancing naked by saying Ab Inka Kaam Ho Gaya Inka Matam Karo . 13. That Vipin S/o Ishwar (not charge sheeted) Kulvinder S/o Ram Mehar, Vikas S/o Sunehra, Rishi and Karampal both sons of Satbir accompanied by many other persons removed their clothes and danced in the gali in front of their house and after about two minutes went from the spot. 14. That when these persons went away he noticed that the roof of their house started collapsing and the door of their house also collapsed. 15. That his father who was in the front portion of the house ran out and entered the house of Deewana S/o Mathura but his sister who was in the back portion of the house, could not be saved and was taken out later on. 16. That meanwhile the police also came to the spot and he alongwith Ashok Kumar S/o Maha Singh shifted his father Tara Chand to the Govt. hospital Hissar. 17. That as soon as his father came out of the house within two minutes he and Ashok shifted him to the hospital in a Govt. vehicle and it must be around 1212.30 PM since they had reached Hissar at about 1:00 PM. 18. That the above named persons were those whom he had identified but there were others also from same village who had accompanied them. 19. That he is not aware if Rajender and Karampal were beaten and Karampal managed to flee away and raised an alarm in the village that Rajender was being beaten on which Dinesh S/o Prem came to the main gali to save him and was also assaulted and hit near the eye after which both Rajender and Dinesh were shifted to the hospital by Prem and Karampal
and states that he was having a bath at that time and when he came out on hearing the hue and cry he found a large number of persons belonging to the 'J' community gathered at the spot. 20. That he cannot tell what had happened prior to that but after Rajender and Dinesh were taken away the stone pelting had started. 21. That he does not know what had happened and who had took away Rajender and Dinesh but he only saw the stone pelting which was going on. On a specific court question with regard to the cause of incident, the witness has deposed that on 19.4.2010 there was some quarrel between Rajinder S/o Pale and Yogesh S/o Jai Prakash nephew of Karan Singh and on 20.04.2010 also he had seen boys belonging to the 'J' community moving around the village in groups of 20s and 30s armed with lathies but by evening everything had cool down. He has admitted having made the statements dated 22.04.2010 which are Ex.CW1/A and Ex.CW1/B, on 27.6.2010 which is Ex.CW1/C and statement dated 27.7.2010 which is Ex.CW1/D.
Now coming to the microscopic evaluation of the evidence against the accused my detail findings are as under
Delay in registration of FIR:

It is vehemently argued by the Ld. Defence Counsel that despite the fact that the information regarding the incident had reached the police in the morning pursuant to which senior officers of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Superintendent of Police and Inspector General had also reached the spot, yet the perusal of the FIR would reveal that it was registered only at 6:15 PM which shows that the investigating agency has not come out with the correct version of the incident and the registration of the FIR was deliberately delayed and it contains a coloured and exaggerated version in which the genesis of the
occurrence has been suppressed and the accused have been named only after due deliberations and consultations. It is pointed out that the time of occurrence is 10.00 AM to 11.00 AM and the senior police officials including the Superintendent of Police were available in the village even when the occurrence was going on and the FIR was lodged on the basis of the statement of Karan Singh (DW), the member of the Block Samiti from the 'B' community at about 06.15 PM which statement was recorded at 5.30 PM in the village by Abhay Singh DSP (PW26). It is argued that sufficient time was taken by the police in the village to confabulate with the respectables of the 'B' community and then lodge the FIR naming and implicating more than forty persons and there was no attempt by any police official to immediately record the statement of any one of the victims and then to lodge the FIR which fact is clear from the endorsement below the statement. It is also argued that there is a delay in the special report as well which reached the Magistrate at 12:30 AM (midnight) at Hansi that is after six hours of FIR and delivered by PW2 EASI Manohar Lal although the distance between Narnaund and Hansi is hardly twenty kilometers on highway and with sufficient means of transport and the explanations given by Mahohar Lal (PW2) are not supported by the daily diary entries. It is submitted that the names of the accused and the version to be given in the complaint was finalized late in the night by the police and the members of 'B' community after the situation had been muddled by the visits of the politicians who had started their interference and hence the version contained in FIR is not at all reliable since the FIR was lodged by Karan Singh Member Block Samiti who has not supported the version recorded in the FIR on three occasions that is
before the trial court at Hissar, before the inquiry Commission and before this court which consistent denial made by Karan Singh of the contents of the FIR render it unreliable. It is further argued that the FIR cannot be used to corroborate the prosecution version because it is not a substantive piece of evidence and Karan Singh has not been examined by the prosecution to prove its contents and cannot be used to corroborate the other ocular version brought on record. It is pointed out that the fact that a particular accused is named in FIR is no more available to the prosecution as a substantive piece of evidence to connect him with the crime. It is further argued that the effect of this delayed FIR is writ large that the truth had been suppressed in as much as the incident in the morning of 21.04.2010 which ignited the already settled issue of 19.04.2010 is totally absent from the FIR and what happened on that day which started the brick batting and later on the arson, is missing from the FIR. I have considered the submissions made before me. Before coming to the merits of the arguments made by the Ld. Defence Counsel, I may observe that in the case of State of Rajasthan -vs- Om Prakash reported in (2002) 5 SCC 745, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that in case where delay is explained by the prosecution in registering the case, the same could be condoned moreover when the evidence of the victim is reliable and trustworthy. Similar view was taken in the case of Saheb Rao -vs- State of Maharastra reported in AIR 2006 SC 2002 and also in the case of Tulshidas Kanolkar -vs- The State of Goa reported in (2003) 8 SCC 590 wherein it was held by the Supreme Court that: The unusual circumstances satisfactorily explained
the delay in lodging of the first information report. In any event, delay per se is not a mitigating circumstance for the accused when accusation of rape are involved. Delay in lodging first information report cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for discarding prosecution case and doubting its authenticity. It only puts the court on guard to search for and consider if any explanation has been offered for the delay. Once it is offered , the Court is to only see whether it is satisfactory or not. In a case if the prosecution fails to satisfactory explain the delay and there is possibility of embellishment or exaggeration in the prosecution version on account of such delay, it is a relevant factor. On the other hand satisfactory explanation of the delay is weighty enough to reject the plea of false implication or vulnerability of prosecution case. As the factual scenario shows, the victim was totally unaware of the catastrophe which had befallen to her. That being so the mere delay in lodging of first information report does not in any way render prosecution version brittle.
Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the incident in question involved large scale rioting where a number of properties were set on fire or damaged which incident continued till afternoon and the police was throughout busy in drowsing the fire and rushing the victims to the hospital. Therefore, it was only in the evening that when the inquiries were made that a clear picture of what had happened came out and the rukka was sent after which the FIR was registered at 6:15 PM. I may observe that delay in registration of FIR is not per-se a mitigating circumstance for the accused and delay in lodging the first information report cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for discarding prosecution case and
doubting its authenticity. It only puts the court on guard to search for and consider if any explanation has been offered for the delay and once that explanation is offered, the Court is required to ascertain whether it is satisfactory or not. No doubt the possibility of embellishment or exaggeration in the prosecution version on account of delay in registration of first information report would be one of the relevant factor while considering the case on merits. I may further observe that the First Information Report is not an encyclopedia of the fact concerning the crime and merely because the minutest details of the occurrence have not been mentioned in the First Information Report, the same cannot make the prosecution case doubtful. In fact it is not necessary that the minutest details of any other incident which might have happened in the morning of 21.04.2010 which ignited the earlier issues of dispute dated 19.04.2010 should have been stated in the First Information Report. It is sufficient if a broad picture is presented and the First Information Report contains the broad features which has been done. In fact, for lodging First Information Report in a criminal case the stress must be on prompt lodging of the First Information Report. (Ref.: S. Sudershan Reddy -vs- State of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 2006 SC 2716 and Rohtash -vs- State of Rajasthan reported in 2007 Crl.L.J. 758). Hence mere absence of indications of what might have happened in the morning of 21.4.2010 which ignited the earlier issues of dispute dated 19.04.2010 would not affect the prosecution version. In so far as the aspect of delay is concerned I hereby hold that on the basis of the circumstances reflected from the record there is no delay in registration of the FIR and even if there is a delay the same
has been satisfactorily explained and shall not be fatal to the case of the prosecution. (Ref.: Surender Pal & Others -vs- State of UP reported in 2010 (9) SC 399 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that a five and a half hour delay in registration of FIR was not fatal to the case of the prosecution).
Complainants Veer Bhan and Karan Singh have turned hostile:

It is an admitted case of both the prosecution and the defence that the present FIR Ex.PW65/A4 has been registered on the basis of statement of Karan Singh Ex.PW66/A. The Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that Karan Singh the star witness of the prosecution has not been examined by them and rather has been produced by the defence as their witness. It is also pointed out that Karan Singh has not supported the version put forward by the prosecution and has in his testimony specifically deposed that he was inside his house at the time of the incident. It is pointed out that though Karan Singh admits the complaint Ex.PW66/A bearing his signatures at point A but is unaware of the contents and what was written in the said complaint and states that it was written by some police officer and he was only asked to sign the same. He has denied having narrated any incident dated 19.4.2010 or of 21.4.2010 or of having named any of the accused in the same. It is vehemently argued by the Ld. Defence Counsel that the FIR which was lodged by Karan Singh Member Block Samiti and Karan Singh himself not having supported the version recorded in the FIR on three occasions that is before the trial court at Hissar, before the commission and before this Court. The consistent denial by Karan Singh
of the contents of the FIR renders it unreliable. It is also argued that the FIR in this case cannot be used to corroborate the prosecution version because it is not a substantive piece of evidence. Karan Singh has not been examined by the prosecution to prove the contents of the FIR and therefore it cannot be used to corroborate the other ocular version brought on record and also the fact that a particular accused is named in FIR is no more available to the prosecution as a substantive piece of evidence to connect him with the crime. Further, Veer Bhan who is the complainant in FIR No.183/10 Police Station Narnaund in respect of the incident dated 19.4.2010 has also not been examined by the prosecution and earlier during his examination before the Court at Hissar, he did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. It is argued that in view of the same the ocular version brought on record in respect of the alleged incident dated 19.4.2010 can be corroborated from the said FIR. The Ld. Special Public Prosecutor for the victims on the other hand has argued that both the complainant in the present FIR Karan Singh and Veer Bhan in FIR No.183/10 have been won over by the accused belonging to the dominant community of the village because their livelihood depends upon them and it is for this reason that he has appeared as their witness. The Ld. Counsel has submitted that the amount of pressure which must have been exerted upon both Karan Singh and Veer Bhan is evident from the fact that when they were examined before the competent court at Hissar they turned hostile and also did not support the earlier versions given by him to the police before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Iqbal Singh (Retd.) Commission of Inquiry (Mirchpur), Haryana and it is for this reason that the prosecution
deliberately chose not to examine them as their witness before this court. I have considered the rival contentions and I may observe that First Information Report is not a substantive piece of evidence and can only be used to corroborate the statement of the maker under Section 157 of the Evidence Act or to contradict it under Section 145 of the Evidence Act and cannot be used as evidence against the maker at the trial if he himself becomes the accused nor to corroborate or contradict the other witnesses. (Ref.: Nisar Ali -vs- State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 1957 SC 366 and State of Mumbai -vs- Rusy Mistry reported in AIR 1960 SC 391). Merely because the complainant has not supported the case of the prosecution and has turned hostile having been won over or for reasons whatsoever would be no ground to throw out the entire case since First Information Report is not a substantive piece of evidence and can only be used to corroborate the complainant (Karan Singh in the present case and Veer Bhan in FIR No.183/10) under Section 157 of the Evidence Act or to contradict them under Section 145 of the Evidence Act. The mere fact that Karan Singh has turned hostile would cause no damage to the case of the prosecution in view of the testimonies of the other victims of the incident dated 21.4.2010 and I find no merit in the ground raised by the Ld. Defence Counsel.
Non apprehension of assailants at the time of the incident:

It is argued that after the police force headed by the Superintendent of Police, Hissar Sh. Subhash Yadav arrived in the village Mirchpur a large number of the assailants who were roaming were apprehended but on account of political pressure the said assailants were released by the police. In this regard it has been pointed out by the
Ld. Defence Counsel that the various prosecution witnesses including the police officers have themselves admitted this fact and it was later only in order to work out the present case on account of extreme political pressure that the accused have been falsely implicated whereas the other assailants who were politically and socially well connected have been left by the investigating agency. On the other hand Ld. Special Public Prosecutor has not only endorsed what has been stated by the Ld. Defence Counsel but has also added that this has been done deliberately by the State Government to assist the accused belonging to the dominant community and the investigations at every stage were rigged and adversely affected due to extraneous interference and considerations but that in itself will not no ground to grant any benefit to the accused. Before coming to the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel on merits, I may observe that considering the aspect of faulty investigations the Hon'ble Apex Court has in the case of State of U. P. -vs- Jagdeo & Others., reported in (2003) 1 Supreme Court Cases 456, observed that: ...... Mere faulty investigations cannot be a ground for acquittal of the accused. For the fault of the prosecution the perpetrators of a ghastly crime cannot be allowed to go scot-free. The testimony of eyewitnesses in the present case, completely proved the prosecution case Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sec. 159, 161 and 164........
It has been further observed that : ........Coming to the aspect of the investigation being allegedly faulty, we would like to say that we do not
agree with the view taken by the High Court. We would rather like to say that assuming the investigation was faulty, for that reason alone the accused persons cannot be let off or acquitted. For the fault of the prosecution, the perpetrators of such a ghastly crime cannot be allowed to go scot-free. All the accused persons were armed with deadly weapons and they attacked the members of the victims' family who were totally unarmed and were sleeping at night in the open. The High Court has expressed a doubt about the FIR being lodged at the time alleged by the prosecution and the manner in which it is so stated by the prosecution. The question however is : is it sufficient to acquit all the persons ? The trial court had discussed all the elements leading to the brutal murder in this case and found them against the accused persons. Unfortunately, the High Court remained on the periphery and never attempted to grapple with the substance of the evidence on record. This peripheral approach of the High Court led to the impugned judgment of acquittal being passed. In presence of such a strong evidence on record implicating the accused persons, things like alleged improper recording of time of lodging of FIR are not sufficient to dislodge the verdict of convictions passed by the Sessions Court. In our considered view the evidence of eye witnesses in the present case completely proves the prosecution case. The doubt thrown by the High Court on the presence of the eye witnesses at the time of occurrence is totally unacceptable. The impugned judgment of the High Court whereby all the accused persons have been acquitted is hereby set aside. ..... In the present case, I may observe that there is no indication of any of the assailant who had had been apprehended by the police team headed by the Superintendent of Police Hissar at the spot on the date of incident itself and thereafter released. I have also gone through the case
diaries which are silent on this aspect. I may however add that the arrests which have been duly admitted by the accused reveal that after the registration of the case on the same date in the late evening hours, the arrests of as many as twenty five accused were made on 22.4.2010 that is on the next date of incident. Admittedly these arrests were not at the instance of the victims or the witnesses nor any Test Identification Parade had been conducted but I may observe that many of the assailants have not only been named by the victims/ witnesses in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. being residents of the same village. However, the eye witnesses having deposed of many such persons being apprehended by the police in the village at the time of the incident itself of which there is no record, the possibility of many of the accused before this Court particularly those who have been named and arrested much later being falsely implicated cannot be ruled out and the benefit of the same is required to be given to them.
Non conduct of the Judicial Test Identification Parade and dock identification of the accused:
The Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that none of the accused was apprehended at the spot of the incident itself but had been picked up by the police later on only to work out the present case. He has pointed out that not even one prosecution witness has deposed that either the accused had been apprehended at his instance or presence or was got identified by the police either at the police or in the court or in the jail at any point of time. He submits that under these circumstances the identification of all the accused by the witnesses for the first time in the court is valueless and their testimonies to the extent of their
identification is liable to be discarded.
The Ld. Special Public
Prosecutor for the victims on the other hand has pointed out that the accused being named in the statement of the victims/ witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer under section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure being previously known to them, there is no necessity of the Judicial Test Identification Parade and therefore the Investigating Officer not having conducted the Judicial Test Identification Parade of the accused would not affect the case of the prosecution in any manner. I have considered the rival contentions. At the very outset I may observe that the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the legal aspects of Test Identification and dock identification of the accused has in the case of Mulla & Anr. -vs- State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 2010 SC 942 observed as under: ...... The evidence of test identification is admissible under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Identification parade belongs to the stage of investigation by the police. The question whether a witness has or has not identified the accused during the investigation is not one which is in itself relevant at the trial. The actual evidence regarding identification is that which is given by witnesses in Court. There is no provision in the Cr. P.C. entitling the accused to demand that an identification parade should be held at or before the inquiry of the trial. The fact that a particular witness has been able to identify the accused at an identification parade is only a circumstance corroborative of the identification in Court. Failure to hold test identification parade does not make the evidence of identification in court inadmissible, rather the same is very much admissible in law. Where identification of an accused by a witness is made for the first time in Court, it should not form the basis of conviction.
The necessity for holding an identification parade can arise only when the accused persons are not previously known to the witnesses. The whole idea of a test identification parade is that witnesses who claim to have seen the culprits at the time of occurrence are to identify them from the midst of other persons without any aid or any other source. The test is done to check upon their veracity. In other words, the main object of holding an identification parade, during the investigation stage, is to test the memory of the witnesses based upon first impression and also to enable the prosecution to decide whether all or any of them could be cited as eyewitnesses of the crime. The identification proceedings are in the nature of tests and significantly, therefore, there is no provision for it in the Code and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is desirable that a test identification parade should be conducted as soon as possible after the arrest of the accused. This becomes necessary to eliminate the possibility of the accused being shown to the witnesses prior to the test identification parade. This is a very common plea of the accused and, therefore, the prosecution has to be cautious to ensure that there is no scope for making such allegation. If, however, circumstances are beyond control and there is some delay, it cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution. The identification parades are not primarily meant for the Court. They are meant for investigation purposes. The object of conducting a test identification parade is two-fold. First is to enable the witnesses to satisfy themselves that the accused whom they suspect is really the one who was seen by them in connection with the commission of the crime. Second is to satisfy the investigating authorities that the suspect is the real person whom the witnesses had seen in connection with the said occurrence. Therefore, the following principles regarding identification parade emerge: (1) an identification parade ideally must be conducted as soon as possible
to avoid any mistake on the part of witnesses; (2) this condition can be revoked if proper explanation justifying the delay is provided; and, (3) the authorities must make sure that the delay does not result in exposure of the accused which may lead to mistakes on the part of the witnesses.... Further, in the case of Matru -vs- State of U.P. reported in (1971) 2 SCC 75 the Hon'ble Supreme Court while relying upon the case of Santokh Singh -vs- Izhar Hussain reported in (1973) 2 SCC 406, has observed as under: "..Identification tests do not constitute substantive evidence. They are primarily meant for the purpose of helping the investigating agency with an assurance that their progress with the investigation into the offence is proceeding on the right lines. The identification can only be used as corroborative of the statement in Court.... In another case of Pramod Mandal -vs- State of Bihar reported in 2004 (13) SCC 150, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while placing reliance on the case of Anil Kumar -vs- State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2003) 3 SCC 569 observed that: ....... It is neither possible nor prudent to lay down any invariable rule as to the period within which a Test Identification Parade must be held, or the number of witnesses who must correctly identify the accused, to sustain his conviction. These matters must be left to the Courts of fact to decide in the facts and circumstances of each case. If a rule is laid down prescribing a period within which the Test Identification Parade must be held, it would only benefit the professional criminals in whose cases the arrests are delayed as the police have no clear clue about their identity, they being persons unknown to the victims. They therefore, have only to avoid their arrest for the prescribed
period to avoid conviction. Similarly, there may be offences which by their very nature may be witnessed by a single witness, such as rape. The offender may be unknown to the victim and the case depends solely on the identification by the victim, who is otherwise found to be truthful and reliable. What justification can be pleaded to contend that such cases must necessarily result in acquittal because of there being only one identifying witness? Prudence therefore demands that these matters must be left to the wisdom of the courts of fact which must consider all aspects of the matter in the light of the evidence on record before pronouncing upon the acceptability or rejection of such identification... Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case I may observe that in so far as the law relating to conduct of the Judicial Test Identification Parade is concerned the witnesses can be categorized in to three. First those who have specifically named the assailants/ accused in their statements to the police having identified them. Second those whose have not named the assailants/ accused to the police but have only give their description. Third those who have neither named nor given the description of the assailants/ accused but have generally stated that they could identify the assailants/ accused if shown to them. Here I may observe that the conduct of Judicial Test Identification parade is not an essential requirement in so far as the first category of witnesses are concerned as the accused are known to the victims/ witnesses and their identity has already been made known. However in so far as the second and third category of witnesses are concerned the requirement of a Judicial Test Identification Parade is essential, particularly more in the third category where neither the description nor the name of the assailant/ accused is made known which
is to avoid any mistake on the part of the witnesses or false implication of innocent persons at later stage for ulterior motives. In the present case the necessity of conducting the Judicial Test Identification Parade would have arisen only in those cases and circumstances where the accused are unknown to the victim or their identity is under dispute for some reason or the other. The assailants were all from the same village and were known to the victims even prior to the incident. Most of the victims/ witnesses in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. made to the police have specifically named the accused along with their parentage and therefore under these circumstances there was no requirement for the Investigating Officer to get the Judicial Test Identification Parade conducted from these witnesses who have already named the accused. However, I may observe that there are a large number of witnesses who have in their statements made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. claimed that there were other assailants whom they could identify (who have not been named). It is this set of witnesses to whom the accused were required to be put for identification after their arrest which has not been done and therefore under these circumstances it is the first time identification of those accused in the Court who have not been previously named or described by the witnesses which cannot form the basis of conviction. I may also observe that many of the prosecution witnesses claiming to be eye witnesses have not been able to name the accused whom they had previously named in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but have identified them by pointing out towards them. Their testimonies qua the identification of such an accused cannot be rejected
as the possibility of the witness having forgotten the name of the accused earlier named by him/ her cannot be ruled out. However, it is evident from the record that a large number of accused who were not previously named, described or identified by the witnesses have for the first time in the Court been named/ identified which is despite the fact that the witnesses and the accused being residents of the same village were presumably known to each other even at the time of the incident. The identification of these accused for the first time in the Court is a clear improvement in the testimonies of these witnesses who have earlier not named or identified them. The law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the various High Courts in this regard is very clear. In the case of Yudhistir -vs- State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1971 SCC (Cr.) 684 the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the question regarding the improvements in the testimonies made by the witnesses in the Court has observed that: ..... When a particular fact deposed to by the witness does not find mention both in the FIR and in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC. it is an improvement and it cannot be considered....... It has been further observed by the Hon'ble Court that: ....... Corroboration from any evidence given by a witness may be found necessary when a Court is not inclined to reject the evidence of the witness to be false, but when the evidence of a witness has been rejected as unacceptable, there is no scope for attempting to find corroboration by other independent evidence or circumstances.... Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Tej Singh and Anr. -vs- State of Rajasthan
reported in 1995 Cri.L.J. 1944 wherein it has been held that: .... A witness who in his earlier statement has not stated that he witnessed the occurrence and did not see the accused running, and if he tries to make improvement and tries to become an eye witness of the occurrence then the testimony of such a person cannot be believed and he cannot be said to be an eye witness to the occurrence.... In a similar case of dock identification of the accused, there being no evidence it was observed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Parmod Kumar -vs- State (Delhi) reported in 1990 (3) RCR 293 that such an identification of a person considered as suspect without there being any supportive evidence particularly when there is no previous identity of the accused by the witness and therefore no conviction could be based upon the same. Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case it is evident that the victim community and the accused are all residents of the same village and known to each other and it is for this reason that no Judicial Test Identification Parade has been conducted. The accused have been named in the statements made by the witnesses in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on the basis of which the arrests have been made. It is also an admitted case of the prosecution that the accused have not been arrested on the pointing out of any of the witnesses. However, I may observe that there are witnesses who have for the first time identified some of the accused (not previously named/ described by them in their statements) in the Court. It is this set of witnesses whose testimonies qua identification of these accused pointed out by them for the first time in the Court which is required to be read
with care on which no conviction can be based. The question of reading the previous statement of such a witness recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. against such accused neither named nor described does not arise and the benefit of the same has to go to the accused. Now coming specifically to the testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution particularly Sushil (PW25), Dhoop Singh (PW29), Santra (PW30), Rani (PW33), Sanjay (PW36), Meena Kumar (PW37), Mahajan (PW38), Sube Singh (PW39), Vijender (PW40), Vicky (PW42), Dilbagh (PW43), Sanjay (PW44), Manoj (PW45), Satyawan (PW47), Gulaba (PW48), Pradeep (PW49) and Kamla (PW50) it is evident that they are all not residing in the village after the incident dated 21.4.2010 and except Kamla (PW50) and Pradeep (PW49) they are all residing at Ved Pal Tanwar Farm House. Their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. particularly the witnesses of Vicky (PW42), Manoj (PW45) and Pradeep (PW49) had been recorded after almost two months of the incident. They had been in regular touch with the investigating agency and their statements had been recorded on many occasions particularly of the witnesses Vicky (PW42) and Pradeep (PW49). There was ample opportunities for these witnesses to have named the accused who were previously known to them whom they have now named or identified by pointing out for the first time in the Court which they have not done. It was also open to the Investigating Officer to have subjected these accused to Test Identification by the witnesses which has not been done. I may further observe that it has come on record that all these witnesses named above had been holding regular dharnas/ protests in order to seek compensation from the Government of Haryana in the background of
this incident which had taken place on 21.4.2010. Here I may observe that the witnesses Amar Lal (CW1), Pradeep (PW49) and Kamla (PW50) are now residing at Hissar in a government accommodation after Amar Lal and Pradeep have been given government job pursuant to the incident and the witness Sushil (PW25), Dhoop Singh (PW29), Santra (PW30), Rani (PW33), Sanjay (PW36), Meena Kumar (PW37), Mahajan (PW38), Sube Singh (PW39), Vijender (PW40), Dilbagh (PW43), Sanjay (PW44), Manoj (PW45) and Gulaba (PW48) are all residing at Ved Pal Tanwar Farm House for the last many months where they have shifted after the incident. It has come on record that this Ved Pal Tanwar is a local politician harboring political ambitions and running an organization in the name of Gair Jat Sangathan (Anti Jat Organization). These witnesses from the 'B' community who have left village Mirchpur after the incident were housed at the Ved Pal Tanwar Farm House for many months from where they were carrying forward their legal battles. Under the given circumstances this Court certainly cannot ignore and overlook the aspect of the witnesses acting in consortium and the possibility of involving innocent persons along with the guilty in order to secure punishment for the maximum number of persons for reasons whatsoever cannot be ruled out. The purpose of prior identification is to test and strengthen the trustworthiness of the witness and it is accordingly considered a safe Rule of Prudence to generally look for corroboration of the sworn testimonies of the witnesses in the Court as to the identity of the accused who are strangers to them. This Rule of not relying upon the identification made by the witnesses for the first time in the Court is only a Rule of Prudence and it is on the basis of the facts and circumstances of
each case that the reliability on such a statement has to be ascertained. In the present case the witnesses and the accused are all residents of the same village belonging to two different caste fractions/ groups and not strangers. The background of the case being a fight between groups of boys belonging to two different castes which later on transformed into caste violence. The tendency of the part of the prosecution witnesses to implicate some innocent persons belonging to the same community also along with the guilty ones cannot be ruled out and in this regard I am supported by the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bijoy Singh and Anr. -vs- State of Bihar reported in 2002 RCR (Cri) 544 that in the case of party factions and group rivalries there is a tendency on the part of the prosecution witnesses to implicate some innocent persons also along with the guilty ones. Even otherwise the Rule of looking for corroboration is only subject to one exception that is when the Court is impressed by a particular witness on whose testimony it can safely rely without such other corroboration. But in a case where no satisfactorily explanation is forthcoming from the Investigating Officer for failure to hold the Test Identification Parade in case of the accused not previously named by the witness then no weight can be attached to the first time identification held in the Court (Ref.: Swaran Singh -vs- State of Punjab reported in AIR 2002 SC 3652) and given the circumstances of the present case the necessity of rejecting the identification made by the witnesses for the first time in the Court. Therefore, the argument put forward by the Ld. Defence Counsel regarding the witnesses being tutored and prompted to involve maximum number of persons from the 'J' community only to seek revenge also may not be all that unfounded. The Rule of Prudence therefore requires that
the testimonies of these witnesses namely Sushil (PW25), Dhoop Singh (PW29), Santra (PW30), Rani (PW33), Sanjay (PW36), Meena Kumar (PW37), Mahajan (PW38), Sube Singh (PW39), Vijender (PW40), Vicky (PW42), Dilbagh (PW43), Sanjay (PW44), Manoj (PW45), Satyawan (PW47), Gulaba (PW48), Pradeep (PW49) and Kamla (PW50) who have identified the accused for the first time in the Court be subjected to independent scrutiny meaning thereby that there should be an independent reliable corroboration forthcoming which does not imply finding a corroboration from each other testimony but should be corroborated by the testimony of a witness who has been held by the Court to be completely trustworthy, truthful and reliable. Unfortunately, in the present case no such independent reliable corroboration is forthcoming to the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses and therefore the first time identification of the accused in the Court (dock identification) by these witnesses namely Sushil (PW25), Dhoop Singh (PW29), Santra (PW30), Rani (PW33), Sanjay (PW36), Meena Kumar (PW37), Mahajan (PW38), Sube Singh (PW39), Vijender (PW40), Vicky (PW42), Dilbagh (PW43), Sanjay (PW44), Manoj (PW45), Satyawan (PW47), Gulaba (PW48), Pradeep (PW49) and Kamla (PW50) even otherwise from the very nature being inherently an evidence of a weak character, would be unacceptable.
Dying Declaration:
The case of the prosecution that at the time when the injured Tara Chand was got admitted to General Hospital, Hissar at about 2:30 PM by SI Bane Singh, he was conscious and oriented and was declared fit for statement by the doctors. SI Bane Singh who had accompanied
Tara Chand to the hospital (General Hospital Hissar) is stated to have made inquiries from Tara Chand when his disclosed about the manner of assault and the names of the assailants. According to the prosecution after getting the fitness from Dr. Dinesh SI Bane Singh recorded the statement of Tara Chand in the presence of Dr. Dinesh Kumar and son of Tara Chand namely Amar Lal which statement is Ex.PW64/C. It is further the case of the prosecution that on the advice of senior officers SI Bane Singh immediately moved a request before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hissar for recording the statement of Tara Chand. Pursuant to the application moved by SI Bane Singh (Ex.PW55/A) Sh. Harish Goyal, Ld. Duty Magistrate, Hissar posted as Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class reached General Hospital, Hissar at about 5:30 PM and after Dr. Dinesh Kumar gave a certificate regarding fitness of Tara Chand to make his statement, Ld. Duty Magistrate recorded the statement of Tara Chand which is Ex.PW55/B and after his statement the doctor on duty again certified about the condition of Tara Chand at point B on Ex.PW55/A. However, soon thereafter the condition of Tara Chand deteriorated and while he was being shifted to the Soni Burns Hospital, Hissar for specialized treatment he succumbed to his injuries and expired at between 6:00 to 6:15 PM. The Ld. Special Public Prosecutor has placed his reliance on both the above statements of the deceased Tara Chand and has vehemently argued that being the earliest untutored authentic version of the incident, reliance can be placed on the aforesaid. On the other hand Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused have challenged the correctness, authenticity, credibility and truthfulness of the said Dying Declarations of Tara Chand recorded first by SI Bane Singh (Ex.PW64/C) and thereafter by Judicial Magistrate
First Class Sh. Harish Goyal (Ex.PW55/B) on the following grounds: Dr. Dinesh Kumar who was on duty at that time and had examined the deceased Tara Chand had not made any endorsement regarding the fact that the witness was conscious and was in a fit mental state to make a statement and particularly attestation of doctor who was not examined creates doubt about the authenticity of this record and in the peculiar facts when the PW64 specifically deposed that it was recorded in the presence of doctor. In the Dying Declaration recorded by Sh. Harish Goel Judicial Magistrate First Class which is Ex.PW55/B there is no fitness certificate by the doctor or endorsement by him and is only attested by ACJM (Senior Division) Hissar who has also not been examined. Prior to recording of dying declaration of Tara Chand Ex.PW55/B another statement of the deceased was recorded by SI Bane Singh which is Ex.PW64/C and it is writ large that both the statements are identical showing that the probability of the later statement recorded by the Judicial Magistrate First Class being influenced by the first statement recorded by SI Bane Singh cannot be ruled out more so because the second Dying Declaration recorded by Judicial Magistrate First Class Ex.PW55/B was admittedly not sealed on 21.04.2010 but was rather sealed on 23.04.2010. The Ld. Counsel has placed his reliance on the case of Kushal Rao -vs- State of Bombay reported in AIR 1958 SC 22, followed later in the case of Ashok Panduranga Jadhav -vs- State of Maharashtra wherein it was observed that in a case where the
police had oral knowledge regarding the dying declaration prior to recording the same by the judicial magistrate then the said dying declaration even though recorded by the judicial magistrate is not at all trustworthy. It is submitted that in the present case according to prosecution SI had already recorded the dying declaration then it was recorded by Judicial Magistrate First Class, so it is not reliable at all in view of the above law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Though PW64 SI Bani Singh has deposed that CW1 Amar was also present at the time of recording of the evidence but CW1 Amar has nowhere deposed of the dying declaration being recorded by SI Bani Singh in his presence. At the time of examination of Amar Lal the prosecution has only shown him his signatures and had not even suggested that the dying declaration was recorded in presence of SI Bane Singh and in this regard they have placed their reliance on the crossexamination of Amar Lal wherein he has admitted as correct that Ex.PW64/C dying declaration of his father recorded by SI Bani Singh bearing his signatures at point A. In so far as the signatures of Dr. Dinesh are concerned it has been made clear that it was got attested by the doctor but the presence of Amar Lal at that time is not established because if the signature of Amar Lal on Ex.PW64/C are got compared with his signatures on Ex.CW1/DX1 and the dying declaration it would be evidence that the signatures at point A on Ex.PW64/C are not of Amar Lal. Non deposition of Amar Lal before the Enquiry Commission and his affidavit on the point of dying declaration creates a doubt with
regard to the credibility of this witness and his presence at the spot. Because the presence of the accused Rajender S/o Pale stands established at Jind at the time of alleged incident as evident from the call detail records placed before this court and therefore under these circumstances the dying declarations on which trustworthy and are doubtful. That the dying declaration is not at all trustworthy because bed head ticket shows burning of 99% and Tara Chand according to prosecution reached the hospital at 2:30 P.M. and according to M.L.C. he was referred to PGIMS urgently, as such Tara Chand was referred from Hissar hospital between 2:30 to 3 PM, and if this be so then the deceased Tara Chand having been shifted out of the General Hospital Hissar there can be no recording of his statement at the Hissar Hospital thereafter. It is argued that two things being undisputed firstly that the burn injuries were received by Tara Chand around 12:30 PM and he reached at hospital at 2:30 PM MLR shows his urgently reference PGIMS proves that dying declaration is not trustworthy and secondly that Tara Chand could not reach at PGIMS Rohtak and he was brought back to Hissar where the doctors have written that he has been brought dead and therefore the statement could not have been recorded. The alleged recording of his dying declaration first by SI Bani Singh and then by Judicial Magistrate First Class is not at all trustworthy as SI Bani Singh has deposed he only got the statement of Tara Chand attested by doctor which makes it crystal
the
prosecution is seeking to place its reliance are not at all
clear that Tara Chand was not declared fit to make statement before he allegedly made a statement to SI Bani Singh and then Judicial Magistrate First Class. Because the FSL report also rule out the use of kerosene oil or petrol. I have duly considered the submissions made before me and the various authorities on which reliance has been placed by both the sides. I may observe that there is a historical and a literary basis for recognition of dying declaration as an exception to the Hearsay Rule. Some authorities suggest the rule is of Shakespearian origin. In "The Life and Death of King John", Shakespeare has Lord Melun utter what a "hideous death within my view, retaining but a quantity of life, which bleeds away,..lost the use of all deceit" and asked,"Why should I then be false, since it is true that I must die here and live hence by truth?" (Ref.: William Shakespeare, The Life and Death of King John act. 5, sc.2, lines 22-29). It is the provisions of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act which are relevant in case of statements of the persons who are dead or cannot be found. It reads as under: Section 32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found etc., is relevant: Statements, written or verbal of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence or whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, appears to the court unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts in the following cases: (1) when it relates to cause of death: When the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to
any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person's death comes into question. Such statements are relevant whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time when they were made, under expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of the proceedings in which the cause of his death comes into question. Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act provides for exception to the rule of hear-say. As a general rule the hear-say evidence is excluded and best evidence must always be given but Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act is an important exception to this rule and one of the exceptions so provided where a person is dead or incapable of giving evidence or cannot be found, then in such case since no better evidence can be obtained, the oral or written evidence of such a person relating to relevant fact under inquiry, becomes admissible. The test of crossexamination being unavailable, the safeguards which are enumerated under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act must be observed. Dying Declaration is only a piece of untested evidence and must like any other evidence satisfy the court that what has been stated therein is the unalloyed truth and that it is absolutely safe to rely upon it. The evidentiary value or weight which has to be attached to such a statement/ Dying Declaration necessarily depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is the duty of the court to subject such a statement to close scrutiny to ascertain whether it was honest and truly made and not a result of any tutoring, prompting or imagination and the deceased had opportunity to observe and identify the assailants and was in a fit state to make a declaration. It is hence settled that in passing upon admissibility
Page No. 530
of an alleged dying declaration, all attendant circumstances should be considered, including weapon which injured the victim, nature and extent of injuries, victim's physical condition, his conduct, and what was said to and by him. The Hon'ble Apex Court has in various judicial pronouncements has consistently taken the view that where a proper and sufficient predicate has been established for the admission of a statement under dying declaration, Hearsay exception is a mixed question of fact and law. It is equally well settled that dying declaration can form the sole basis for conviction but at the same time due care and caution must be exercised in considering weight to be given to dying declaration in as much as there could be any number of circumstances which may affect the truth. The Hon'ble Apex Court has in more than one decision cautioned the courts to be on guard to see that the dying declaration was not the result of either tutoring or prompting or a product of imagination and has observed that it is the duty of the courts to find that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to make the dying declaration. In order to satisfy itself that the deceased was in a fit mental condition to make the dying declaration, the courts have to look for the medical opinion. It is not difficult to appreciate why dying declarations are admitted in evidence at a trial for murder, as a striking exception to the general rule against hearsay. For example, any sanction of the oath in the case of a living witness is a thought to be balanced at least by the final conscience of the dying man. Nobody, it has been said, would wish to die with a lie on his lips. A dying declaration has got sanctity and a person giving the dying declaration will be last to give untruth as he stands before his creator. There is a legal maxim "Nemo Moriturous Praesumitur Mentire" meaning, that a man will not meet his maker with
lie in his mouth. Woodroffe and Amir Ali, in their treatise on Evidence Act state : "when a man is dying, the grave position in which he is placed is held by law to be a sufficient ground for his veracity and therefore the tests of oath and cross-examination are dispensed with." Therefore it is for the court to consider in each case and under the given circumstances as to what value should be given to a dying declaration. The court on assessment of the circumstances and the evidence and materials on record, has to come to a conclusion about the truth or otherwise of the version, be it written, oral, verbal or by sign or by gestures. It is also a settled principle of law that dying declaration is a substantive evidence and an order of conviction can be safely recorded on the basis of dying declaration provided the court is fully satisfied that the dying declaration made by the deceased was voluntary and reliable and the author recorded the dying declaration as stated by the deceased. This court laid down the principle that for relying upon the dying declaration the court must be conscious that the dying declaration was voluntary and further it was recorded correctly and above all the maker was in a fit condition - mentally and physically - to make such statement. In Smt. Paniben -vs- State of Gujarat reported in (1992) 2 SCC 474, the Hon'ble Apex Court while observing that a dying declaration is entitled to great weight however cautioned to note that the accused has no power to cross-examination. It was observed that: "Such a power is essential for eliciting the truth as an obligation of oath could be. This is the reason the Court also insists that the dying declaration should be of such a nature as to inspire full confidence of the Court in its correctness. The Court has to be on guard that the statement of deceased was not as a result of either tutoring, prompting or a product of
imagination. The Court must be further satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind after a clear opportunity to observe and identify the assailants. Once the Court is satisfied that the declaration was true and voluntary, undoubtedly, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration. It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated. The rule requiring corroboration is merely a rule of prudence. This Court has laid down in several judgments the principles governing dying declaration, which could be summed up as under: (i) There is neither rule of law nor of prudence that dying declaration cannot be acted upon without corroboration [Munnu Raja -vs- State of M.P.) (1976) 3 SCC 104; 1976 SCC (Cri.) 376; (1976) 2 SCR 764; AIR 1976 SC 2199]. (ii) If the Court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and voluntary it can base conviction on it, without corroboration. [(State of U.P. -vs- Ram Sagar Yadav) (1985) 1 SCC 552 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 127: AIR 1985 SC 416; Ramavati Devi -vs- State of Bihar (1983) 1 SCC 211: 1983 SCC (Cri) 169: AIR 1983 SC 164]. (iii) Court has to scrutinise the dying declaration carefully and must ensure that the declaration is not the result of tutoring, prompting or imagination. The deceased had opportunity to observe and identify the assailants and was in a fit state to make the declaration. [(K. RamChandra Reddy -vs- Public Prosecutor) (1976) 3 SCC 618: 1976 SCC (Cri) 473:AIR 1976 SC 1994]. (iv) Where dying declaration is suspicious it should not be acted upon without corroborative evidence. [Rasheed Beg -vs- State of M.P.) (1974) 4 SCC 264 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 426]. (v) Where the deceased was unconscious and could never make any dying declaration the evidence with regard to it is to be rejected. [(Kake Singh -vsSt. Vs. Dharambir Etc, FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaund (Haryana) Page No. 533
State of M.P.) 1981 Supp. SCC 25: 1981 SCC (Cri.) 645 : AIR 1982 SC 1021]. (vi) A dying declaration which suffers from infirmity cannot form the basis of conviction. [(Ram Manorath -vs- State of U.P.) (1981) 2 SCC 654 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 581]. (vii) Merely because a dying declaration does not contain the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be rejected. [(State of Maharashtra -vs- Krishnamurti Laxmipati Naidu) 1980 Supp. SCC 455 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 364 : AIR 1981 SC 617]. (viii) Equally, merely because it is a brief statement, it is not be discarded. On the contrary, the shortness of the statement itself guarantees truth. [(Surajdeo Oza -vs- State of Bihar) 1980 Supp. SCC 769 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 519 : AIR 1979 SC 1505]. (ix) Normally the court in order to satisfy whether deceased was in a fit mental condition to make the dying declaration look up to the medical opinion. But where the eye-witness has said that the deceased was in a fit and conscious state to make this dying declaration, the medical opinion cannot prevail. [(Nanahau Ram and Anr. -vs- State of M.P.) 1988 Supp. SCC 152 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 342 : AIR 1988 SC 912]. (x) Where the prosecution version differs from the version as given in the dying declaration, the said declaration cannot be acted upon. [(State of U.P. -vsMadan Mohan) (1989) 3 SCC 390 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 585 : AIR 1989 SC 1519]" Further, in the case of Mayur Panabhai Shah -vs- State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 1983 SC 66, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court did not approve the observation made by a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court to the effect that 'our Courts have always taken the Doctors as witness of truth'. The Supreme Court of India observed 'even where a doctor has deposed in court, his evidence has got to be
appreciated like the evidence of any other witness and there is no irrebuttable presumption that a doctor is always a witness of truth.' In the case of Ashok Pandurang Jadhav -vs- The State of Maharashtra, Crl. Appeal No. 372/09 decided on 6.5.2011, it has been reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court that like every other piece of evidence, the declarations made by the dying man ought to be subjected to scrutiny and cannot be accepted as true merely because it is proved that the dying man indeed made such statements. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court also observed that one of the principles, which ought to be kept in mind in assessing the value of dying declaration as laid down by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Khushal Rao (supra) is that a dying declaration stands on the same footing as another piece of evidence and has to be judged in the light of surrounding circumstances and with reference to the principles governing the weighing of evidence and further observed that the weight, which is to be attached to the testimony of a witness, depends, in a large measure, upon considerations, that is, if on the face of it, his evidence is so much in consonance with the probabilities and consistent with other evidence and generally so fits with the material details of the case of prosecution, as to carry conviction of truth to a prudent mind, it can be safely accepted. What is true with respect to evidence of witnesses is also true with respect to the statements made by a dying man. In fact, they deserve to be scrutinized more carefully as they cannot be tested on the anvil of the cross- examination. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court also in the above case culled out the possible infirmities in a dying declaration which according
to it could be one or more of the following : (a) The declarant may not have been mentally fit to make the alleged declaration. (b) The nature of the record made may have considerably detracted from the actual words uttered by the declarant. (c) The declaration may have been lacking in circumstantial guarantee of its trustworthiness. (d) The declaration may have been the result of suggestion or consultation. Further, in the case of Khushal Rao -vs- State of Bombay reported in AIR 1958 SC 22 a Full Bench of the Supreme Court of India, specifically dealt with the evidentiary value of dying declarations. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court referred to a previous decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1953 SC 420(E), wherein it had observed that it was not safe to convict an accused merely on the evidence of dying declaration, without any corroboration. Their Lordships reproduced the observations as under: "It is settled law that it is not safe to convict an accused person merely on the evidence furnished by a dying declaration without further corroboration because such a statement is not made on oath and is not subject to cross- examination and because the maker of it might be mentally and physically in a state of confusion and might well be drawing upon his imagination while he was making the declaration. It is in this light that the different dying declarations made by the deceased and sought to be proved in the case have to be considered." Their Lordships further observed as under: "We have, therefore, to examine the legal position whether it is settled law that a dying declaration by
itself, can, in no circumstances, be the basis of a conviction." After extensively examining the provisions of Sec.32(1) of the Evidence Act and referring to various conflicting views with regard to the value of dying declaration as a piece of evidence expressed by different High Courts, Their Lordships laid down the following principles : "1) That it cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that a dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated; 2) that each case must be determined on its own facts keeping in view the circumstances in which the dying declaration was made; 3) that it cannot be laid down as a general proposition that a dying declaration is a weaker kind of evidence than other pieces of evidence; 4) that a dying declaration stands on the same footing as another piece of evidence and has to be judged in the light of surrounding circumstances and with reference to the principles governing the weighing of evidence; 5) that a dying declaration which has been recorded by a competent magistrate in the proper manner, that is to say, in the form of questions and answers, and, as far as practicable, in the words of the maker of the declaration, stands on a much higher footing than a dying declaration which depends upon oral testimony which may suffer from all the infirmities of human memory and human character; and 6) that in order to test the reliability of a dying declaration, the Court has to keep in view, the circumstances like the opportunity of the dying man for observation, for example, whether there was sufficient light if the crime was committed at night; whether the capacity of the man to remember the
facts stated had not been impaired at the time he was making the statement, by circumstances beyond his control; that the statement has been consistent throughout if he had several opportunities of making a dying declaration apart from the official record of it; and that the statement had been made at the earliest opportunity and was not the result of tutoring by interested parties." Their Lordships then observed as under: "Hence, in order to pass the test of reliability, a dying declaration has to be subjected to a very close scrutiny, keeping in view the fact that the statement has been made in the absence of the accused who had no opportunity of testing the veracity of the statement by cross-examination. But, once, the Court has come to the conclusion that the dying declaration was the truthful version as to the circumstances of the death and the assailants of the victim, there is no question of further corroboration. If, on the other hand, the Court, after examining the dying declaration in all its aspects, and testing its veracity, has come to the conclusion that it is not reliable by itself, and that it suffers from an infirmity, then without corroboration it cannot form the basis of a conviction. Thus, the necessity for corroboration arises not from any inherent weakness of a dying declaration as a piece of evidence, as held in some of the reported cases, but from the fact that the Court, in a given case, has come to the conclusion that particular dying declaration was not free from the infirmities, referred to above or from such other infirmities as may be disclosed in evidence in that case."
In the case of Nallapati Sivaiah -vs- Sub-Divisional Officer, Guntur, A. P. reported in AIR 2008 Supreme Court 19 the
Hon'ble Apex Court while examining the credibility, consistency and truthfulness of the Dying Declaration recorded by the Magistrate and capacity of the declarant of making an intelligible statement and observed that: .... It was the duty of the prosecution to establish the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt must always go in favour of the accused..... It further observed that: ...... It is true that dying declaration is a substantive piece of evidence to be relied on provided it is proved that the same was voluntary and truthful and the victim was in a fit state of mind...... It was also observed that: ...... It is not the requirement in law that the doctor who certified about the condition of the victim to make a Dying Declaration is required to be examined in every case but it was the obligation of the prosecution to lead corroborative evidence available in the peculiar circumstances of the case.... The court further observed that: In our considered opinion, the medical evidence and surrounding circumstances altogether cannot be ignored and kept out of consideration by placing exclusive reliance upon the testimony of person recording a dying declaration. The Dying Declaration must inspire confidence so as to make it safe to act upon. Whether it is safe to act upon a Dying Declaration depends upon not only the testimony of the person recording Dying Declaration be it even a Magistrate but also all the material available on record and the circumstances including the medical evidence. The evidence and the material
available on record must be properly weighed in each case to arrive at proper conclusion. The court must satisfy to itself that the person making the Dying Declaration was conscious and fit to make statement for which purposes not only the evidence of persons recording dying declaration but also cumulative effect of the other evidence including the medical evidence and the circumstances must be taken into consideration. In the case of K. Ramachandra Reddy and another -vsThe Public Prosecutor reported in (1976) 3 SCC 618: 1976 SCC (Cri) 473:AIR 1976 SC 1994, the court having noticed the evidence of a prosecution witness who conducted the postmortem that there were as many as 48 injuries on the person of the deceased out of which there were 28 incised wounds on the various parts of the body including quite a few gaping incised injuries came to the conclusion that in view of those serious injuries it was difficult to believe that the deceased would have been in a fit state of mind to make a dying declaration. It was also a case where the Magistrate did not put a direct question to the injured whether he was capable mentally to make any statement. In the circumstances this court came to the conclusion that the Magistrate committed a serious irregularity in "not putting a direct question to the injured whether he was capable mentally to make any statement." It has been observed that: ....... Even though the deceased might have been conscious in the strict sense of the term, "there must be reliable evidence to show, in view of his intense suffering and serious injuries, that he was in a fit state of mind to make statement regarding the occurrence." The certificate issued by the doctor that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to make statement by itself would not be sufficient to dispel the doubts created by the circumstances and particularly the omission by
the Magistrate in not putting a direct question to the deceased regarding the mental condition of the injured..... In the case of Darshan Singh @ Bhasuri and Ors. -vsState of Punjab reported in 1999 AIR SCW 3727, relying on the evidence of the Medical Officer who conducted the postmortem examination on the body of victim to the effect that the victim's vital organs like peritoneum, stomach and spleen were completely smashed and that there were remote chances of his remaining conscious after receipt of such injury, the Hon'ble Apex Court came to a conclusion that it was impossible to believe that he was in a fit state of mind and body to make any kind of coherent or credible statement relating to the circumstances which resulted in his death. It was observed that ...... true, he was quite near his Creator, dangerously so indeed, and we may accept that his mind was then free from failings which afflict the generality of human beings, like involving enemies in false charges. But; was too ill to entertain any thoughts, good or bad, and he could not possibly even in a position to make any kind of intelligible statement... The court accordingly refused to place any reliance on the dying declaration and excluded the same from consideration. In the case of Laxman -vs- State of Maharashtra reported in 2002 AIR SCW 3479, Para 3; 8 (2002) 6 SCC 710, a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court held: "The court, however, has always to be on guard to see that the statement of the deceased was not as a result of either tutoring or promoting or a product of imagination. The court also must further decide that the deceased was in a fit state of mind and had the
opportunity to observe and identify the assailant. Normally, therefore, the court in order to satisfy whether the deceased was in a fit mental condition to make the dying declaration looks up to the medical opinion. But where the eyewitnesses state that the deceased was in a fit and conscious state to make the declaration, the medical opinion will not prevail, nor can it be said that since there is no certification of the doctor as to the fitness of the mind of the declarant, the dying declaration is not acceptable. A dying declaration can be oral or in writing and any adequate method of communication whether by words or by signs or otherwise will suffice provided the indication is positive and definite. In most cases, however, such statements are made orally before death ensues and is reduced to writing by someone like a magistrate or a doctor or a police officer. When it is recorded, no oath is necessary nor is the presence of a magistrate absolutely necessary, although to assure authenticity it is usual to call a magistrate, if available for recording the statement of a man about to die. There is no requirement of law that a dying declaration must necessarily be made to a magistrate and when such statement is recorded by a magistrate there is no specified statutory form for such recording. Consequently, what evidential value or weight has to be attached to such statement necessarily depends on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. What is essentially required is that the person who records a dying declaration must be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind. Where it is proved by the testimony of the magistrate that the declarant was fit to make the statement even without examination by the doctor the declaration can be acted upon provided the court ultimately holds the same to be voluntary and truthful. A certification by the doctor is essentially a rule of caution and therefore the voluntary and truthful nature of the declaration can be established otherwise."
Page No. 542
The Constitution Bench in its authoritative pronouncement declared that there is no requirement of law that dying declaration must necessarily contain a certification by the doctor that the patient was in a fit state of mind especially when a dying declaration was recorded by a Magistrate. It is the testimony of the Magistrate that the declarant was fit to make the statement gains the importance and reliance can be placed upon declaration even in the absence of the doctor provided the court ultimately holds the same to be voluntary and truthful. The judgment does not lay down a proposition that medical evidence, even if available on record, as also the other attending circumstances should altogether be ignored and kept out of consideration to assess the evidentiary value of a dying declaration whenever it is recorded by a Magistrate. The Constitution Bench resolved the difference of opinion between the decisions expressed by the two Benches of three learned Judges in Paparambaka Rosamma and Ors. -vs- State of A.P. reported in (1999) 7 SCC 695 and Koli Chunilal Savji and Anr. -vs- State of Gujarat reported in (1999) 9 SCC 562 and accordingly held that there is no requirement of law that there should be always a medical certification that the injured was in a fit state of mind at the time of making a declaration and such certification by the doctor is essentially a rule of caution and even in the absence of such a certification the voluntary and truthful nature of the declaration can be established otherwise. (1999 AIR SCW 3440, 1999 AIR SCW 3727, 9 (1999) 7 SCC 695) In the case of Kailash -vs- State of M.P. reported in (2006) 11 SCC 420 the Hon'ble Apex Court while adverting to the question as to the course open to the courts where oral evidence is to be found inconsistent with the medical evidence has observed:
"When, however, oral evidence is found to be inconsistent with the medical evidence, the question of relying upon one or the other would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. No hardand-fast rule can be laid down thereof." In the case of State of Rajasthan -vs- Bhanwar Singh reported in 2004 AIR SCW 5245, Para 6 the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under: "Though ocular evidence has to be given importance over medical evidence, where the medical evidence totally improbabilities the ocular version that can be taken to be a factor to affect credibility of the prosecution version." Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case it is evident that Firstly it is not disputed by anyone that Tara Chand had sustained burns in the incident dated 21.4.2010 and was rushed to the hospital by the police in an ambulance. Secondly that on receiving burns Tara Chand had rushed out of his house and took refuge in the house of Deewan Singh which is situated on the opposite side towards the main gali on one side. Thirdly within a few minutes Tara Chand going to the house of Deewan Singh, police arrived at the spot and on seeing his condition rushed him to General Hospital Hissar. Fourthly that SI Bane Singh and the son of Tara Chand namely Amar Lal along with nephew of Tara Chand namely Ashok S/o Maha Singh accompanied him to the hospital. Fifthly when Tara Chand reached General Hospital Hissar he was conscious and oriented and his MLR Ex.PW52/A was prepared by Dr. Dinesh Kumar (PW68) who also gave information to the police vide Ex.PW64/A. Tara Chand when examined
was found to be having 99% burns with superficial deep burns all over the body with skin denuded at multiple places, bulla filled with water and burns sparing the perineal area, a red line was present between the burnt and unburnt area. Sixthly Tara Chand was examined by Surgeon Dr. Sunita Garg (DW44) at 2:30 PM and on seeing his condition she urgently referred him to PGIMS, Rohtak and her endorsement to this effect is present on Ex.PW52/B at point encircled X1 bearing her signatures. Seventhly the bed head ticket of Tara Chand Ex.PW52/B which was prepared by Dr. Dinesh Kumar shows that at 2:30 PM when Tara Chand was examined he was unconscious and not oriented and his Blood Pressure and pulse were not recordable and at that time he was given IV fluids. Eighthly that SI Bane Singh had recorded the statement of Tara Chand in the presence of his son Amar Lal on which Dr. Dinesh had given the fitness in respect of Tara Chand on the application of SI Bane Singh Ex.PW64/B and also signed on the statement of Tara Chand on Ex.PW64/C. Ninthly the Judicial Magistrate First Class Sh. Harish Goyal (PW55) had come to the hospital and recorded the statement of Tara Chand at about 5:15-5:30 PM at which time Tara Chand was conscious and Dr. Dinesh Kumar had given the fitness in respect of Tara Chand to him on Ex.PW55/A both before and after the recording of the statement by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate. Tenthly Dr. Dinesh Kumar had referred Tara Chand to PGIMS Rohtak at 6:00 PM as his condition deteriorated when Tara Chand was shifted from the hospital. Lastly body of Tara Chand was brought back to the hospital since he had expired on the way to Soni Burns Hospital and was declared dead when he reached there and was therefore brought back to General Hospital Hissar.
Now coming to the statement of Tara Chand made to SI Bane Singh at the first instance which is Ex.PW64/C the same reads as under: Bayan anjane Tara Chand putar Swaroop Singh, kaum Balmiki, gaon Mirchpur, ba umar 60 saal. Bayan kiya ki uprokat pate ka rehne wala hu and ghar par hi rehta hu, aaj samay karib 12 baje din mei we meri ladki Suman, apahij ghar par the. Mitti ka tail dal kar Rajender we uske sath 20 ladke aur the. Kamre mei mei we meri ladki Suman ba umar 18 warsh ko aag laga kar kamla ka bahar se kunda band kar ke jatisuckar galiya de ththa darwaja jalaya. Jalne ke bad jasi he mei bahar nikla inhi logo ne lathiyo se hamla kiya. Phir mei Diwan Singh ke ghar mei jali hui halat mei pauch gaya. Ttha meri ladki Suman jalkar aphajij hone ke karan makan ke andar hi rah gayi. Iske sath dusre mere ghar ki bethak mei aag laga di. Mera aaj mei sara sharir jal gaya. Phir mera ladka Amar ve mera bhatija Ashok Kumar S/o Maha Singh sarkar gypsy mei illaj ke liye sarkar hasptal Hissar ke aye, jaha doctor sahab ne mere ko dakhil karke marham pati ki ve illaj shuru kar diya. Rajender Singh ke illawa jat samuday ke ladko ke naam mera ladka Amar batla sakta hai. Samne ane par mei pehchan sakta hu. Jhagra ka karan mere pariwar wale hi batla sakte hai. Bayan likha, diya samajh liya, sun liya thek hai. It is evident from above that Tara Chand has only named Rajender S/o Pale as the assailant and has further told the Investigating Officer that his son Amar Lal who was present at that time would give the names of other assailants. The time when the above statement of Tara Chand was so recorded by SI Bane Singh is nowhere mentioned on the said statement.
Now coming to the statement Ex.PW55/B recorded by Sh. Harish Goyal Judicial Magistrate First Class which is as under: Q: Apka naam kya hai? Ans. :Tara Chand. Q: Apko Kya hua hai? Ans.: Mai apne ghar mei tha. Mera ghar jato ne phook diya. Aag Rajender ne lagai thi. Rajender ke bap ka naam Pali hai. Q: Apko kuch aur kehna hai? Ans.: Nahi. It is evident that both before and after recording the above statement, the fitness of the patient has been given by the doctor but soon after the condition of Tara Chand is stated to have deteriorated when he was shifted out from the hospital at 6:00 PM and while on the way to the Soni Burns Hospital Hissar he expired and had to be brought back to General Hospital, Hissar. It is settled law that while assessing the truthfulness of a Dying Declaration reference to other circumstances which are either undisputed or satisfactorily proved may be necessary. even if it was held to be made by the deceased, would fail. Coming first to the statement recorded by SI Bane Singh which is Ex.PW66/C I may observe that at 2:30 PM when Dr. Dinesh had examined Tara Chand he was unconscious and not oriented and his Blood Pressure and pulse were not recordable and at that time he was given IV fluids. Naturally his statement could not have been recorded at that time. Thereafter it was SI Bane Singh who had gone to the District Courts Hissar and on the advise of his senior officers moved an A Dying Declaration lacking any circumstantial guarantee of its trustworthiness
Page No. 547
application before the Duty Magistrate for recording the statement of Tara Chand and according to Sh. Harish Goyal, Judicial Magistrate First Class the application was put up before him at 5:00 PM and he (Judicial Magistrate First Class) reached the hospital by 5:15 PM after which he recorded the statement of Tara Chand. This being so, SI Bane Singh would have apparently reached the Hissar Court only after 4:00 PM and it was for this reason that he moved the application before the Ld. Duty Magistrate and not before the Ilaka Magistrate. According to Dr. Dinesh the Investigating Officer had recorded the statement of Tara Chand before the Ld. Magistrate had recorded his statement. It is not possible that SI Bane Singh could have recorded the statement of Tara Chand between 4:30 to 5:00 PM since SI Bane Singh was not present in the hospital at that time but was rather present in the Hissar Court where he reached at 4:30 PM and prepared and filed an application before the Ld. Duty Magistrate for recording the statement of Tara Chand. Dr. Dinesh Kumar has proved that in the application filed by SI Bane Singh he has mentioned the time when he had given the fitness of Tara Chand to SI Bane Singh at 5:30 PM. He has however admitted that nowhere in the bed ticket or in the MLR of Tara Chand has he recorded the time when Tara Chand regained consciousness after 2:30 PM. According to SI Bane Singh after Dr. Dinesh Kumar prepared the MLR of Tara Chand he proceeded to record the statement of Tara Chand. The MLR shows that Tara Chand had been brought to the hospital at about 2:30 PM when he was unconscious and not oriented. When was it then that SI Bane Singh had recorded the statement of Tara Chand who had suffered 99% burns and could not even survive for four hours after being brought to the hospital.
I may further observe that there is a major contradiction in the MLR Ex.PW52/A and the bed head ticket Ex.PW52/B. At the time when the MLR was prepared at 2:30 PM Tara Chand was shown as conscious and oriented but Blood Pressure and Pulse were not recordable and at the same time thereafter at 2:30 PM again when the bed Head Ticket was prepared he was shown as unconscious and not oriented and his Blood Pressure and Pulse were not recordable. This proves that as soon as Tara Chand reached the hospital and was taken to the bed before treatment was given to him, he became unconscious and was not oriented and was therefore put on IV fluids. The bed head ticket Ex.PW52/B reflects the extremely precarious condition of the patient who had suffered 99% burns and was put on the antibiotics, pain killers and plasma through IV fluids as he was not in a position to take anything orally. It is this what makes me think that at a time when the life of a person is hanging between life and death and he is in extreme pain how then was it possible for him to have made such a precise and perfect statement to SI Bane Singh. Further, the fitness given by the doctor with regard to Tara Chand on a separate application of SI Bane Singh Ex.PW64/B at point B at 3:50 PM does not inspire confidence of this court and the chances of the same having been taken later cannot be ruled out as the above statement Ex.PW64/C only bear his attestation. Even otherwise assuming that at 3:50 PM the doctor had given the fitness of Tara Chand pursuant to which SI Bane Singh proceeded to record the statement of Tara Chand, how is it possible that such a detailed and precise statement as Ex.PW64/C could have been given by Tara Chand to SI Bane Singh within this span of ten to fifteen minutes, so much so that after recording the same SI Bane Singh was in a position
to have reached the District Courts at Hissar where he went to the court of Sh. Harish Goyal, Duty Magistrate Hissar at 4:30 PM. Assuming that Tara Chand did make a detail statement as above to SI Bane Singh then how is it that when the Ld. Judicial Magistrate came to him at 5:15 PM and questioned him about the incident Tara Chand is unable to tell the Ld. Magistrate all that he has earlier told SI Bane Singh. Now coming to the statement recorded by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class which is Ex.PW55/B it is evident that even when the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class recorded the statement of Tara Chand, he was only giving the answers to the queries put by the Ld. Magistrate in short suggesting his deteriorating physical condition, intense suffering, serious injuries and the pain. The important aspects borne out from the above statement are elaborated as under: That Tara Chand was in his house when it was set on fire by the persons from the 'J' community (Mai apne ghar mei tha. Mera ghar jato ne phook diya). That Rajender S/o Pale had set his house on fire (Aag Rajender ne lagai thi. Rajender ke bap ka naam Pali hai). That when the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class asked Tara Chand if he wanted to say something else, he refused saying no (Nahin) and apparently he had nothing else to tell to the Ld. Judicial Magistrate. That Tara Chand does not mention to the Ld. Judicial Magistrate that petrol or oil was sprinkled on him. That Tara Chand does not mention to the Ld. Judicial Magistrate that he was pushed inside his house by
persons from the 'J' community. That Tara Chand does not tell the Ld. Judicial Magistrate that he was locked in his house or was not allowed to come out. That Tara Chand also does not mention to the Ld. Judicial Magistrate regarding the presence of his son Amar Lal or any other family member. In the background of this Dying Declaration of Tara Chand, his statement so allegedly recorded by SI Bane Singh does not inspire confidence of the Court and a new story regarding Amar Lal and Ashok S/o Maha Singh being present at the spot has been inserted which is despite the fact that Ashok S/o Maha Singh in his testimony before this Court does not make any mention of either his going to the hospital along with Tara Chand or regarding Tara Chand having made any statement to SI Bane Singh. I may observe that Tara Chand had suffered 99% burn injuries and his Blood Pressure and pulse were not recordable and at 2:30 PM was unconscious and not oriented. No doubt the patient under these circumstances may have waxing and waning phases of consciousness and unconsciousness and perhaps when his statement was recorded by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate he was conscious despite his severe burns and extremely low/ non recordable Blood Pressure and Pulse but it is difficult for this Court to believe that under these circumstances when it was extremely difficult for the deceased Tara Chand to have even given elaborate replies to the queries put by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate, that he could have made a detailed and elaborate statement to SI Bane Singh as
allegedly recorded by him. Also, there being no endorsement made by the doctor on the statement allegedly recorded by SI Bane Singh to the extent that Tara Cand was conscious in a strict sense of term and in a fit state of mind to make a statement regarding the occurrence, as already observed herein above, the probability of this endorsement having been obtained from the doctor by SI Bane Singh later on a separate application is strengthened and perhaps it is for this reason that when Dr. Dinesh (PW68) was examined in the Court he was unable to give the time when this statement was recorded by SI Bane Singh Ex.PW64/C. It is evident that there is a material improvement in the statement of the deceased Tara Chand so recorded by SI Bane Singh with regard to the manner in which Tara Chand had received fatal injuries and the names of the assailants. The statement so recorded by SI Bane Singh Ex.PW64/C does not inspire confidence and is liable to be rejected. However, in so far as the statement Ex.PW55/B is concerned I hereby hold that no conviction can be based on the basis of the sole testimony of Tara Chand so recorded by the Ld. Magistrate but his statement can certainly be looked into for corroborating other evidence including the circumstantial evidence which has come on record.
Disclosure statements made by the accused are inadmissible:

The case of the prosecution is that after the accused were apprehended and interrogated they disclosed their involvement in the incident and had made a disclosure to the Investigating Officer. In this regard reliance has been placed on the joint disclosure statement of the accused Dharambir, Pawan, Karambir, Joginder, Dalbir, Balwan S/o Inder, Satyawan, Jaibir, Ajeet Singh, Balwan S/o Dharam Singh, Roshan,
Pradeep S/o Ram Phal, Vijender, Hoshiar Singh, Ajeet S/o Dalip Singh, Rajinder S/o Dhupa and Surender Kumar S/o Jagde Ram recorded on 22.4.2010 which is Ex.PW66/E. Reliance has also been placed on the disclosure statements of the accused Dinesh S/o Prem Singh recorded on 24.4.2010 which is Ex.PW57/B, Viren S/o Yashpal recorded on 24.4.2010 which is Ex.PW57/C and Rajender S/o Pale recorded on 21.5.2010 which is Ex.PW64/I. Before proceeding to consider the above statements, I may observe that Section 27 of Evidence Act, which is in the nature of a proviso to Section 26 of the Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. Thus the requirement of law is that before the fact discovered in consequence of an information received from an accused is allowed to be proved, he (accused) needs to be in the custody of a police officer. In the case of Bachchi Singh & Anrs. -vs- The State (NCT of Delhi) bearing Criminal Appeal No. 261/1997 decided on 30.7.2010 by the Division Bench headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Badar Durez Ahmed of Delhi High Court wherein the Hon'ble Judges while making reference to the earlier decisions and various judicial pronouncements, briefly culled out the law relating to the statement made by the accused while in police custody and the extent to which it can be relied upon. In State of U.P. -vs- Deoman Upadhyaya in 1960 Cri.L.J. 1504, Supreme Court inter alia, observed as under:St. Vs. Dharambir Etc, FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaund (Haryana) Page No. 553
When a person not in custody approaches a police officer investigating an offence and offers to give information leading to the discovery of a fact, having a bearing on the charge which may be made against him he may appropriately be deemed to have surrendered himself to the police. Section 46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not contemplate any formality before a person can be said to be taken in custody: submission to the custody by word or action by a person is sufficient. A person directly giving to a police officer by word of mouth information which may be used as evidence against him, may be deemed to have submitted himself to the custody of the police officer within the meaning of S.27 of the Indian Evidence Act. In the case of Kanuru Yanadi Changaiah & Ors. -vs- State of A.P. reported in 1985 Crl. L.J. 1822 where pursuant to joint disclosure statement of several accused stolen articles were recovered the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court held it as inadmissible in evidence and also held that no reliance can be placed on any of the recoveries made in pursuance to the joint statement. In Pharho Shahwali -vsEmperor reported in AIR 1932 Sind 201, the High Court observed as under: The word custody has not been defined by the Act. But the ordinary sense is sufficiently clear. Two things there must be. First, there must be some limitation imposed upon the liberty of the confessor. Second, this limitation must be imposed either directly or indirectly by the police. Now applying the above settled principles of law to the facts of the present case it is evident that the accused Dharambir, Pawan,
Karambir, Joginder, Dalbir, Balwan S/o Inder, Satyawan, Jaibir, Ajeet Singh, Balwan S/o Dharam Singh, Roshan, Pradeep S/o Ram Phal, Vijender, Hoshiar Singh, Ajeet S/o Dalip Singh, Rajinder S/o Dhupa, Surender Kumar S/o Jagde Ram, Dinesh S/o Prem Singh, Viren S/o Yashpal and Rajender S/o Pale were under the control of police when they made the alleged disclosure statements Ex.PW66/E, Ex.PW57/B, Ex.PW57/C and Ex.PW64/I, had been detained and the Investigating Officers been asked to interrogate them thoroughly, it is difficult to accept that they were not in the custody of a police officer at that time. In any case, if a person voluntarily going to a police makes a confessional statement and gives information envisaged by Section 27 of Evidence Act he comes in the custody of the police officer as soon as the incriminating statement is made by him and this disclosure statement would be admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act only to the extent it relates to the discovery of certain facts which in the present case is not there. Therefore, there being no discovery of fact pursuant to either the joint disclosure dated 22.4.2010 or to the disclosures dated 24.4.2010 and 21.5.2010, all the above statements are therefore inadmissible in evidence on which no reliance can be placed.
Non recovery of weapons of offence:

The case of the prosecution is that the assailants had come in large numbers duly armed with jellies, gandases and dandas and had inflicted injuries upon the persons belonging to the 'B' community. It is vehemently argued by the Ld. Defence Counsel that the evidence on record would show that there is no recovery of any weapon from any of the accused nor any injury of the nature as caused by any gandase or
Page No. 555
jellies find reflected in the MLRs of any of the injured/ victim showing that the incident has been exaggerated and no weapon such as jellie and gandases were used as alleged. The Ld. Special Public Prosecutor has admitted that no weapon of offence had been recovered during the investigations but states that the investigations conducted were not up to the mark and the non recovery of weapon of offence was only to help the accused. I have considered the rival submissions made in this regard and also the evidence on record. Firstly I may observe that despite the allegations made by a large number of victims in their oral testimonies that the assailants from the 'J' community had come in large numbers duly armed with jellies, gandases and dandas, the only injuries reflected in the MLRs of the victims are abrasions, contusions, bruises and swellings apparently caused by blunt object thereby ruling out the use of these sharp edged/ pointed/ dangerous weapons. In fact not even a single MLR reflects any kind of sharp incised injuries which could have been caused by weapons such as gandases or jellies. Secondly there is no recovery of any weapon either from the spot of the incident or from any of the accused either on the date of the incident that is 21.4.2010 or later nor any efforts were made in this regard. Here I may observe that not even a single witness so examined by the prosecution has deposed that he had received any injuries by use of gandase or jellie. Thirdly it is evident from the testimony of the various prosecution witnesses that no dandas were recovered after the police party reached the spot of the incident. In fact all the police officers have only deposed to the extent that they found stone pelting going on at the
spot though the evidence on record does not show that any exhibits in the form of bricks, stones etc. were lifted by them. Fourthly perusal of the photographs Ex.PW3/A-1 to Ex.PW3/A-109 and the video clippings Ex.PW5/A taken on the same day of incident (21.4.2010) only shows the presence of brick bats at the spot and does not reflect any other weapon including such as danda, gandase or jellies. Lastly in so far as the victim Gulaba Ram (PW48) is concerned it is evident from his testimony that he had been hit by the assailants after they snatched his own danda from his hand. It is also not the case of Gulaba Ram (PW48) that any of the assailants had assaulted him with their danda. Therefore under these circumstances when the MLRs of the injured, photographs and video clippings taken soon after the incident do not reflect the use of sharp edged dangerous weapons such as gandases and jellies, I hereby hold that the use of these weapons by the assailants as orally alleged by the witnesses is not established.
Medical Evidence:
In so far as the medical evidence is concerned, Dr. Sandeep Kumar (PW51), Dr. Puneet (PW52), Dr. Subhash Arora (PW53), Dr. Vishal Goel (PW56), Dr. Arun Kumar (PW58), Dr. Pale Ram (PW59), Dr. T.P. Sharma (PW63) and Dr. Dinesh Kumar (PW68) have appeared before this court and proved the MLRs of the deceased and the victims. For the sake of convenience the details of the MLRs with their nature of injury are put in a tabulated form as under:
Page No. 557
Sr. No.
Name of Injured
Exhibit No.
Name of Doctor Dr. Pale Ram
Date of MLR
Nature of injury
Remark/detail of injury
1. 2.
Ramphal PW8/A S/o Rishala Sunil S/o Ved PW13/A
30.4.10 No Opinion No marks of fresh injury, no swelling and no tenderness Lacerated wounded on left toe of left foot of size 0.5 x 1cm Pain on right knee and thigh Pain in right shoulder, pain on upper half of back in mid line
Dr . Puneet 20.5.10 Simple
3. 4.
Krishna W/o Raghubir
PW15/A
Dr. Dalel Singh Dr. Dalel Singh
4.5.10
Simple
Ishro W/o PW16/A Asha Ram
4.5.10
Simple
5.
Shanti W/o PW52/D1 Dr. Amit Jugti Ram
1.5.10
No Opinion Pain in right abdomen, pain in right lower back, no sign of external injury Simple Pain in right chest and upper right back, pain in right foot toe Pain on right parietal region on skull Pain in right hip, pain in right hand thumb, pain in center of chest
6.
Chanderpa PW18/A ti W/o Sajana Pooja D/o Surta Kelapati W/o Jai Singh PW19/A
Dr. Vishal Goel
2.5.10
7. 8.
Dr. Dalel Singh Dr. Vishal Goel
4.5.10
Simple
PW20/A
2.5.10
Simple
9.
Sunita W/o PW21/A Satbir Surta Ram
Dr. Amit Kumar Dr. Amit Kumar
1.5.10 2.5.10
No Opinion Pain in lower back Simple/ Blunt Old lacerated wound on left toe (1 x 0.5 cm), Pain in knee but not sign of external injury Pain in left hand finger and pain in
Page No. 558
10. Aman S/o PW22/A
11. Satbir S/o PW23/A

Bhalle
Dr. Vishal Goel
2.5.10
Simple/ Blunt
Ram
lower back but not external injury seen PW25/A Dr. Pale Ram 30.4.10 No Opinion Pain on right solder no mark of external injury seen and no swelling 30.4.10 Simple/ Blunt Pain on left hand ring finger, no swelling present, no redness, no tenderness (1) Partly Healed wound on anterior aspect of left shoulder with scab intact 3.6 x 1.2 cm in size (2) Partly Healed wound on left patella 1.2 x 1.2 cm, 1.5 x 1.6 cm and 2.8 x 2.9 cms of size Whole body in pain but no mark of injury seen (1) Swelling and deformity on left arm (2) Pain & swelling below left knee (3) Abrasion of size 2 x 0.25 cms, swelling on left leg in the middle
12. Susheel
S/o Surta
13. Raju S/o
PW26/A
Pasa Ram
Dr. Pale Ram
14. Ravi S/o
PW27/A
Mahender
Dr. Pale Ram
30.4.10 Simple/ Blunt
15. Sandeep 16. Dhoop
PW28/A
Dr. Puneet 2.5.10
S/o Satpal PW29/A Dr. Sauravh Arora
Simple/ Blunt
Singh S/o Rattan Singh
21.4.10 Grievous (fracture of left Humerous)
17. Santra W/o PW30/A

Satyawan
Dr. Pale Ram Dr. Pale Ram
30.4.10 No Opinion No External injury on body part 30.4.10 No Opinion No mark of external injury and no swelling and
Page No. 559
18. Sheela
PW32/A
W/o Subash
tenderness seen
19. Rani W/o

Sanjay S/o Kapoora
PW33/A
Dr. Pale Ram Dr. Subhash Arora
30.4.10 No Opinion No injury seen on body part 21.4.10 Simple (1) Lacerated wound of size 0.5 x 0.5 cm on medial aspect of right arm (2) Pain on the base of left index finger, multiple abrasion on dorsal aspect of index finger of left hand (3) Reddish contusion of size 2 x 1 cm on right leg below knee (4) Pain on right foot and swelling over it (5) Lacerated wound of size 1 x 0.5 cm on left lower leg on medial aspect.
20. Raj Kumar PW34/A
21. Ashok S/o PW35/A

Maha Singh
Dr. Vishal Singh
2.5.10
Simple/ Blunt
(1) Pain on lower back but no external injury seen (2) Old healed brownish scar on left lower chin of size 0.5 x 0.25 cm
22. Sanjay S/o PW36/A

Raja Ram
Dr. Pale Ram
30.4.10 No Opinion (1) Pain in chest on right side but no mark of external injury seen and no swelling (2) Pain on right shoulder but no mark of external
Page No. 560
injury seen.
23. Meena
PW37/A
Kumar S/o Satpal PW38/A
Dr. Pale Ram
30.4.10 No Opinion No mark of fresh injury seen, no tenderness and no swelling 21.4.10 No Opinion (1) Swelling over upper eye lid. (2) Tenderness over right cheek (3) Bone deep lacerated injury over forehead frontal region 2.5 cm above root of nose (2 x 1.0 x 0.5 cm) 21.4.10 Simple/ blunt (1) Abrasion of size 2 x 1.5 cm posterior side b/w scapula, fresh swelling on tender area (2) Abrasion of size .5 x 1.5 cm at left knee Reddish blue colour (3) Pain at right wrist area but no external injury seen. (1) Pain on right scapular region but no mark of injury seen (2) Pain and weakness on left wrist, no mark of external injury seen (3) Weakness on left lower limb (1) Pain on left side of back at middle 1/3rd but no
Page No. 561
24. Mahajan
S/o Satpal
Dr. Arun Kumar
25. Gulaba
PW48/A
Ram S/o Sh. Jai Lal
Dr. Sandeep Kumar
26. Angoori
PW52/E
W/o Dalip
Dr. Dalel Singh
4.5.10
Initially kept under observation but no opinion
27. Suman
PW52/F
W/o Raghubir
Dr. Dalel Singh
4.5.10
Simple/ Blunt
mark of external injury seen (2) Pain on left foot
28. Sanjay S/o PW53/A

Satpal
Dr. Saurabh Arora
21.4.10 Simple
(1) Lacerated wound of size 3 x 0.5 cm on left parietal region of head (2) Pain and swelling on right elbow but no mark of fresh injury seen (3) Pain in right leg below knee but no external injury seen Abrasion of size 1 x 0.5 cms on left side of forehead (1)Abrasion of size 4 x 1 cm on medial aspect of left forearm (2) Pain on left side of chest but no external injury seen
29. Abishek 30. Sanjeep

S/o Raj Kumar
PW53/B
S/o Sanjay PW53/C
Dr. Saurabh Arora Dr. Saurabh Arora
21.4.10 Simple/ Blunt 21.4.10 Simple/ Blunt
31. Ajmer
PW56/A
Singh S/o Balbir
Dr. Vishal Goyal
2.5.10
Simple/ Blunt
(1) Pain on right ankle (2) Pain on left side of chest (3) Pain in left scrotum No marks of injury seen Old lacerated wound 1 cm in length on left foot little finger (1) Pain on right lower side of right
Page No. 562
32. Satbir S/o PW56/B

Risala
Dr. Vishal Goyal
2.5.10
Simple/ Blunt
33. Sunita W/o PW 56/C

Surta
Dr. Vishal Goyal
2.5.10
Simple/ Blunt
leg (2) Pain on left side of back of right leg and hip (3) Pain in lower abdomen No marks of injury seen
34. Rajbir S/o PW59/A

Baje Singh
Dr. Pale Ram
Partly Healed wound of 1.1 x 1.2 cm on right leg on anterior aspect (1) Partly Healed wound of 2.8 x 0.5 cm in size on right leg on lower part (2) Partly Healed wound on right leg 1.5 x 0.5 cm in size, scar on upper part of leg on anterior aspect Partly Healed wound on left elbow dorsal part 2.1 x 1.5 cm in size, partly scab present (1) Partly Healed wound on skull on parietal region 2.1 x 1.5 cm in size on left side, scab present (2) Partly Healed wound on orbital region on both sides including forehead & lower part below eye, partly scab & hypo pigment area present Partly Healed wound on right
Page No. 563
35. Monika
PW59/B
D/o Ramesh
Dr. Pale Ram
36. Bindu D/o PW59/C

Suresh
Dr. Pale Ram
37. Rajmal S/o PW59/D

Pokar
Dr. Pale Ram
38. Priya D/o

Jagdish
PW59/E
Dr. Pale Ram
middle finger, with complete nail missing
39. Karambir
PW59/F
S/o Balbir
Dr. Pale Ram
Partly Healed wound on left leg near ankle joint on anterior aspect 3.5 x 1.1 cm in size. partly scar present Pain on right elbow. No swelling, no tenderness present. Abrasion of 0.5 x 0.5 cm size, scars present Abrasion on right ankle joint on anterior aspect 1.5 x 0.5 cm in size Partly Healed wound on skull near occipital region 2.8 x 1.5 cm in size with scab intact (1) Abrasion contusion with swelling on left latent region of abdomen with partial scab present. (2) Abrasion contusion on right leg on mid part on anterior aspect 0.5 x 1.5 cm in size with scab. (1) Partly Healed with scab wound present, a scar point present in wound, size of
Page No. 564
40. Pali W/o

Jagdish
PW59/G
Dr. Pale Ram
41. Nawab S/o PW59/H

Lakshman
Dr. Pale Ram
42. Jai Parkash PW59/I

S/o Tek Ram
Dr. Pale Ram
43. Karan
PW59/J
Singh S/o Tek Ram
Dr. Pale Ram
44. Naseeb S/o PW59/K

Karan Singh
Dr. Pale Ram
wound is 5.5. x 1.2 cm over right elbow (2) Pain on right leg joint with swelling (mild), abrasion contusion of size 5.8 x 3.5 cm with scab present.
45. Parveen
PW59/L
S/o Surta
Dr. Pale Ram
(1) Contusion on nose present at root of nose, brownish in colour over skin 0.5 x 0.5 cm in size, no swelling present, mild tenderness on touching. (2) Pain over left shoulder but no marks of injury seen
46. Yogesh S/o PW59/M

Jai Parkash
Dr. Pale Ram
30.4.10 No Opinion (1) No injury over body parts (2) Pain on right finger, no swelling and no tenderness present 30.4.10 Simple/ Blunt (1) Partly Healed wound on right leg in mid part 1.5 x 1.5 cm in size with abrasion and scab present.
47. Poonam
PW59/N
D/o Chander Pal
Dr. Pale Ram
48. Jagbir S/o PW59/O

Nawab Singh
Dr. Pale Ram
30.4.10 No Opinion Partly treated and discolored nail of right thumb with tenderness present 30.4.10 No Opinion No mark of injury seen. 30.4.10 No Opinion No mark of fresh injury seen, no
Page No. 565
49. Ashok S/o PW59/P

Jagdish
Dr. Pale Ram Dr. Pale Ram
50. Kamlesh
W/o Jai
PW59/Q
Parkash
tenderness and no swelling Dr. Pale Ram 30.4.10 No Opinion No mark of fresh injury seen, no tenderness and no swelling 30.4.10 No Opinion No mark of fresh injury seen, no tenderness and no swelling 30.4.10 No Opinion No mark of fresh injury seen, no tenderness and no swelling Superficial to deep burn all over body, burn area - 99% Superficial to deep burn all over body
51. Radha W/o PW59/R

Sandeep
52. Madho
PW59/S
W/o Tek Ram
Dr. Pale Ram
53. Murti W/o PW59/T

Karan Singh
Dr. Pale Ram
54. Tara
PW52/A
Chand S/o Swaroopa Tara Chand (PMR)
Dr. Dinesh 21.4.10 Expired/ Kumar Fatal Prajapati Dr. Puneet 21.4.10 Brought (Medical dead Board)
55. Suman D/o PW52/D
It is evident from the above that except for injured Dhoop Singh S/o Rattan Singh who sustained grievous injuries, the injuries sustained by all other injured were simple/blunt. In fact twenty three patients had not even sustained injuries out of which no opinion was given in case of seventeen patients examined by the doctors Coming now to the injuries found on the body of the deceased Tara Chand and Suman. I may observe that the case of the prosecution/ victims is that oil/ petrol had been sprinkled on Tara Chand and Suman after which they were pushed inside their house which was set on fire in which Suman had expired and Tara Chand received 99% burn injuries and expired within six hours. In so far as Suman is concerned, her body had been taken out by the police from the room situated on the back after breaking the roof as the door would not open.
In fact when she was brought to the hospital her clothings were semiburnt and soiled with soot particles and mud. The postmortem report of Suman Ex.PW52/D reveals the following injuries: 1. Superficial to deep burns were present all over the body except pubic region right upper thigh region. Whole body was oedematious. Burn fractures were present in both hands over distal phalanges. Red line of demarcation was present between burnt and unburnt area. 2. Trachea was congested and contained secretions with a mixture of black soot particles. Both lungs were congested. On cut sections soot particles oozed out. The cause of death of Suman was opined due to shock as a result of extensive burns which opinion has been given at point mark Y on the postmortem report Ex.PW52/D. The presence of Hydrocarbons of Petroleum (kerosene, petrol or diesel) has not been found either during the postmortem examination and in the FSL report. This proves that while Suman was inside the house part of the roof had fell down on her. Now coming to the injuries on Tara Chand. His postmortem report Ex.PW52/C show the following injuries: 1. Superficial to deep burns were present all over the body except both axillary region and inguinopubic region. 2. 3. Red line of demarcation was present between healthy and burnt tissue. Membranes of brain were oedematous and congested. In thorax both lungs were congested and oedematous. On cut
Page No. 567
sections, both the lungs were containing soot particles and were congested and were oedematous. 4. Whole body organs were congested. Dr. Puneet (PW52) has proved the cause of death which was due to extensive burns and its complications which opinion is mentioned at point mark X of the report Ex.PW52/C. or oil on the body of Tara Chand. Further, the postmortem report does not show the presence of petroleum derivatives The FSL report also does not corroborate or establish the presence of Hydrocarbons of petroleum (kerosene, petrol or diesel) on the clothes of Suman which had been sent for examination. I may observe that Modi in his book Medical jurisprudence and Toxicology 23rd edition has opined that the burns caused by kerosene oil are usually very severe and are known its characteristic odour and the sooty blackening of the parts which in the case of Tara Chand and Suman were absent. It has been further observed by Modi that when a body has been exposed to great heat, it gets cooked and becomes so rigid with the limbs flexed, arms fixed and fingers hooked like claws that is assumes an attitude of defence called the 'pugilistic' or 'fencing' posture as was observed by this Court in the CD Ex.PW4/A showing the postmortem of Suman. It is further observed by Modi that this stiffing is due to the coagulation of it albuminous constituents, more in the flexor muscles than the extensors. If the heat applied is very great, cracks and fissures resembling incised or lacerated wounds, often several inches long occur in the cellular spaces, and the blood vessel;s and nerves are
seen stretching across the fissures, as they are not usually burnt. These head ruptures may occur either before or after death. Sometimes, the charred skin being hard and brittle due to the effect of heat, cracks easily when an attempt is made to remove the body from a house destroyed by fire. I may further observe that half burnt clothes of Suman were sent to the FSL for examination and it is evident from the FSL report Ex.PX1 that no Hydrocarbons of petroleum (kerosene, petrol or diesel) were detected. Even Tara Chand in his statement made to the Judicial Magistrate First Class First Class Ex.PW55/C simply says that he was in his house which was set on fire by persons of 'J' community but does not say that petrol or oil was sprinkled on him. I may also observe that there are allegations made by the family of the deceased that they were beaten with dandas before they were pushed inside the house which was set on fire. In this regard it is evident from the postmortem report of Suman that the fractures present on the body of Suman have been specifically opined to be burn fractures which usually occur on account of extreme heat conditions when the body is burnt or thereafter when an attempt is made to remove the body from her house destroyed by fire (which has happened in the case of Suman - Ref: Medical jurisprudence and Toxicology 23rd edition - Modi). However, in the case of Tara Chand there are no signs of any other injuries including fractures proving the use of force upon the deceased before he was set on fire. The above postmortem reports coupled with the findings of the FSL demolishes the oral testimonies of Pradeep (PW49), Kamla (PW50) and Amar Lal (CW1) to the extent that Suman and Tara Chand were beaten with dandas after which petrol/ oil was sprinkled on them
and they were thereafter pushed inside the house which was set on fire. These allegations do not find any support or corroboration from the circumstantial, medical and forensic evidence present on record.
Forensic Evidence:
The case of the prosecution is that the assailants had come duly armed with oil cans and sprinkled kerosene oil on the houses belonging to the 'B' community and set them on fore whereas the case of the defence is that highly inflammable material in the form of Uplas (cow dung cakes) and Thansras (dried sticks) which are normally used as domestic fuel in the villages, was stored in the houses and when during the rioting there was fire which spread accidentally. SI Manjeet Singh (PW57) has proved having lifted the ashes from five houses pointed out by DSP Sh. Abhay Singh which had been completely burnt which ashes were picked up from the houses of Sanjay, Sunita, Dilbagh, Gulab @ Gulaba and Chander Bhan. Further, ASI Sadhu Ram (PW60) has proved having lifted the ashes from two houses belonging to Rajesh and Dhoop Singh on the directions of DSP Sh. Abhay Singh. ASI Satbir Singh (PW61) has proved having lifted the ashes from six houses belonging to Sube Singh, Satyawan, Manoj, Rajesh, Sanjay and Rajender on pointing out by DSP Sh. Abhay Singh which houses were completely burnt. ASI Om Prakash (PW62) has proved having lifted the ashes from two houses belonging to Ramphal and Ram Niwas both sons of Rajmal 'B' on pointing out to him by DSP Sh. Abhay Singh which houses were completely burnt. They have proved that these parcels containing the ashes were thereafter handed over to DSP Sh. Abhay Singh who seized the same vide a common
seizure memo Ex.PW57/A and later on it is these parcels which were sent to FSL for examination. Further, the clothes which were present on the body of the deceased Suman at the time when she was shifted to the hospital and were partly burnt were also converted into a pullanda by the doctor and handed over to the police which were later sent to the FSL for examination. Here, I may observe that despite the presence of the victims and large number of public persons at the places from where the ashes were lifted and the parcels were prepared, neither these parcels were sealed in the presence of such public witnesses/ victims present at the spot nor the seizure memo was prepared in their presence (except the seizure memo of the bike of Pradeep). I am also compelled to observe that one of the essential safeguards which any investigating officer is required to observe while lifting the exhibits from the spot, is to prepare the pullandas/ parcels in the presence of independent public witnesses and also to ensure that they are sealed in their presence and as a token thereof to take their signatures/ thumb impressions on the said parcels after their sealing at the spot itself which has not been done in the present case to rule out tampering. It also makes me ponder why in the case of such large scale violence and damage the expert Crime Team was not called to the spot to lift samples and conduct examination of the spot as is normally done in such cases. Was the lifting of ashes, preparing of parcels and sending it to FSL just a formality? The FSL report Ex.PX1 which is not disputed by any one and is otherwise admissible in evidence under Section 293 Cr.P.C. does not show the presence of Hydrocarbons of petroleum (kerosene, petrol or
diesel). Further, as per Exhibit No. 18 at Serial no. 18 the clothes of the deceased Suman which she was wearing at the time of the incident and were partly burnt and were sent to FSL also do not show the presence of Hydrocarbons of petroleum (kerosene, petrol or diesel). Under these circumstances the fact that the accused had come armed with kerosene oil and petrol cans which they sprinkled on the houses of the persons from the 'B' community and also on Tara Chand and Suman does not stand established or proved. As observed herein above, the FSL report Ex.PX1 is totally negates the presence of Hydrocarbons of Petroleum including kerosene, petrol or diesel either at the spot or on the bodies of the deceased. In so far as sprinkling of kerosene/ petrol on Tara Chand and Suman are concerned there is no reason to doubt the FSL report since even the postmortem report negates the use/ sprinkling of kerosene/ petrol and even Tara Chand does not make a mention of it in his Dying Declaration. However, the position is not the same when the extent of damage caused at the spot by fire is considered by this Court. It is evident that the spread of fire over the 'B' Basti was not uniform and in fact the damage is selective and in pockets. Had the fire been accidental it would have spread uniformly in the area but the site plans placed on record reflect that the houses which suffered damage on account of fire are scattered at various places and hence it is evident that they were specifically set on fire by the rioters. No doubt, the extent of damage caused by fire would depend upon a number of factors including the extent of combustible material lying stacked in the houses and the material with which the houses were made. It is borne out from the testimony of the various witnesses of the prosecution particularly the victims that majority of the houses which suffered extensive damage
were old and made of combustible material than the other houses which were of concrete construction which suffered lessor damage. This aspect also stands established from the photographs (Ex.PW3/A-1 to Ex.PW3/A-109) and the CD of the video clippings (Ex.PW3/B and Ex.PW4/A) duly relied upon by the prosecution. The damage caused to the properties by fire is writ large and admitted fact. The material question which now arises before this Court is, how this fire was ignited at various places as reflected in the site plans, photographs and video clippings and that too when no petroleum fuel was used and I may observe that no answers are forthcoming to the same. It is unbelievable that the fire which was selective was caused without the use of any fuel. Even if the domestic fuel in the form of uplas (cow dung cakes) are set on fire it requires some kind of fuel to ignite the same. The case of thansras (dried sticks) would however be different since they can easily catch fire being inflammable but even to set the thansras (dried sticks) on fire one would require a match stick and here I may observe that the video clippings Ex.PW4/A does show evidence of uplas (cow dung cakes) and thansras (dried sticks) stacked at various places being put on fire. How is it that nothing was recovered? Not even a match stick? It is here that I am compelled to observe that the investigations are totally lacking. This Court cannot go on presumption and assumption and substitute its own opinion for something which is non existing. Courts of law can only proceed on strict Rules of Evidence. I may also put on record the fact that during the course of trial when the question regarding the credibility of the FSL report arose for consideration, this Court did toy with an idea of sending the pullandas
containing the ashes again for further examination to some other forensic laboratory of repute and credibility to rule out any kind of foul play in the hands of the investigating agency. It was the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor for the victims who pointed out that no useful purpose would be served by doing so since there was no certainty that the parcels containing the ashes themselves were untempered. This Court was ultimately compelled to drop this idea in view of the fact that the aspect of the ashes being untampered itself was doubtful in view of the tampering noticed by the Court in the entries made in the register no. 19 Ex.PW6/A where this Court had observed during the examination of EASI Bir Bhan (PW6) that one page of the register no.19 showing the column no. 5, 6, 7 and 8 was torn and therefore an endorsement was made by this Court with a red pen in the original register no.19.
Photographic/ video recorded evidence:

The case of the prosecution is that when the Superintendent of Police, Hissar came to the village on the date of the incident, the site of the incident was immediately directed to be got photographed and also videographed and hence the photographs of the various properties which were damaged were taken and video clippings were also prepared. It is argued by the Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor that in the arson and rioting which took place the properties of Dhoop Singh S/o Rattnu, Jagpal S/o Bir Singh, Ramphal S/o Rajmal, Ram Niwas S/o Rajmal, Chander Singh S/o Laxman, Dilbagh S/o Gulaba, Gulaba S/o Jai Lal, Sanjay S/o Bani Singh, Manoj S/o Mahender, Rajender S/o Mahender, Satyawan S/o Bale Ram, Sube S/o Bura, Tara Chand S/o Swaroopa, Pradeep S/o Tara Chand, Sunita W/o Surta Ram, Sanjay S/o Satpal and
Dilbagh S/o Satpal Singh were destroyed by fire and damage was caused to the properties of Bania S/o Surta, Sushil S/o Surta, Mahajan S/o Satpal, Raja S/o Pratap, Rajmal S/o Pokar, Satyawan S/o Roshan, Jaswant S/o Jagbir, Jai Singh S/o Sudhan, Bijender S/o Surta, Dharambir S/o Chattar Singh, Binder S/o Raj Kumar, Bani S/o Bale Ram, Nawab S/o Laxman, Rajesh S/o Bambu, Praveen S/o Surta, Satpal S/o Pratap, Ram Niwas S/o Inder, Dharambir S/o Chandgi, Karambir S/o Balbir and Pawn S/o Jagat Singh. The photographs of the spot of the incident regarding the damage were taken on the same day that is on 21.4.2010 by ASI Miyan Singh (PW3) who has proved the said photographs which are Ex.PW3/A-1 to Ex.PW3/A-109 and the CD is Ex.PW3/B. Ct. Anil Kumar (PW5) had also videographed the spot on the same day that is 21.4.2010 which video CD has been proved by him as Ex.PW5/A. I may also observe that the postmortem of the deceased Tara Chand and Suman at the mortuary of Civil Hospital was also videographed by Ct. Devi Lal (PW4) who has proved the same as Ex.PW4/A. The Ld. Defence Counsel has not disputed the authenticity or correctness of the video CDs and the CD containing the clippings of the photographs taken by the above witnesses on the date of the incident itself. Even otherwise the witnesses ASI Miyan Singh, Ct. Anil and Ct. Devi Lal have duly proved that the above photographs/ video recording was made on the same day of the incident that is 21.4.2010 and the authenticity of the same cannot be doubted. I have perused the photographs and also watched the CD containing the spot of the incident showing the extent of damage caused to various properties and also the CD containing the postmortem of the
deceased Tara Chand and Suman conducted on 22.4.2010.
These
photographs and video recordings have assisted this Court to a large extent in providing a fair picture of the condition of the spot which existed after the incident. It is evident from these photographs and video clippings that large scale stone pelting and brick batting had taken place but not even a single photograph/ video clipping reflect any dangerous weapon like gandases and jellies lying at the spot. The extent of damage caused to various properties is also reflected in these photographs and video clippings. I have gone through the oral testimonies of the witnesses examined by the prosecution particularly the alleged victims and at the very outset I may observe that not even one witness of the prosecution has identified his property from the photographs placed on record to prove the extent of damage. It is in this background that this Court at the final stage of trial had to seek assistance of both the prosecution and the defence so that the properties as reflected in the photographs/ video clippings could be got identified. Here I may observe that with the assistance of Amar Lal (CW1) and some of the accused and the Ld. Counsels that many of the properties as reflected in the photographs/ video clippings could be got identified though there was a dispute in respect of the properties reflected in some of the photographs so identified in the Court. For the sake of convenience the details of the properties allegedly burnt/ damaged on account of fire are enumerated in a tabulated form as under: Damage on account of fire:
Sr. Name of the victim whose No. property has been damaged/ burnt
Nature of damage as observed by the Court in the photographs/ video clippings House was pucca construction and damage by fire and rioting is reflected House damaged by fire House damaged by fire House damaged by fire
Remarks
1.
Dhoop Singh S/o Rattnu
Witness examined but photograph and video clippings not put to him Witness not examined Witness not examined Examined as a defence witness
2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Jagpal S/o Bir Singh Ramphal S/o Rajmal Ram Niwas S/o Rajmal
Chander Singh S/o Laxman House partly damaged Witness not examined by fire Dilbagh S/o Gulaba No damage evident as Witness examined per Ex.PW3/A-108 which also shows Dilbagh standing in front of his house which shows no signs of damage Partial damage to the Witness examined property by fire/ rioting No photograph/ video Witness examined clipping but photograph and video clippings not put to him House damaged by fire House damaged by fire Witness not examined Witness examined but photograph and video clippings not put to him
7. 8.
Sanjay S/o Gulaba Gulaba S/o Jai Lal
9.
Sanjay S/o Bani Singh
10. Manoj S/o Mahender
11. Rajender S/o Mahender
Cow dung cakes and Witness not examined waste material lying outside burnt/ damaged by fire (house not reflected as burnt) House damaged by fire Witness not examined Cow dung cakes lying Witness examined outside the house in the but photograph and Gher burnt/ damaged by video clippings not
Page No. 577
12. Satyawan S/o Bale Ram 13. Sube S/o Bura
fire (house not reflected put to him as burnt)
14. Tara Chand S/o Swaroopa 15. Pradeep S/o Tara Chand
House damaged by fire House damaged by fire
Witness examined (son of the deceased) Witness examined but photograph and video clippings not put to him
16. Sunita W/o Surta Ram 17. Sanjay S/o Satpal 18. Dilbagh S/o Satpal Singh
No photograph/ video Witness not examined clipping No photograph/ video Witness not examined clipping No photograph/ video Witness not examined clipping
Now, for the sake of convenience the details of the properties allegedly damaged on account of rioting by the assailants are also enumerated herein below in a tabulated form: Damage on account of rioting:
Sr. Name of the victim whose No. property has been damaged Nature of damage as observed by the Court in the photographs/ video clippings No photographs/ video clippings No photographs/ video clippings No photographs/ video clippings No photographs/ video clippings No photographs/ video clippings No photographs/ video clippings No photographs/ video clippings Remarks
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Bania S/o Surta Sushil S/o Surta Mahajan S/o Satpal Raja S/o Pratap Rajmal S/o Pokar Satyawan S/o Roshan Jaswant S/o Jagbir
Witness not examined Witness examined Witness not examined Witness not examined Witness not examined Witness examined Witness not examined
Page No. 578
8. 9.
Jai Singh S/o Sudhan Bijender S/o Surta
No photographs/ video clippings No photographs/ video clippings No photographs/ video clippings No photographs/ video clippings No photographs/ video clippings No photographs/ video clippings No photographs/ video clippings
Witness not examined Witness examined Examined as defence witness Witness not examined Witness not examined Witness not examined Witness examined but does not support prosecution case in respect of damage Examined as defence witness Witness not examined Witness not examined Witness not examined Witness not examined Witness not examined
10. Dharambir S/o Chattar

Singh
11. Binder S/o Raj Kumar 12. Bani S/o Bale Ram 13. Nawab S/o Laxman 14. Rajesh S/o Bambu
15. Praveen S/o Surta 16. Satpal S/o Pratap 17. Ram Niwas S/o Inder 18. Dharambir S/o Chandgi 19. Karambir S/o Balbir 20. Pawan S/o Jagat Singh
No photographs/ video clippings No photographs/ video clippings No photographs/ video clippings No photographs/ video clippings Damaged radio/ stereo No photographs/ video clippings
It is evident from the above that the aspect that photographs and the videography was done on the date of the incident has been proved by ASI Miyan Singh, Ct. Anil and Ct. Devi Lal. However, I may observe that exhibition of a document is one aspect whereas the proof of its contents is another. Merely exhibiting the photographs and video clippings do not per-se tantamount to the proof of damage. Firstly the properties as reflected in the photographs and the video clippings were to
be got identified from the witnesses particularly the occupants of the said property which has not been done. Secondly the victims whose properties have been allegedly damaged were required to prove the extent of damage which again has not been done and Lastly it is necessary for the prosecution to connect the accused before this Court with the damage as reflected in the photographs. Here I may observe that the allegations made by the prosecution with regard to the extent of damage has been elaborated in the above table but I may add that apart from the above there are photographs which placed on record reflecting that in some of the properties there was no damage but a large number of brick bats are shown lying scattered. In this regard the photographs pertaining to the properties of Inder S/o Mange Ram, Mahabir S/o Kundan and Joginder S/o Bhale Ram are relevant which show a large number of brick bats lying around the properties though there is no corresponding damage to the said properties. It is these photographs which confirm the allegations regarding stone pelting and brick batting though the oral testimonies of many of the prosecution witnesses who claim themselves to be eye witnesses are not in conformity with the photographs/ video clippings placed on record. I may also observe that it would be evident from the aforesaid that majority of the alleged victims whose houses were damaged either on account of fire or rioting have not been examined by the prosecution on the plea that they have been won over by the accused and rightly so. Therefore, no doubt the the photographs/ video clippings which show the extent of damage to the properties would be admissible in evidence but that would not be a conclusive proof to connect the accused with the damage so reflected in the photographs. It is only the
testimonies of those eye witnesses/ victims who have deposed before this Court and submitted for examination and whose testimonies find due corroboration from the above photographs/ video clippings to the extent of damage which are admissible on this aspect.
Medical/ Forensic Evidence is contrary to Ocular Evidence:

I may observe that the medical evidence as aforesaid reflects that all the injured/ victims had received simple injuries except for Dhoop Singh (PW29) no other person had received any grievous injuries and even Dhoop Singh had received injuries on account of use of blunt force which could have been on account of use of danda or after being hit by a brick or even by a fall but under no circumstances the nature of injuries are sharp, incised or piercing establishing the use the weapons such as gandases or jellie or any other dangerous weapon. The evidence on record revels that no weapons of offence has been recovered. Also, the photographs and video clippings placed on record show that a large number of bricks and stones (roras & pathar) lying in the streets and houses which only prove the use of brick bats and the stone pelting. In this regard the law as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is briefly discussed as under: In the case of Abdul Sayeed -vs- State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2010) 10 Supreme Court Cases 259 the Hon'ble Supreme Court while relying upon the authority of Ram Narain Singh -vs- State of Punjab reported in AIR 1975 SC 1727 held that: where the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution is totally inconsistent with the medical evidence or the evidence of the ballistics expert, it amounts to a fundamental defect in the prosecution's
case and unless reasonably explained it is sufficient to discredit the entire case. In the case of State of Haryana -vs- Bhagirath reported in (1999) 5 SCC 96 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 658 it was held as follows:......The opinion given by a medical witness need not be the last word on the subject. Such an opinion shall be tested by the court. If the opinion is bereft of logic or objectivity, the court is not obliged to go by that opinion. After all opinion is what is formed in the mind of a person regarding a fact situation. If one doctor forms one opinion and another doctor forms a different opinion on the same facts it is open to the Judge to adopt the view which is more objective or probable. Similarly if the opinion given by one doctor is not consistent with probability the court has no liability to go by that opinion merely because it is said by the doctor. Of course, due weight must be given to opinions given by persons who are experts in the particular subject." Drawing on Bhagirath's case (supra.), the Hon'ble Supreme Court Court has held in the above case that: where the medical evidence is at variance with ocular evidence, it has to be noted that it would be erroneous to accord undue primacy to the hypothetical answers of medical witnesses to exclude the eyewitnesses' account which had to be tested independently and not treated as the "variable" keeping the medical evidence as the "constant". Where the eyewitnesses' account is found credible and trustworthy, a medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities can not be accepted as conclusive. The eyewitnesses' account requires a careful independent assessment and evaluation for its credibility, which should not be adversely prejudged on the basis of any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility.
It was further observed that: the evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be creditworthy; consistency with the undisputed facts, the"credit" of the witnesses; their performance in the witness box; their power of observation etc. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation. (Ref.: Thaman Kumar -vs- State of Union Territory of Chandigarh, (2003) 6 SCC 380; and Krishnan -vs- State, (2003) 7 SCC 56). In the case of Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai -vs- State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 1983 SC 484, the Hon'ble Apex court has observed that : "Ordinarily, the value of medical evidence is only corroborative. It proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged and nothing more. The use which the defence can make of the medical evidence is to prove that the injuries could not possibly have been caused in the manner alleged and thereby discredit the eye-witnesses. Unless, however the medical evidence in its turn goes so far that it completely rules out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in the manner alleged by eyewitnesses, the testimony of the eye-witnesses cannot be thrown out on the ground of alleged inconsistency between it and the medical evidence." [Emphasis added] A similar view has been taken in Mani Ram & Ors. -vsState of U.P. reported in 1994 Supp (2) SCC 289; Khambam Raja Reddy & Anr. -vs- Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. reported in (2006) 11 SCC 239 and State of U.P. -vs- Dinesh reported in (2009) 11
SCC 566. In the case of State of U.P. -vs- Hari Chand reported in (2009) 13 SCC 542, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the aforementioned position of law and held that, "In any event unless the oral evidence is totally irreconcilable with the medical evidence, it has primacy." Further in the case of Krishnan -vs- State reported in AIR 2003 SC 2978 it was observed that: It is trite that where the eye-witnesses' account is found credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities is not accepted as conclusive. Witnesses, as Bentham said, are the eyes and ears of justice. Hence the importance and primacy of the quality of the trial process. Eye witnesses' account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for their credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be credit-worthy; consistency with the undisputed facts the 'credit' of the witnesses; their performance in the witness-box; their power of observation etc. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation. It is evident from the aforesaid that where the medical/ forensic evidence is at variance with the ocular evidence it is open for the Judge to adopt the view which is more objective or probable and the
Page No. 584
eye witness account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for its credibility. The probative value of such evidence has to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation. The evidence has to be tested for its inherent consistency and inherent probability of the story. Hence the position of law which now emerges is that in case of a contradiction between medical evidence and ocular evidence, though it is the ocular testimony of a witness which would have greater evidentiary value vis-a-vis medial evidence but that becomes a relevant factor in the process of the evaluation of evidence but where the medical evidence goes so far that it completely rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved. Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case it is evident that the prosecution witnesses claim that the rioters were armed with dangerous weapons such as jellies, gandases, oil containers etc. but neither the medical evidence in the form of MLRs of the victims nor the forensic evidence in the form of the FSL report nor the circumstantial evidence in the from of photographs and video recording of the area soon after the incident, support this version. Out of the 54 number of MLRs placed on record of the alleged victims who had received injuries in the incident, only one MLR that is of Dhoop Singh S/o Rattnu reflects grievous injuries whereas all others (52 injured) reflect either simple or no injuries. Here I may observe that the simple injuries so reflected in 29 MLRs were of the nature of abrasions, bruises, contusions, swellings and pain out of which the Doctor had given no opinion in 17 cases as there were no external marks of injuries present and in other cases 6 cases the complaint was only of pain with no external marks of injuries. Here I may observe that only the MLR and
postmortem report of Tara Chand and Suman who later on expired reflected burn injuries and no other victim out of the other 53 alleged injured had received any burn injuries. Further, the FSL report Ex.PX1 rules out the presence of Hydrocarbons of Petroleum (Kerosene, Petrol or Diesel). Also, the photographs and video clippings placed on record including the video clippings of postmortem of the deceased Tara Chand and Suman coupled with their postmortem reports rule out the use of force (dandas) on the deceased or the sprinkling of petrol/ kerosene as orally alleged by the family members of the deceased. The photographs and video clippings also do not reflect any kind of weapons including gandases, jellies or dandas lying at the spot of the incident though these photographs/ video clippings show brick bats lying scattered at the various places where the incident had taken place. This totally demolishes the case of the prosecution regarding the use of gandases, jellies or any other dangerous weapons . Even otherwise, had these weapons been used the causalities would have been much more and the nature of injuries received by the victims would have certainly reflected the same which is not the case. Under these circumstances the exaggerations in the oral testimonies of the witnesses with regard to the use of dangerous weapons like jellies, gandases or regarding the sprinkling of kerosene oil/ petrol is irreconcilable with the Medical, Forensic and Circumstantial evidence and is required to be excluded as such and cannot have primacy over the Medical and Forensic evidence.
OCULAR EVIDENCE:
Ocular evidence/eye witness count is the best evidence in any case but it is settled law that the testimonies of the eye witnesses are required to be carefully analyzed to test the reliability, credibility and truthfulness of the witness. The eye witness account require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for its credibility, it should not be adversely pre-judged on the basis of other evidence. The ocular evidence has to be tested for its inherent consistency and inherent probability of the story, consistency of the account given by one witness with that given by the other witness held to be credit-worthy, consistency with the undisputed facts, the 'credit' of the witnesses who performed in the witness-box, their power of observation and it is only then that the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation.
Witness protection and steps taken by the Court:

Before commencing to analyze the testimonies of the various victims/eye witnesses it is necessary to bring on record the fact that before the commencement of trial an application had been filed on behalf of the complainants/victims pleading that the witnesses in this case were receiving constant threats from the family members of the accused for withdrawing the present case and it was pointed out that the members of the 'B' community had moved out of the village due to fear after having received threats from the dominant class. It was also pleaded that though many of these families have returned to the village but live in fear on account of threats from the dominant class and also because the local police was non cooperative and was not providing any protection to them. A response was sought on the aforesaid from the Government of
Haryana who were directed to inform this court about the steps being taken by them to ensure protection to the witnesses/ victims of crime in the present case. This court was thereafter informed that a Police Post having strength of one Sub Inspector and twenty seven other ranks has been established in village Mirchpur and two companies of armed police along with two DSPs and three Inspectors had been posted with anti riots equipments in village Mirchpur. Further, a PCR and Motor Cycle (Rider) had been deployed for the round clock patrolling duty in the village; police officers of security branch were posted in village Mirchpur to collect intelligence and key witnesses of the incident had been provided security cover (gunmen). It was also reported that six police check posts each with strength of one ASI and five other ranks had been established all around the 'B' Basti and two separate shifts for day and night were provided and senior officers i.e. Superintendent of Police (Hissar), Additional S.P. (Hansi) and DSPs were regularly visiting the village Mirchpur to assess the situation and to build up confidence among the victims and weaker sections. Further, in so far as the enhancement of security provided to victim/witness of the present case after transfer of the case is concerned, one gunman had been provided to each victim witnesses and a rider had been deployed nearby House No. E-6, Government Family Quarter situated in the premises of Mini Secretariat Government family quarters. It was also reported that one more gunmen was deployed to victim/witnesses and PCR had been deployed for safety and security of the victim. Aslo, the gunmen had been provided to the victim/ witnesses as per their will and a Company of Central Para Military force (CRPF) had also been deployed to ensure life and liberty of the members of the 'B' community. It was also informed by DSP
Hansi that a CRPF Coy. had been deployed in Mirchpur village on 24/25.1.2011. Thereafter this court passed a detailed order regarding the security arrangement at village Mirchpur as under: I have considered the submissions made before me and also the response of Government of Haryana which shows that already Armed Police Force, 1st Bn. constituting 128 police officials headed by an officer of the rank of Inspector who is reporting to DSP Amrik Singh (under whose jurisdiction village Mirchpur falls) has been deployed in addition to the CRPF Coy. Security cover/ gunmen has also been provided to the eye witnesses namely Smt. Kamla Devi W/o Late Tara Chand; Ravinder S/o Late Tara Chand; Pradeep S/o Late Tara Chand; Amar Lal S/o late Tara Chand; Virbhan S/o Sh. Man Singh, Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Kumar; Sh. Karan Singh Nambardar Balmiki, Sh. Satyawan S/o Sh. Roshan Balmiki; Sh. Chander Singh S/o Sh. Abhay Ram @ Abhna 'B' and Sh. Jaswant Singh S/o Sh. Jagbir Singh. This being so, no further directions are required in this regard, except that the above arrangement should not be varied till further directions from this court. CRPF deployment has also been made in the village by the Government of Haryana, though very belatedly, after the agitation of the dominant class had spread over the State. This measure, no doubt could have been taken earlier. Be that as the case may be, having done so I now direct that this CRPF deployment at village Mirchpur should be made preferably near the spot of the incident i.e. around the 'B' Basti and should continue till such time the public witnesses in the case are examined/ till further orders of this court. This arrangement is to only re-assure the victims and their families of full security and protection and to remove all traces of fear or pressure from their minds. It is further directed that in case of any exigency the witnesses, victims, their families, can immediately report the same to DSP (Hansi) Sh. Amrik Singh who shall personally monitor/ supervise the witness protection arrangements under
intimation to this court from time to time. I further direct that a monthly report regarding the security arrangement/ preventive measures/ witness protection arrangements be submitted to this court till the conclusion of trial of this case. I also direct that any attempt of any kind to overawe, pressurize or threaten the witnesses/ their family members or to create an atmosphere prejudicial to free trial of the case, should be immediately brought to the notice of this court by the Local Administration including DSP (Hansi). Further, vide order dated 10.3.2011 after the framing of charge against the accused this Court passed additional directions to ensure the safety and security of the witnesses to be examined in the Court as under: I hereby direct the Special Public Prosecutor to place before this court a proposed tentative schedule for examination of witnesses on 11.3.2011 with directions that the Investigating Officer/Pervi Officer shall ensure the presence of these witnesses in Delhi at-least one to two days prior to their examination in the court (as the case may be). Needless to say the expenses for the appearance of the witnesses shall be borne by the Government of Haryana and in case if the witnesses come on their own they shall be entitled to reimbursement as per the existing rules (reimbursable from the State of Haryana). Further, the responsibility of the boarding, lodging, food, medical facilities in Delhi shall be of GNCT of Delhi and the necessary arrangement for the protection of the witnesses particularly the victims during the period of their stay in Delhi shall be made by the GNCT of Delhi. The expenses for the same shall be borne by the GNCT of Delhi (reimbursable from the Government of Haryana as per the joint agreement). Pursuant to the above directions of the Court the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi earmarked the
Lampur Detention Center as the place where the witnesses were housed in police protection till their examination in the court and in order to take care of their day to day requirements, a Nodal Officer was also designated by the GNCT of Delhi. In this background it was only after this Court was satisfied regarding the voluntariness of the witnesses and the fact that they were free from all kind of fear, force, pressure and coercion that they were finally examined by the Court.
Eye witness account has to be truthful, credible and specific:

Both the prosecution and the defence have placed before this Court the catena of judgments on the various aspects connected with appreciation and evaluation of evidence and to what extent the testimonies of various eye witnesses can be relied upon which I now proceed to briefly discuss as under: The law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to the Ocular Evidence is very clear and the testimonies of the eye witnesses are required to be carefully analyzed to test the reliability, credibility and truthfulness of the witness. Though, minor infirmities and discrepancies are bound to occur in the normal course yet in a case where the various eye witnesses corroborates each other on material aspect connected with the offence, there is no reason to reject their testimonies. I may observe that it is a general handicap attached to all eye witnesses that if they fail to speak with precision their evidence would be assailed as vague and evasive, on the contrary if the speak to all events very well and correctly their evidence becomes vulnerable to be attacked as tutored. Both approaches are dogmatic and fraught with lack of pragmatism. The testimony of a witness should be viewed with
broad angles. It should not be weighed in golden scales, but with cogent standards. In a particular case an eyewitness may be able to narrate the incident with all details without mistake if the occurrence had made an imprint on the canvas of his mind in the sequence in which it occurred. He may be a person whose capacity for absorption and retention of events is stronger than another person. It should be remembered that what he witness was not something that happens usually but a very exceptional one so far as he is concerned. If he reproduces it in the same sequence as it registered in his mind, the testimony cannot be dubbed as artificial on that score alone (Ref.: Bhag Singh and Others -vs- State of Punjab reported in 1997 VII AD SC 507). It is settled law that conviction can be based upon the sole testimony of a witness whose testimony is found reliable and truthful. Where the witness has made two inconsistent statements with regard to a material fact and circumstances then the testimony of such a witness cannot be held to be reliable and worthy of credence (Ref. Ram Swaroop & Others -vs- State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 1990 Cri.L.J 511). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again determined the parameters on the basis of which the credibility/ truthfulness of a witness can be ascertained. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dilawar Hussain & Ors. -vs- State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in AIR 1991 SC 56 has in a similar case of communal riot/mob violence on caste divide has laid down principles regarding appreciation of evidence and has observed that: .......Acquittal or conviction depends on proof or otherwise of the criminological chain which invariably comprises of why, where, when, how and who. Each knot of the chain has to be proved, beyond
shadow of doubt to bring home the guilt. Any crack or loosening in it weakens the prosecution. Each link, must be so consistent that the only conclusion which must follow is that the accused is guilty. Although guilty should not escape. But on reliable evidence truthful witnesses and honest and fair investigation. No free man should be amerced by framing or to assuage feelings as it is fatal to human dignity and destructive of social, ethical and legal norm. Heinousness of crime or cruelty in its execution howsoever abhorring and hateful cannot reflect in deciding the guilt.... The Court further observed that: ...... Misgiving, also, prevailed about appreciation of evidence. Without adverting to submissions suffice it to mention that credibility of witnesses has to be measured with same yardstick, whether, it is an ordinary crime or a crime emanating due to communal frenzy. Law does not make any distinction either in leading of evidence or in its assessment. Rule is one and only one namely, if depositions are honest and true. Whether the witnesses, who claim to have seen the incident in this case, withstand this test is the issue ? But before that some legal and general questions touching upon veracity of prosecution version may be disposed of..... In the case of Rameshwar Singh -vs- State of Jammu & Kashmir reported in 1971 SCC Crl. 638 the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the issue regarding the evidence relating to identification of the accused by the witness has observed as under: ........ It may be remembered that the substantive evidence of a witness is his evidence in court but when the accused person is not previously known to the witness concerned then identification of the accused by the witness soon after the former's arrest
is of vital importance because it furnish to the investigating agency an assurance that the investigation is proceeding on right lines in addition to furnishing a corroboration of the evidence to be given by the witness later in court at the trial. From this point of view it is a matter of great importance both for the investigation agency and for the accused and a fortiori for the proper administration of justice that such identification is held without avoidable and unreasonable delay after the arrest of the accused and that all the necessary precautions and safeguards are effectively taken so that the investigation proceeds on correct lines for punishing the real culprit. It would, in addition, be fair to the witness concerned who was a stranger to the accused because in that event the chances of his memory fading are reduced and he is required to identify the alleged culprit at the earliest possible opportunity after the occurrence. It is thus and thus alone that justice and fairplay can be assured both to the accused and to the prosecution. The identification during police investigation, it may be recalled, is not substantive evidence in law and it can only be used for corroborating or contradicting evidence of the witness concerned as given in court. The identification proceedings, therefore, must be so conducted that evidence with regard to them when given at the trial, enables the court safely to form appropriate judicial opinion about its evidentiary value for the purpose of corroborating or contradicting the statement in court of the identifying witness..... In a case where prosecution witnesses are proved to have deposed truly in all respects then their evidence is required to be scrutinized with care. (Ref.: Bankey Lal -vs- State of UP reported in AIR 1971 SC 2233). Further, on the issue as to whether the witness should be or should not be believed it is settled law that this question can
only be determined by the Trial Court. [Kacheru Singh -vs- State of UP reported in AIR 1956 SC 546]. I may also observed that depositions of witnesses, whether they are examined on the prosecution side or defence side or as Court witnesses, are oral evidence in the case and hence the scrutiny thereof shall be without any predilection or bias. No witness is entitled to get better treatment merely because he was examined as a prosecution witness or even as a Court witness. (Ref.: State of UP -vsBabu Ram reported in AIR 2000 SC 1735). Hence it is evident that Eye witnesses' account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for their credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. In a case of rioting where a large number of accused were involved and identified by a solitary witness, a word of caution was added by the Hon'ble Apex Court holding that it was not safe to rely upon uncorroborated and unsubstantiated testimony of such a witness [Ref.: State of Andhra Pradesh -vs- Rayaneedi Sitharamaiah and Others reported in 2010 (4) SCC (Cri)]. Hence it is apparent that all evidence has to be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be credit-worthy; consistency with the undisputed facts the 'credit' of the witnesses; their performance in the witness-box; their power of observation etc. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation. (Ref.: Krishnan -vs- State reported in AIR 2003 SC 2978).
Natural conduct of a witness to be seen:

Coming now to the aspect relating to the natural conduct of
witnesses, I may observe that the conduct of any person which includes an eye witness, to a proceeding in reference to any fact in issue or a relevant fact is relevant. The conduct of a witness at the time of the offence which appears unnatural in the absence of any valid explanation creates serious doubt regarding the truthfulness of the testimony of such a witness. In this regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Din Dayal -vs- Raj Kumar @ Raju reported in 1999 Cri.L.J. 467 rejected the testimony of the eye alleged witnesses who were closely related to the deceased holding that their conduct in not accompanying the deceased to hospital and of not informing the police about the incident was unnatural and create serious doubt regarding the truthfulness of their evidence. Time and again the Hon'ble Apex Court has while taking into account the reasonable probabilities and having regards to the normal course of human affairs cautioned the Courts below to ensure that the witness on whose testimony reliance is placed should be truthful and trustworthy and for doing so the Court is required to take into account reasonable probabilities, having regard to the normal course of human affairs. In a case where a part of the crucial event has been screened from the Court's scrutiny the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Doodh Nath Pandey -vs- State of UP reported in AIR 1981 SC 911 observed that the possibility of an altercation between the assailant and the victim cannot reasonably be excluded and therefore it was unsafe to impose an extremely harsh penalty upon the accused. It should be remembered that human behaviour varies from person to person and different people react and behaved differently in a different situation. How person can behave in a particular situation cannot be predicted.
(Ref.: State of UP -vs- Devender Singh reported in AIR 2009 SC 3690).
Appreciation of Ocular Evidence:

Now coming to the issue relating to the appreciation of ocular evidence it is a settled law that while appreciating the evidence the approach of the court must be integrated and not truncated or isolated and the impact of the evidence in totality on the prosecution case or innocence of the accused has to be kept in mind in coming to the conclusion as to the guilt or otherwise of the accused. In reaching a conclusion as to the guilt of the accused, the court has to appreciate, analyze and assess the evidence placed before it by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic value and the animus of witnesses. Further, a statement made by any prosecution witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is of utmost importance as the same can be used by the defence to contradict such witness with the earlier statement in order to test the credibility and truthfulness of such a witness. In this regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shakila Khader -vs- Nausher Gama reported in AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1324 observed held that the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. can be used for cross-examination and only the witnesses of the prosecution can be contradicted by reference to their statements made to the police and not Court witnesses or defence witnesses. Similarly in the case of Jaswant Singh -vs- State of Haryana reported in AIR 2000 SC 1833 it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that: ...... Section 161(2) Cr.P.C. requires the person making the statements "to answer truly all questions relating to such case, put to him by such officer.......". It would, therefore, depend on the questions put by the
police officer. It is true that a certain statement may now be used under Section 162 to contradict such witness in the manner provided by Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872...... The Court further observed that: ..... Reading Section 161(2) Cr.P.C. with the Explanation to Section 162, an omission in order to be significant must depend upon whether the specific question, the answer to which is omitted, was asked of the witness. It has become necessary that the Investigating Officer should be asked whether he had put the questions to the witness regarding the assailants.... In the case of Bijoy Singh and Anr. -vs- State of Bihar reported in 2002 RCR (Cri) 544 where there was a delay in recording the statement of vital injured witnesses and no reasonable explanation was forthcoming for the same, observed that: ..... Under such circumstances the court is required to minutely examine the prosecution version for ensuring itself as to whether any innocent has been implicated in the crime or not.... Similarly in the case of Harijana Thirupala -vs- Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. reported in 2002 (6) SCC 470 the Hon'ble Apex Court again had an occasion to deal with the settled principles of law rested by several decisions of this court. ........ In our administration of criminal justice an accused is presumed to be innocent unless such a presumption is rebutted by the prosecution by producing the evidence to show him to be guilty of the offence with which he is charged. Further, if two views are possible on the evidence produced in the
case, one indicating to the guilt of the accused is to be accepted. In cases where the court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused the benefit of such doubt should go in favour of the accused. At the same time, the court must not reject the evidence of the prosecution taking it as false, untrustworthy or unreliable on fanciful grounds or on the basis of conjectures and surmises. The case of the prosecution must be judged as a whole having regard to the totality of the evidence. In appreciating the evidence the approach of the court must be integrated not truncated or isolated. In other words, the impact of the evidence in totality on the prosecution case or innocence of the accused has to be kept in mind in coming to the conclusion as to the guilt or otherwise of the accused. In reaching a conclusion as to the guilt of the accused, the court has to appreciate, analyze and assess the evidence placed before it by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic value and the animus of witnesses. It must be added that ultimately and finally the decision in every case depends upon the facts of each case. From a careful analysis of the law the broad principles which emerge can be briefly enumerated as under: That while considered the ocular evidence of eye witnesses, it is necessary for the prosecution to establish three aspects. The presence of the witness at the spot of the incident; The possibility of the witness to observe clearly the happenings at the spot The possibility and the probability of the witness to identify the assailants. While determining the credibility and authenticity of the testimony of a witness on the touch stone of truthfulness and the previous
statement made to the police by the witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C. can always be looked into for purposes of confrontation (not for corroboration). That in case of any eye witness materially improving his earlier statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the testimony of such a witness cannot be believed to the extent of the improvement and is liable to be rejected. The fact that a witness is resiled from his earlier statement made in the course of investigations put the Court on guard and cautions the Court against the acceptance of such evidence without satisfactory corroboration. of corroboration. In case of a mob frenzy/ large scale communal violence where there is unusual delay in recording the statements of the eye witnesses under Section 161 Cr.PC. a valid explanation should be forthcoming and care should be taken to ensure that innocent persons are not falsely implicated. Further, after testing the truthfulness and the reliability of a witness, the eye witnesses can be put in three categories: Those who are reliable and whose testimony does not require any independent corroboration on the basis of which conviction can be based. Those who are not reliable and there is no possibility of there being present at the spot or of not having witnessed the incident
However, the testimony of such a
witness is not completely washed off and can be read to the extent
or of there being no possibility or probability of there being identity the assailants, whose testimony is required to be rejected out-rightly for which the Court is not required to look any independent corroboration. Those witnesses who are partly reliable either with regard to the aspect of the incident or with regard to the identification of some of the accused. Their presence at the spot established but the possibility and the probability of their having clearly and distinctly witnessed the incident and identify the accused is doubtful, the Court can always look for corroboration from other sources. I may observe that initially the prosecution has cited as many as ninety five witnesses all of whom 'B' and residents of the village Mirchpur. Surprisingly not even a single witness from the other community has been cited or examined as a witness. As many as forty three witnesses have been examined and forty five witnesses have been dropped. Out of the forty four witnesses examined by the prosecution twenty one have not supported the prosecution version while one only witness that is PW24 is a formal witness who had identified the dead bodies of Tara Chand and Suman. Here I may observe that the complainant Karan Singh on the basis of whose statement the present FIR was registered has not been examined by the prosecution by this witness but has rather appeared as a witness of defence. Further, the complainant in the FIR relating to the earlier incident dated 19.4.2010 bearing FIR No. 183/2010 of Police Station Narnaund that is Veer Bhan has been dropped by the prosecution and not examined as he had turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case earlier when the case was
pending at the Hissar Court.
Further, PW7 Yogesh Kumar, PW8
Ramphal, PW9 Bindu, PW11 Smt. Madho, PW12 Ram Murti, PW14 Angoori, PW15 Krishna, PW16 Smt. Ishro, PW17 Shanti, PW18 Smt. Chander, PW19 Ms. Pooja, PW20 Kela, PW21 Sunita, PW22 Aman, PW23 Satbir, PW26 Raju, PW27 Ravi, PW34 Raj Kumar, PW35 Ashok, PW41 Sunita and PW46 Rajesh who have been examined by the prosecution before this Court as eye witnesses have either not named or identified any of the accused as the participants of the crime. In order to have a bird's eye view of the various alleged eye witnesses so examined by the prosecution, the details of the said witnesses along with the injuries received by them; the extent of compensation received by them; the details of the assailants named by them to the police in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the details/ names of the assailants/ accused now identified by them in the Court are briefly culled out as under in a tabulated form:
Sr. No. 1. Public Witnesses Yogesh Kumar S/o Jai Pal (PW7) Ramphal S/o Risala (PW8) Bindu D/o Suresh (PW9) Rajbir S/o Baje Singh (PW10) Nature of injury if any No opinion Date of MLR 30.4.2010 Accused named in the statement U/s 161 Cr.PC (Statement dated 30.4.2010) Nil (Statement dated 30.4.2010) Nil (Statement dated 30.4.2010) Nil (Statement dated 30.4.2010) Nil Accused named/ identified in the Court Nil Amount of compensation received Rs.25,000/-
2.
No opinion Simple/ Blunt Simple/ Blunt
30.4.2010
Nil
Rs.25,000/-
3.
30.4.2010
Nil
Rs.25,000/-
4.
30.4.2010
Rajender S/o Pale
Rs.25,000/-
Page No. 602
5.
Smt. Madho W/o Tek Ram (PW11)
No opinion
30.4.2010
6.
7.
Murti Devi W/o Karan Singh (PW12) Mrs. Sunita W/o Ved (PW13) Angoori W/o Dalipa (PW14) Mrs. Krishna W/o Raghubir (PW15)
No Opinion
30.4.2010
(Statement dated 30.4.2010) Rajender S/o Pale Monu S/o Suresh Sonu S/o Pappu Rishi S/o Satbir (Statement dated 30.4.2010) Nil No statement recorded (witness is in fact Kanta and not Sunita) (Statement dated 18.5.2010) Nil (Statement dated 18.5.2010) Rajender S/o Pale Pappu S/o Pyara Pardeep S/o Jagbir Pardeep S/o Jaiveer Pardeep S/o Satbir (Statement dated 18.5.2010) Rajender S/o Pale Manbir S/o Zile Singh Manjeet S/o Mahender Naseeb S/o Prem Singh Nikli S/o Lalla
Nil
Rs.25,000/-
Nil
Rs.25,000/-
No injury
No MLR
Pappu S/o Pyara Rajender S/o Pale Nil
Nil
8.
No opinion Simple (no injury, only pain)
4.5.2010
Rs.25,000/-
9.
4.5.2010
Nil
Nil (compensation received by her children)
10.
Mrs. Ishro W/o Pasha (PW16)
Simple (no injury, only pain)
4.5.2010
Nil
Nil
Page No. 603
11.
Mrs. Shanti W/o Jugti Ram (PW17)
No opinion
1.5.2010
12.
Mrs. Chander W/o Sajna (PW18)
2.5.2010
13.
Pooja D/o Surta (PW19)
4.5.2010
14.
Smt. Kela W/o Jai Singh (PW20)
2.5.2010
15.
Smt. Sunita
No opinion
1.5.2010
(Statement dated 18.5.2010) Sandeep@ Langra S/o Chander Fauji Sanjay S/o Amar Lal Sanjay Handa S/o Dayanand Satta S/o Karan Singh (Statement dated 18.5.2010) Vikash S/o Sunhera Vinod S/o Jagde Vipin S/o Jogender Zile Singh S/o unknown (Statement dated 18.5.2010) Rajender S/o Pale Ramesh S/o Dalipa Sandeep S/o Mahender Sandeep S/o Prem Sandeep S/o Raj Kumar (Statement dated 18.5.2010) Sunheri w/o Dilbagh Unknown w/o Motu Sumitra w/o Dharambir Sandeep S/o Jogender Sandeep S/o Karan Singh (Statement dated
Nil
Rs.75,0000/-
Nil
Rs.1,25,000/-
Nil
Rs.25,000/-
Nil
Rs.15,000/-
Nil
Rs.25,000/-
Page No. 604
W/o Satbir (PW21)
18.5.2010) Sattu Singh S/o Ranbir Master Satyawan S/o Tajender Samsher S/o Tajender
Shiela S/o Bhira@ Beerha

16. Aman S/o Surta (PW22) Simple/ Blunt 2.5.2010 (Statement dated 18.5.2010) Dhola S/o Satyawan Dilbagh S/o Guniya Jogal @ Dogor S/o Hawa Singh Jagal S/o Lehana Jitender S/o Satyabir Johra S/o Balwan Kala S/o Kuldeep Kala S/o Satyawan (Statement dated 18.5.2010) Sonu S/o Ramesh Sonu S/o Dalbir Tinku S/o Sewa Singh Tina S/o Rajbir Bedu S/o Karan Singh (Statement dated 21.4.2010 & 30.4.2010) Rishi S/o Satbir Pardeep S/o Nil Rs.35,000/-
17.
Satbir S/o Bhale Ram (PW23)
Simple/ Blunt
2.5.2010
Nil
Rs.25,000/-
18.
Sushil S/o Surta (PW25)
No opinion
30.4.2010
Ram Phal S/o Prithvi (not identified) Bobal S/o Teka Nanha S/o Mai Chand
Rs.35,000/-
Page No. 605
19.
Raju S/o Pasha Ram (PW26)
Simple/ Blunt (no injury,
30.4.2010
Balwan Kulvinder S/o Ram Meher Roopesh S/o Tika Ram Monu S/o Dr. Suresh Ramesh S/o Karan Singh Ghaggar S/o Tara Chand Rajesh S/o Dhuppa Daya S/o Jeet Ram Dalbir S/o Dalip Pardeep S/o Ram Phal Hoshiyar S/o Ram Phal Ram Meher S/o Gulab Deepak S/o Ajmer Satish S/o Ajmer Rajender S/o Dhupa Satbir S/o Manphool Surender S/o Jagdev Kulwant S/o Chander Singh Surender S/o Jagdev Balwan S/o Dharambir Rajesh S/o Om Parkash Dalbir S/o Dalip Singh Dharam S/o Tara Roshan S/o Ram Swaroop (Statement dated 30.4.2010) Ramphal S/o
Rajender S/o Pale Satta S/o Karan Singh
Nil
Rs.25,000/-
Page No. 606
only pain)
20.
Ravi S/o Mahender (PW27)
Simple/ Blunt
30.4.2010
21.
Sandeep S/o Satpal (PW28)
Simple/ Blunt (no injury, only pain)
2.5.2010
22.
Dhoop Singh S/o Ratan Singh (PW29)
Grievous
21.4.2010
23.
Santra W/o Satyawan (PW30)
30.4.2010
Prithvi Bobal S/o Tek Ram Hem Chand S/o Surjeet (Statement dated 30.4.2010) Bobal Illa HemChand S/o Surjeet (Statement dated 18.5.2010) Ajit S/o Sukhbir Anoop S/o Dharma Amir S/o Tara Chand Anil S/o Prem Singh (Statement dated 23.4.2010) Rajender S/o Pale Surender S/o Jagdev Rupesh S/o Tek Ram Rishi S/o Satbir Karam Pal S/o Satbir (Statement dated 30.4.2010) Nil
Nil
Rs.25,000/-
Anil S/o Prem Singh Amir S/o Tara Chand
Nil
Ram Phal S/o Prithvi Sanjay S/o Daya Nand Jogal S/o Hawa Singh Bobal S/o Tek Chand (Named Ramphal S/o Prithvi but could not identify) Ram Phal S/o Prithvi Ved Pal S/o Daya Nand Ramesh S/o Dalip Singh Bijender S/o Vishal Singh Rajender S/o Pale Pradeep S/o Ram Phal Rishi S/o Satbir Pradeep S/o
Rs.4,76,000/-
Rs.30,000/-
Page No. 607
24.
Abhishek S/o Sanjay (PW31)
Simple/ Blunt
21.4.2010
25.
26.
Mrs Sheela W/o Subhash (PW32) Mrs. Rani W/o Sanjay (PW33)
Simple (no injury, only pain) No opinion
30.4.2010
(Statement dated 18.5.2010) Pradeep S/o Suresh Praveen S/o Jagdev Master Pawan S/o Hoshiyar Singh Pawan S/o Rajbir (Statement dated 30.4.2010) Nil (Statement dated 30.4.2010) Nil
Satbir Rajender S/o Sadhu Ram Jagdish @ Jagla S/o Lehna Ram Nil
Rs.25,000/-
Rajender S/o Pale Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar Karambir S/o Tara Chand Rajender S/o Dhoop Singh Balwan S/o Inder Rajender S/o Pale Nil
Rs.25,000/-
30.4.2010
Rs.25,000/-
27.
Raj Kumar S/o Kapoora (PW34)
Simple
21.4.2010
(Statement dated 23.4.2010) Baljeet S/o Inder Singh Rajender S/o Pale Dinesh S/o Prem Singh Naresh S/o Prem Singh Viren S/o Yash Pal Rajkumar S/o unknown (Statements dated 18.5.2010 & 27.7.2010)
Rs.25,000/-
28.
Ashok S/o Maha Singh (PW35)
Simple/ Blunt (no injury,
2.5.2010
Nil
Rs.25,000/-
Page No. 608
only pain)
29.
Sanjay S/o Raja Ram (PW36)
No Opinion
30.4.2010
Rajender S/o Pale Rishi S/o Satbir Monu S/o Suresh Balwan S/o Jella Langra S/o Inder Singh Charan S/o Sadhu Ram Dhalbir S/o Tara Chand Vinod Kumar Kajal (Statement dated 30.4.2010) Nil
Rajender S/o Pale Ramphal S/o Prithvi Daya S/o Ajit Rishi S/o Satbir Jogal @ Doggar S/o Hawa Singh Anil @ Neel S/o Prem Pradeep S/o Jaibir Dharambir S/o Tara Balwan S/o Jai Lal Sushil S/o Jaibir Rajbir S/o Mahi Chand Rupesh S/o Tek Ram Sanjay @ Handa S/o Daya Nand Satya S/o Karam Singh Jasbir @ Lilu S/o Raja Ram Pradeep S/o Satbir Baljit S/o Inder
Rs.60,000/-
Page No. 609
30.
Meena Kumar S/o Satpal (PW37)
No opinion
30.4.2010
(Statement dated 30.4.2010) Nil
31.
Mahajan S/o Satpal (PW38)
No opinion
21.4.2010
(Statement dated 23.4.2010) Rajender S/o Pale Rupesh S/o Tek Ram Illa S/o Mai Chand Pawan S/o Ram Mehar Bobal @ Langra S/o Teka Rishi S/o Satbir Pradeep S/o Balwan Kuldeep S/o Ram Mehar Monu S/o Dr. Suresh Vikash S/o Dr. Suresh Rajpal S/o Sui Chand Sumit S/o Satyawan Ramesh S/o Karan Singh Soni S/o Jaibir
Satyawan S/o Rajender Bobal S/o Tek Ram Dharambir S/o Mai Chand Rajender S/o Belu Ram Kulvinder S/o Ram Mehar Karam Pal S/o Satbir Dharambir @ Illa S/o Mahi Chand Nanhar S/o Mahi Chand Rajender S/o Pale Satta S/o Rajender S/o Pale Ram Phal S/o Prithvi Bobal S/o Tek Ram Illa S/o Mai Chand Lillu S/o Raja (absconded) Jugal S/o Hawa Singh Baljeet S/o Inder Rupesh S/o Tek Ram Pawan S/o Ram Mehar Nanhe S/o Mahi Chand Jaibir S/o Balbir Sattu @ Satish S/o Randhir Singh Kulvinder S/o Ram Mehar Monu S/o Suresh Ajit S/o Sukhbir
Rs.50,000/-
Rs.50,000/-
Page No. 610
Dalbir S/o Dalip Roshan S/o Ram Swroop Sonu S/o Pappu Vipin S/o Pratap Jasbir S/o Ishwar Ajit S/o Dalip Mahesha S/o Dalip Unknown W/o Pale Unknown W/o Dilbagh (Driver) Rajender S/o Sindhu Joginder S/o Bhim Singh Joginder @ Jogar S/o Inder Singh Ghaggar S/o Tara Chand Dharambir S/o Tara Chand Suresh S/o Balbir Moti W/o Ghaggar Sunil S/o Daya Nand Karam Pal S/o Satbir Mandeep S/o Prema Hathi S/o Balu Ram Kuldeep S/o Balbir Rajender S/o Belu Ram Daya S/o Jeet Singh Ajit S/o Sukhbir Dalbir S/o Dalip
Deepak S/o Krishan Kumar
Page No. 611
32.
Sube Singh S/o Bhura Ram (PW39)
No injury
No MLR
Roshan S/o Ram Swroop Nanha S/o Mahi Chand Ram Phar S/o Prithvi Baljeet S/o Inder Singh Jaivir S/o Balbir (Statement dated 21.4.2010) Rajinder S/o Pali Karampal S/o Satbir Vijender S/o Hoshiyar Singh Mahesh S/o Dalipa Bobal @ Bangra S/o Teka Joginder @ Jogar S/o Inder Singh Dharambir S/o Tara Chand Suresh S/o Balbir Nanha S/o Mahi Chand Mandeep S/o Prema Hathi S/o Balu Ram Rajender S/o Dhoopa Daya S/o Jeet Singh Kulwant S/o Chander Singh Sukhbir S/o Manphool Surender S/o Jagdev Jai Bir S/o Manphool Viren S/o
Rajender S/o Pale Karambir S/o Tara Chand Ramesh S/o Dalip Singh Kulvinder S/o Ram Mehar
Rs.1,10,000/-
Page No. 612
33.
Vijender S/o Sutta (PW40)
No injury
No MLR
Yahspal Naresh S/o Prem Singh Dinesh S/o Prem Singh Rajender S/o Sandhu Ghaggar S/o Tara Chand Ajit S/o Dalip Rajender S/o Bhoopa Balwan S/o Inder Singh Satyawan S/o Tara Chand Ajit S/o Sukhbir (Statement dated 21.4.2010) Illa S/o Mai Chand Rajender S/o Pale Rajesh S/o Dhoopa Rishi S/o Satbir Pawan S/o Ram Mehar Pradeep S/o Balwan Rajender S/o Sadhu Ghaggar S/o Tara Chand Dharambir S/o Tara Chand Hoshiyar S/o Mangal Surender S/o Jagdev Dinesh S/o Prem Singh Satyawan S/o TaraChand Dalbir S/o Dalip Dinesh S/o Amar Lal
Rajender S/o Rs.2,08,000/Pale Bobal @ Langra S/o Tek Ram Illa S/o Mahi Chand Jugal @ Dogar S/o Hawa Singh Daya S/o Ajit Dharambir @ Illa S/o Mahi Chand Satish @ Sattu Singh S/o Randhir Ajit S/o Dalip Ramphal @ Petla S/o Prithvi Rajesh S/o Dhoop Singh
Page No. 613
34.
Sunita W/o Surta (PW41)
Simple/ Blunt (no injury, only pain)
2.5.2010
Joginder S/o Bhim Singh Roshan S/o Ram Swroop Rajesh S/o Om Prakash Deepak S/o Ajmer Suresh S/o Ajmer Pradeep S/o Ram Phal Rajbir @ Nanhe S/o Mahi Chand Ram Phal S/o Prithvi Surender S/o Jagdev Ajit S/o Dalip Singh Jai Bir S/o Manphool Satyawan S/o Tara Chand (Statement dated 21.4.2010) Rajender S/o Pale Rishi S/o Satbir Illa S/o Mai Chnad Pradeep S/o Balwan Kulvinder S/o Ram Mehar Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand Soni S/o Jai Bir Vipin S/o Pratap Hathi S/o Balu Ram Rajesh S/o Dhoopa Deepak S/o Ajmer Satish S/o
Nil
Rs.1,35,000/-
Page No. 614
Ajmer Baljeet S/o Inder Singh Ajit S/o Sukhbir Dalbir S/o Dalip Monu S/o Suresh 35. Vicky S/o Dhoop Singh (PW42) No injury No MLR (Statement dated 27.6.2010) Illa S/o Mai Chand Nanha S/o Mai Chand Tinku Petwar S/o Manjeet S/o Mahender Joginder @jogar S/o Inder Kala S/o Umed(Not Arrested) Sunil S/o Dayanand Manbir S/o Zile Singh Soni S/o Dalbir Ram Phal S/o Prithvi Sanjay S/o Daya Nand Pradeep S/o Jaibir Bobal S/o Tek Ram Satyawan S/o Rajender Sonu S/o Pappu Rajender S/o Pale Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand Pradeep S/o Suresh Rajender S/o Pale Rishi S/o Satbir Ramphal S/o Prithvi Sanjay S/o Daya Nand Pradeep S/o Jaibir Pradeep S/o Suresh Satyawan S/o Rajender Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand Bobal S/o Tek Ram Sumit S/o Satyawan Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar Sanjay S/o Amar Lal Sonu S/o Dalbir Pawan S/o Hoshiyar Singh Sandeep S/o Chander Dharambir @ Illa S/o Mai Chand Pawan S/o Ram Mehar Daya Kishan S/o Ajit Balwan S/o Inder Pradeep S/o Nil
Page No. 615
Sumit S/o Satyawan Rishi S/o Satbir Manbir S/o Zile Singh Sandeep S/o Chander Fauji
Satbir Rupesh S/o Tek Ram Kuldeep S/o Dalbir Praveen S/o Jagdev Sunil S/o Daya Nand Jasbir S/o Raja Ram (absconded) Jitender S/o Satbir Karam Pal S/o Satbir Pradeep S/o Balwan Jagdish S/o Lehna Ram Ajit S/o Sukhbir Kuldeep S/o Om Prakash Sonu S/o Ramesh Rishi S/o Satbir Joginder S/o Inder Singh Jogal S/o Hawa Singh Roshan S/o Ram Swroop Manbir S/o Zile Singh Deepak S/o Krishan Jagdish S/o Baru Ram Tinku S/o Sewa Singh Baljeet S/o Inder Rajesh S/o Tek Ram Bobal @ Langra S/o Tek Chand Rajender S/o Rs.2,80,000/-
36.
Dilbagh S/o Gulab Singh (PW43)
No injury
No MLR
(Statement dated 21.4.2010) Rishi S/o
Page No. 616
Satbir Rajender S/o Pale Pradeep S/o Balwan Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar Rupesh S/o Tek Ram Monu S/o Dr. Suresh Vikash S/o Dr. Suresh Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand Illa S/o Mai Chand Sumit S/o Satyawan Amit S/o Satyawan Ramesh S/o Karan Singh Soni S/o Jaibir Sonu S/o Pappu Pawan S/o Ram Mehar Vipin S/o Pratap Jasbir S/o Ishwar Mahesh S/o Dalip Rajender S/o Sadhu Ram Bobal @ Langra S/o Teka Jogender @ Jogga S/o Inder Singh Karambir @ Ghaggar S/o Tara Chand Dharambir S/o Tara Chand Suresh S/o Balbir Ramphal S/o Prithvi
Pale Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand Karambir @ Ghaggar S/o Tara Chand Ram Phal S/o Prithvi Pradeep S/o Balwan Rishi S/o Satbir
Page No. 617
Sunil S/o Daya Nand Baljeet S/o Inder Nanha @ Rajbir S/o Mai Chand Karam Pal S/o Satbir Mandeep S/o Prema Hathi S/o Baru Kuldeep S/o Balbir Jaibir S/o Balbir Rajender S/o Belu Ram Rajesh S/o Dhoopa Daya S/o Jeet Singh Ajit S/o Sukhbir Joginder S/o Bhim Singh Roshan S/o Ram Swroop Dalbir S/o Dalip Singh Rajesh S/o Om Prakash Baljeet S/o Inder Singh Pradeep S/o Ram Phal Dinesh S/o Amar Lal Deepak S/o Ajmer Satish S/o Ajmer Ajay S/o Sukhbir Vijender S/o Hoshiyar Singh Hoshiyar Singh S/o Mangal Ajit S/o Dalip
37.
Sanjay S/o Gulab Singh (PW44)
No injury
No MLR
Singh Kulwant S/o Chander Singh Rajender S/o Dhoopa Ram Mehar S/o Gulab Singh Sukhbir S/o Manphool Satyawan S/o Tara Chand Jaibir S/o Manphool Surender S/o Jagdev Balwan S/o Karambir Dinesh S/o Prem Singh Naresh S/o Prem Singh Viren S/o Yash Pal (Statement dated 21.4.2010) Rajender S/o Pale Rishi S/o Satbir Pradeep S/o Balwan Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar Monu S/o Dr. Suresh Vikash S/o Dr. Suresh Illa S/o Mai Chand Nanha S/o Mai Chand Dalbir S/o Dalip Hoshiyar S/o Mangal Satyawan S/o Tara Chand Rajender S/o Dhoopa
Rajender S/o Pale Bobal S/o Ram Phal Rishi S/o Satbir Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar Monu & Vikas S/o Dr. Suresh Illa S/o Mai Chand Ramphal @ Petla S/o Prithvi Singh Karam Pal S/o Satbir Baljeet S/o Inder Rupesh S/o Tek Ram Pradeep S/o Balwan Ghaggar S/o Tara Chand Dalbir @
Rs.2,89,000/-
Page No. 619
38.
Manoj S/o Mahender (PW45)
No injury
No MLR
Jaibir S/o Manphool Ajit S/o Sukhbir Ram Mehar S/o Gulab Roshan S/o Ram Swroop Deepak S/o Ajmer Dinesh S/o Amar Lal Satish S/o Ajmer Kulwant S/o Chander Singh Viren S/o Yashpal Krishan S/o Karan Singh Naresh S/o Prem Singh Ajit S/o Dalip Rupesh S/o Tek Ram Ghaggar S/o Tara Chand Ram Phal S/o Prithvi Karam Pal S/o Satbir Baljeet S/o Inder (Statements dated 21.4.2010 & 27.6.2010) Rajender S/o Sandhu Bobal @ Langra S/o Tek Ram Joginder S/o Inder Singh Ghaggar S/o Tara Chand Karam Bir S/o Tara Chand Suresh S/o Balbir Ram Phal S/o
Bobal S/o Tek Ram Nanha S/o Mai Chand Pradeep S/o Satbir
Rajender S/o Pale Ram Phal S/o Prithvi Daya S/o Jeet Singh Satyawan S/o Tara Chand Amit S/o Satyawan Sumit S/o Satyawan Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar Pawan S/o Ram Mehar Satyawan S/o Karan Singh
Rs.2,75,000/-
Page No. 620
Prithvi Sunil S/o Daya Nand Baljeet S/o Inder Nanha S/o Mai Chand Karam Pal S/o Satbir Mandeep S/o Prema Hathi S/o Baru Kuldeep S/o Balbir Jaibir S/o Balbir Rajender S/o Belu Ram Rajesh S/o Dhoopa Daya S/o Jeet Singh Ajit S/o Sukhbir Ajay S/o Sukhbir Bijender S/o Hoshiyar Singh Hoshiyar Singh S/o Mangal Singh Ajit S/o Dalip Kulwant S/o Chander Singh Rajender S/o Dhoopa Ram Mehar S/o Gulab Singh Sukhbir S/o Manphool Satyawan S/o Tara Chand Jaibir S/o Man Phool Surender S/o Jagdev Balwan S/o Karambir Dinesh S/o
Rishi S/o Satbir Dalbir S/o Tara Chand Satish S/o Randhir Singh Pawan S/o Rajbir Deepak S/o Krishan Kumar Baljeet S/o Inder Karambir S/o Tara Chand Pradeep S/o Suresh Pradeep S/o Satbir Kuldeep S/o Om Prakash Roshan S/o Ram Swroop Jogal S/o Hawa Singh Sanjay S/o Daya Nand Karam Pal S/o Satbir Dharambir @ Bobbal S/o Tek Ram
Page No. 621
39.
Rajesh S/o Dalip (PW46)
No injury
No MLR
Prem Singh Naresh S/o Prem Singh Viren S/o Yash Pal Sumit & Raj Pal Sons of Sheo Chand (Statement dated 21.4.2010) Rajender S/o Pale Rishi S/o Satbir Pradeep S/o Balwan Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar Rupesh S/o Tek Ram Monu S/o Dr. Suresh Vikash S/o Dr. Suresh Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand Illa S/o Mai Chand Sumit S/o Satyawan Amit S/o Satyawan Ramesh S/o Karan Singh Soni S/o Jaibir Sonu S/o Pappu Pawan S/o Ram Mehar Vipin S/o Pratap Jasbir S/o Ishwar Mahesha S/o Dalipa Rajender S/o Sandhu Jogender S/o Bhim Singh Roshan S/o
Ram Phal S/o Prithvi. Rajender S/o Pali
Rs.35,000/-
Page No. 622
40.
Satyawan S/o Roshan Lal (PW47)
No injury
No MLR
Ram Swroop Dalbir S/o Dalip Singh Rajesh S/o Om Prakash Balwan S/o Inder Singh Pradeep S/o Ram Phal Dinesh S/o Amar Lal Deepak S/o Ajmer Satish S/o Ajmer Vijender S/o Hoshiyar Singh Hoshiyar Singh S/o Mangal Dalbir S/o Dalip Dalip S/o Manphool Jaibir S/o Manphool Surender S/o Jagdev Balwan S/o Dharambir Ajay S/o Sukhbir (Statement dated 21.4.2010) Rajender S/o Pale Rishi S/o Satbir Pradeep S/o Balwan Rupesh S/o Tek Ram Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar Monu S/o Dr. Suresh Vikash S/o Dr. Suresh Rajpal S/o
Rajender S/o Pale Ram Phal @ Petla S/o Prithvi Bobal @ Langra S/o Teka
Rs.25,000/-
Page No. 623
Sheo Chand Illa S/o Mai Chand Sumit S/o Satyawan Amit S/o Satyawan Ramesh S/o Karan Singh Soni S/o Jaibir Sonu S/o Pappu Pawan S/o Ram Mehar Vipin S/o Pratap Mahesha S/o Dalip Rajender S/o Sandhu Bobal @ Langra S/o Teka Jogender @ Jogar S/o Inder Singh Ghaggar S/o Tara Chand Dharam Bir S/o Tara Chand Suresh S/o Balbir Sunil S/o Daya Nand Hathi S/o Baru Ram Rajender S/o Belu Ram Rajesh S/o Dhoopa Daya S/o Jeet Singh Roshan S/o Ram Swroop Karambir S/o Tara Chand Dalbir S/o Dalipa Vijender S/o Hoshiyar
41.
Gulaba S/o Jai Lal (PW48)
Simple/ Blunt
21.4.2010
Singh (Statements dated 21.4.2010 & 27.6.2010) Rajender S/o Pale Karam Pal S/o Satbir Rishi S/o Satbir Pradeep S/o Balwan Singh Kuldeep S/o Ram Mehar Rupesh S/o Tek Ram Monu S/o Dr. Suresh VIkash S/o Dr. Suresh Raj Pal S/o Sheo Chand Illa S/o Mai Chand Sumit S/o Satyawan Amit S/o Satyawan Ramesh S/o Karan Singh Soni S/o Jaibir Sonu S/o Pappu Pawan S/o Ram Mehar Vipin S/o Pratap Jasbir S/o Ishwar Mahesha S/o Dalip Wife of Pale Wife of Dilbagh (Driver) Wife of Pappu Rajender S/o Sandhu Bobal S/o Teka Jogender S/o
Rajender S/o Pale Karam Pal S/o Satbir Ram Phal S/o Prithvi Rishi S/o Satbir Illa S/o Mai Chand Bobal S/o Teka Baljeet S/o Inder Daya S/o Jeet Singh Wife of Pale Wife Of Kapoora Daya S/o Ajit Pradeep S/o Satbir Balwan S/o Inder Manbir S/o Zile Singh Sunil S/o Daya Nand Naseeb S/o Prem Singh
Rs.2,90,000/-
Page No. 625
42.
Pradeep S/o Tara Chand (PW49)
No injury
No MLR
Inder Singh Ghaggar S/o Tara Chand Dharam Bir S/o Tara Chand Suresh S/o Balbir Bhoti W/o Ghaggar Bharpai W/o Kapoora Ram Phal S/o Prithvi Sunil S/o Daya Nand Baljeet S/o Inder Singh Nanha S/o Mai Chand Mandeep S/o Prema Hathi S/o Baru Ram Kuldeep S/o Balbir Jaibir S/o Balbir Rajender S/o Belu Ram Dhoopa S/o Mangal Daya S/o Jeet Singh Ajit Singh S/o unknown W/o Kapura S/o Ram Singh (Statements dated 21.4.2010, 27.6.2010 & 27.7.2010) Rajender S/o Pale Rishi S/o Satbir Pradeep S/o Balwan Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar
Rajender S/o Pale Pawan S/o Ram Mehar Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar Vipin S/o Ishwar Suresh S/o Balbir Vikash S/o Suresh Monu S/o
Government job
Page No. 626
Rupesh S/o Tek Ram Dharam Bir S/o Tara Chand Pawan S/o Ram Mehar Jogender S/o Bhim Singh Karambir @ Ghaggar S/o Tara Chand Balwan S/o Dharambir Hoshiyar S/o Mangal Ram Viren S/o Yash Pal Surender S/o Jagdev Rajender S/o Dhoopa Baljeet S/o inder Vinod Kajal Amit S/o Satyawan Sumit S/o Satyawan Ram Phal S/o Prithvi Pradeep S/o Suresh Rajesh S/o Dhoopa Vikash S/o Sunehra Vipin S/o Ishwar Pradeep S/o Jaivir Angoori W/o Satyawan Bharma W/o Pali Amba W/o Pappu Suresh S/o Balbir Vikash S/o Dr. Suresh
Suresh Dharambir S/o Tara Ghaggar S/o Tara Rishi S/o Satbir Karam Pal S/o Satbir Ram Phal @ Petla S/o unknown Rinku S/o Daya Nand Pradeep S/o Jaibir Monu @ Sunil S/o Daya Nand Sumit S/o Satyawan Amit S/o Satyawan Vikash S/o Sunehara Sonu S/o Ramesh Pradeep S/o Jogbir Pradeep S/o Suresh Kumar Dharambir @ Dalbir S/o Dalip Singh Jogender S/o Inder Singh Naveen @ Teena S/o Rajbir Rinku S/o Daya Nand (Not Arrested by IO)
Page No. 627
43.
Kamla W/o Late Sh. Tara Chand (PW50)
No injury
No MLR
Karam Pal S/o Satbir Ghaggar S/o Tara Pawan S/o Ram Mehar (Statement dated 21.4.2010) Rishi S/o Satbir Pradeep S/o Balwan Bhim Singh S/o Joginder Viren S/o Yash Pal Surender S/o Jagdev Rajender S/o Dhoopa Baljit S/o Inder Rajender S/o Pale Kulvinder S/o Ram mehar Rupesh S/o Tek Ram Dharambir S/o Tara Chand Pawan S/o Ram Mehar Joginder S/o Bhim Singh Karambir @ Ghaggar S/o Tara Chand Balwan S/o Dharambir Hoshiyar S/o Mangal Ram Rajender S/o Dhoopa
Ajit S/o Sukhbir Ajit S/o Dalip Amit S/o Satyawan Anil @ Neela S/o Prem Singh Anup S/o Dharma Balwan S/o Inder Singh Balwan S/o Jeela Bobal @ Langra S/o Tek Ram Dalbir S/o Dalip Singh Dalbir S/o Tara Daya Singh S/o Ajit Singh Deepak @ Sonu S/o Krishan@ Pappu Dharambir S/o Tara Chand Dharambir @ Illa S/o Mai Chand Dinesh S/o Prem Hoshiyar Singh S/o Mangal Jadgish @ Hathi S/o Baru Ram Jagdish @ Jangla S/o Lahna Ram Jaibir S/o Balbir
Rs.3,90,000/-
Page No. 628
Jaibir S/o Manphool Jasbir S/o Ishwar Jasbir @ Lillu S/o Raja Ram Jitender @ Jogar S/o Bhim Singh Joggar @ Joginder S/o Inder Singh Jora Singh S/o Balwan Karambir S/o Tara Chand Karampal S/o Satbir Krishan S/o Karan Singh Krishan Kumar @ Dhaula S/o Satyawan, Kuldeep @ Midda S/o Balbir Kulvinder S/o Ram Mahar Manbir S/o Jile Singh Monu S/o Suresh Nasib S/o Prem Singh Naveen @ Tina S/o Rajbir Pappu S/o Pyara Pardeep S/o Ramphal Pardeep S/o Balwan Pawan S/o Hoshiar Singh Pawan S/o Sh. Rajbir Pawan S/o Ram Mehar Pawan @
Tinku S/o Sewa Ram Pradeep S/o Satbir Pradeep S/o Jagbir Pradeep S/o Suresh Praveen S/o Jagdev Rajbir @ Nanha S/o Mai Chand Rajesh S/o Dhoop Singh Rajinder S/o Sadhu Ram Rajinder Kumar S/o Pali Rajinder Kumar S/o Ballu Rajinder S/o Dhoop Singh Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand Rakesh @ Kala S/o Satyawan Ramesh S/o Karan Singh S/o Ramesh @ Mahesh S/o Dalip Singh Ramphal S/o Prithvi Rishi S/o Satbir Roshan Lal S/o Ram Swroop Sandeep S/o Mahinder Singh Sandeep S/o Raj Kumar Sandeep S/o Rattan Singh Sandeep @ Langra S/o
Chander Sanjay @ Sanjeep S/o Amar Lal Satta Singh S/o Karan Singh Sattu Singh @ Satish S/o Randhir Master Satyawan S/o Tara Chand Satyawan S/o Rajinder Sheela @ Sunil S/o Bira Sonu @ Monu S/o Ramesh Sunil S/o Daya Nand Sunil @ Sonu S/o Jaibir
In the present case the witnesses who have deposed before this Court can be put in three categories: Who have not supported the case of the prosecution at all and have turned hostile on both the incident and identity of the accused. Who have proved the version of the prosecution to some extent but have failed to name or identify the accused. Who have proved the case of the prosecution and also the identity of the accused.
Further, they can also be put into two categories on the basis of the places where they are presently residing after the incident.
Those who are presently residing at village Mirchpur.
Those who have shifted out of the village after the incident and are either residing at Ved Pal Tanwar Farm House at Hissar or some other places.
In this regard, I may further observe that the witnesses who are presently residing at Ved Pal Tanwar Farm House are the witnesses who have supported the prosecution case and to some extent identified the accused before the court whereas the witnesses who are residing at village Mirchpur are the ones who have not supported the prosecution case with regard to the incident but have also explained the cause of the incident as narrated in the FIR or brought out in the charge sheet filed by the prosecution but have supported the defence version of the incident. These witnesses have either not identified the accused or extremely selective while identifying some of the accused before this Court. The evidence which had come on record also proves that soon after the incident there was a large scale rush of politicians to the village who unfortunately tried to obtain a political mileage out of this incident and what is more unfortunate is the fact that the investigations thereafter were apparently influenced by the press and electronic media resulting into a large scale agitation on the one hand by the members of the 'B' community and on the other hand by the members of the 'J' community.
I may observe that there is a procedure established by law governing the conduct of investigations and trial of a person accused of
an offence and a trial by press, electronic media or public agitation is very antithesis of rule of law which can lead to miscarriage of justice. It is under these circumstances that the present case has been transferred from the Sessions Court at Haryana to this Court so that the trial of the case is conducted by this Court being guided by rules and provisions of law. This being the background I now propose to examine the truthfulness and credibility of the various eye witnesses who have deposed before this Court in terms of the existing statutory law and the guidelines laid down by the Higher Courts. It is evident from the aforesaid that out of the eye witnesses examined by the prosecution as above, twenty six witnesses have not identified any assailant and have turned hostile on the aspect of identity of the accused. Further, out of the above forty four public witnesses so examined by the prosecution one is formal being the witness of dead body identification who is not the eye witness of the occurrence, it is only eight who had received injuries in the incident dated 21.4.2010 out of which seven are Simple and one is grievous whereas in so far as nine witnesses namely are concerned they have not been medically examined and have admitted that they did not receive any injuries whereas twenty three witnesses have deposed having received injuries but their MLRs show that there were no marks of injuries at the time of their medical examination and I may observe that many of these witnesses in their depositions before this court have admitted that they did not receive any injuries but got their Medical Legal Reports (MLRs) done because others in the village were also got prepared their MLRs in order to receive compensation from the Government.
Page No. 633
Hostile witnesses:
Witnesses are eyes and ears of the Court. As on date the Courts in India are struggling with this problem of dealing with witnesses either not turning up in the Court to depose against the affluent accused or not mustering enough courage to depose against the accused for the reasons of threat to their lives or on account of the accused being close to power political, economic or muscle power or being won over by the accused on account of allurences or threats. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Krishna Mochi -vsState of Bihar reported in AIR 2002 SC 1965 had an occasion to consider the issue regarding witnesses not inclined to depose particularly in cases involving persons who are socially, politically and economically in a higher position to that of the witness and while doing so it observed that: ....... Even in ordinary cases, witnesses are not inclined to depose or their evidence is not found to be credible by Courts for manifold reasons. One of the reasons may be that they do not have courage to depose against an accused because of threats to their life, moreso when the offenders are habitual criminals or high-ups in the Government or close to powers, which may be political, economic or other powers including muscle power. A witness may not stand the test of cross- examination which may be sometime because he is a bucolic person and is not able to understand the question put to him by the skillful crossexaminer and at times under the stress of crossexamination, certain answers are snatched from him. When a rustic or illiterate witness faces as astute lawyer, there is found to be imbalance and, therefore, minor discrepancies have to be ignored. These days it is not difficult to gain over a witness by money power or giving him any other allurence or giving out threats
to his life and/or property at the instance of persons, in/or close to powers and muscle men or their associates. Such instances are also not uncommon where a witness is not inclined to depose because in the prevailing social structure he wants to remain indifferent. It is most unfortunate that expert witnesses and the investigating agencies and other agencies which have an important role to play are also not immune from decline of values in public life. Their evidence sometimes becomes doubtful because they do not act sincerely, take everything in a casual manner and are not able to devote proper attention and time.....
Recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh -vs- Ram Sanjivan & Ors. reported in (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases 529 involving offence against a victim a member of the SC/ST community observed that: In a case of this nature, the witnesses turning hostile is not unusual particularly in a scenario where upper caste people have crated such a great fear psyche. The instinct of survival is paramount and the witnesses cannot be faulted for not supporting the prosecution version. Even the evidence which is on record particularly of Jasodiay and Kally, PW14 supported by the evidence of HC Kashi Prasad Tiwari, PW27 is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused. The evidence of PW14 and PW27 lead to the only conclusion that the accused were squarely responsible for committing such a ghastly crime. Further it has been observed that : we are equally conscious of the fact that reversal of the judgment of of the High Court would mean sentence of life imprisonment for some of the accused. We have given patient hearing to the Ld. counsel for the parties and have examined and re-examined the
entire evidence and documents on record to ensure that no innocent person is punished. On a careful scrutiny of the statement of Kallu, PW14, only one aspect creates slight doubt in our minds about his remembering the names of the 18 accused persons along with the names of their villages after a lapse of three months. Some people with sharp memory may perhaps be able to recount and recall all the names and villages correctly. But when we take the case of an ordinary rustic illiterate villagers, the possibility of over implication cannot be fully ruled out. It is a settled law that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be read into toto because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile. The evidence of such a witness cannot be treated as effaced or washed of the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent his version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny. The fact that a witness is resiled from his earlier statement made in the course of investigations put the Court on guard and cautions the Court against the acceptance of such evidence without satisfactory corroboration. [Ref.: Radha Mohan Singh -vs- State of UP reported in 2006 Cri.LJ 1121 (1125) SC; Bhagwan Singh -vs- State of Haryana reported in AIR 1976 SC 202 and Ram Swaroop -vs- State of Rajasthan reported in 2004 Cri.LJ 5043 SC]. I may observe that the position in our case is no different. Out of ninety five public witnesses cited by the prosecution who were stated to be eye witnesses, the prosecution has examined only forty three such witnesses out of which only twenty two witnesses have supported the prosecution version of the case whereas others have turned hostile either on the identity of the accused or with regard to the entire incident. Here I may observe that all these public witnesses are residents
of village Mirchpur and the reasons for their not supporting the case of the prosecution could be many fold including their chances of having been won over by the family members of the accused being residents of the same village or could be any other reason including social or financial. I may further observe that these public witnesses have more or less corroborated each other with regard to the incident dated 21.4.2010. Therefore under these circumstances the entire testimonies of these witnesses who have been either declared hostile by the prosecution or have not supported the case of the prosecution on limited aspects is not liable to be rejected. In fact the testimonies of all these witnesses can always be looked into and read into evidence to the extent to which they have supported the case of the prosecution.
Statement of the witnesses/ victims before the Commission of Inquiry:

Ld. Counsels appearing on behalf of the accused have placed their reliance on the affidavits and statement made by the alleged victim of the incident before the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Iqbal Singh (Retd.) Commission of Inquiry (Mirchpur), Haryana wherein both Dilbagh (PW43) and Sanjay (PW44) have denied having seen any of the assailants. It has been vehemently argued that when confronted with their statements earlier made before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Iqbal Singh (Retd.) Commission of Inquiry (Mirchpur), Haryana the said witnesses (Dilbagh S/o Gulab Singh, Sanjay S/o Gulab Singh and Amar Lal S/o Tara Chand) have admitted the affidavits and statements but denied that they have made an improvement and deliberately identified the assailants in the court at the instance of the prosecution and tutoring of other persons from their community.
At the very outset, I may mention that the provisions of Section 6 of the Commission of Inquiry Act are very clear. It provides that: No statement made by a person in the course of giving evidence before the Commission shall subject him to, or be used against him in, any civil or criminal proceeding except a prosecution for giving false evidence by such statement: Provided that the statement(a) is made in reply to a question which he is required by the Commission to answer; or (b) is relevant to the subject matter of inquiry. In view of the specific legal bar the statements and affidavits filed by the victims before the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Iqbal Singh (Retd.) Commission of Inquiry (Mirchpur), Haryana cannot be used to contradict them. I may however add that the truthfulness and credibility of the witness can always be looked into by the Court to assess the amount of reliability and credence which can be placed on the testimony of such a witness. Hence I hereby hold that in so far as the witnesses Dilbagh (PW43), Sanjay (PW44) and Amar Lal (CW1) are concerned their testimonies are not required to be discarded in toto only on the ground that they had earlier made a different statement before the Commission but can always be scrutinized and independently tested on the touch stone of truthfulness.
Contradictions and discrepancies:

Ld. Defence Counsel has pointed out the various
contradictions and discrepancies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. He has vehemently argued that there are material contradictions with regard to the cause of incident, place of the incident, time of the incident, duration of the incident, name & identification of the assailants, roles attributed to the assailants, nature of weapons used, nature of injuries, damage caused and extent of damage caused to the various properties. He has also pointed that the material contradictions in the testimonies of officials witnesses (police officers) conducting investigations with regard to the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the allegations made therein; the manner of the apprehension and arrest of the accused; the time and the manner of recording the Dying Declaration of the deceased Tara Chand and the persons present at that time. I have considered the submissions made before me. Before coming to the various contradictions and discrepancies as pointed out by the Ld. Defence Counsel, it is necessary to discuss the law in this regard. In the case of State of H.P. -vs- Lekhraj and another reported in JT 1999 (9) SC 43 it was observed by the Supreme Court of India as that:In the depositions of witnesses there are always normal discrepancy, however, honest and truthful they may be. Such discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence, and the like .The traditional dogmatic hyper technical approach has to be replaced by rational, realistic and genuine approach for administering justice in a criminal trial. Further, in the case of Surender Singh -vs- State of Haryana reported in JT 2006 (1) SC 645, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India has observed as under :It is well-established principle of law that every discrepancy in the witness statement cannot be treated as a fatal to the prosecution case. The discrepancy, which does not affect the prosecution case materially, does not create infirmity. As far as minor inconsistencies are concerned in the statement of the witnesses it is held in Ousu Varghese -vs- State of Kerala, reported in (1974) 3 SCC 767 that minor variations in the accounts of the witnesses are often the hallmark of the truth of their testimony. In the case of Jagdish -vs- State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1167, the Supreme Court has held that When the discrepancies were comparatively of minor character and did not go to the root of the prosecution story, they need not be given undue importance. Mere congruity or consistency is not the sole test of truth in the depositions. Also in the case of State of Rajasthan -vs- Kalki, reported in (1981) 2 SCC 752 it has been held that in the depositions of witnesses there are always normal discrepancy, however, honest and truthful they may be. Such discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence, and the like. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. Even otherwise, when an eye witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. No true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details. Perhaps an untrue witness who is well tutored can successfully made his testimony totally non-discrepant. But Courts should bear in mind that it is only
when discrepancies in evidence of witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the Court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny. The Supreme Court had an opportunity to discuss as to why discrepancies arise in the statements of witnesses. In the judgment of Bharwada Boginbhai Hijri Bhai -vs- State of Gujarat, reported in 1983 (CRI) GJX 0252 SC: AIR 1983 SC 7453 (1), the Supreme Court pointed out the following reasons as to why the discrepancies, contradictions and improvements occur in the testimonies of the witnesses. (a) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen. (b) Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details. (c) The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind, whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another. (d) By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder. (e) In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually people make
their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time sense of individuals which varies from person to person. (f) Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated lateron. (g) A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross-examination made by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, of fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The subconscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved through the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him perhaps it is a sort of psychological defence mechanism activated on the moment. In the case of Ramesh & Anr. -vs- State of Uttar Pradesh etc. reported in 2009 (15) SCC 513 the Hon'ble Apex court had observed that the minor contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggerations and embellishments in the testimonies of the eye-witnesses were bound to be there, however, they, by themselves, did not decide the credibility of the witness which has to be tested by the Court. Applying the above principles of law to the facts of the present case, one thing which this Court cannot loose sight is that the public witnesses who have appeared on behalf of the prosecution and the defence are rustic villagers having no experience of urban life and for the first time have come to the Court and that too in the Capital of the
Country. It is further evident that they are either totally illiterate or have studied only to the primary classes. Also, it is evident that when the incident occurred there was a large number of persons who had gathered at the spot and each witness who has appeared had been witnessing the incident hat different places in the 'B' Basti and there is a difference in perceptions and observations. The testimonies of the public witnesses have been recorded after about an year of the incident and therefore they are not expected to possess a photographic memory as to recall the exact details of the incident. Many of the witnesses who had suffered injuries on account of the incident of stone pelting/ brick batting which happened all of sudden and under these circumstances it cannot be denied that the witnesses were not so much overtaken by events which they never anticipated came as an element of surprise to them. I may further observe that this Court cannot overlook the fact that the power of observation differ from one person to another and what one may notice the other may not and an hyper-technical approach in this regard would be unrealistic. Further, in so far as the discrepancies occurring in the testimonies of the eye witnesses with regard to the exact time of an incident or the time duration of an occurrence, it is evident that the eye witnesses are rustic villagers who do not go by the watch and have made their estimates by guess work at the spur of the moment and it will be impractical approach to expect them to make very precise or reliable estimates in this regard. I may further observe that the incident regarding stone pelting, causing damage to the houses and death of Tara Chand and Suman took place in such rapid succession within a short span of time and the chances of the witnesses particularly the close relatives of the victims having got confused regarding sequence of events or trying to fill up details from
imagination at the spur of the moment cannot be ruled out. Further, there is a likelihood of these rural witnesses many of whom have seen the Court and have visited the Capital of country for the first time being overawed by the Court atmosphere and the piercing cross-examination made by counsel and getting nervous and mixed-up the facts. However, I may observe that these eye witnesses having corroborated each other on the material particulars there is no reason to discard their testimonies to the extent of reliable corroboration. The inconsistencies, exaggeration and embellishments which are bound to occur cannot have the effect of rendering the entire testimony of these witnesses invalid and this Court having already tested the credibility of each witness in terms of the aforesaid parameters, I find no merit in the grounds so raised by the Ld. Defence Counsel.
Evaluation of Ocular Evidence:

Now, applying the various guiding principles as discussed herein above, I now briefly discuss the testimonies of the eye witnesses who have supported the case of the prosecution and have duly identified the assailants/ accused in the Court. Testimony of Rajbir S/o Baje Singh (PW10) PW10 Rajbir S/o Baje Singh is aged 30 years and is a resident of village Mirchpur. He is totally illiterate and is a labour on daily wages doing the work of mason. It is evident from the record that he has received simple injuries in the incident dated 21.4.2010. His MLR Ex.PW59/A shows a Partly Healed wound of 1.1 x 1.2 cm on right leg on anterior aspect of Rajbir.
He has also received a

Page No. 644
compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/-. He has in his first statement made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 30.4.2010 has stated that at about 10-11 AM he was present in the village when a large number of persons from the 'J' community came to the 'B' Basti and started pelting stones and he tried to save himself in which process he could not identify any person. However, when Rajbir appeared in the Court to depose he has identified the accused Rajender S/o Pale by pointing out towards him and therefore under these circumstances the witness having identified Rajender for the first time in the Court (dock identification) despite being previously known to him and not having named him initially, his testimony to the extent of this improvement is not reliable and liable to be rejected. Testimony of Sunita W/o Ved (PW13) PW13 Sunita W/o Ved is in fact Kanta and not Sunita. It is evident that she has not received any injury in the incident dated 21.4.2010 and during her examination it has been observed by this Court that she has wrongly shown the MLR of her son Sunil aged 10 years as her own MLR vide Ex.PW13/A bearing her thumb impressions and when cross-examined by the defence with regard to her identity, she claimed that she was also known as Kanta while simultaneously insisting that her real name was Sunita which she could prove by placing on record the documents including ration card, election card etc. However when granted time by the Court to produce the said documents she failed to do so and later it was her mother in law Kela (PW20) who in her examination produced the election card of this witness Sunita showing
Page No. 645
her name as Kanta.
Kela specifically informed the Court that this
witness was in fact her daughter in law Kanta. Therefore this being the background of this witness it conclusively establishes that it was Kanta who impersonated herself as Sunita and deposed as such by claiming the MLR of her son Sunil as her own and hence her testimony being tainted with falsehood is liable to be rejected. Testimony of Sushil S/o Surta (PW25) PW25 Sushil S/o Surta is aged 35 years and it is evident from the record that he has not received any injury in the incident dated 21.4.2010 despite intense brick batting. His MLR Ex.PW25/A shows that though he was complaining of pain on right shoulder but there was no mark of external injury on his body and hence no opinion was given by Dr. Pale Ram on the MLR Ex.PW25/A. In his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 he has named Rishi S/o Satbir, Pardeep S/o Balwan, Kulvinder S/o Ram Meher, Roopesh S/o Tika Ram, Monu S/o Dr. Suresh, Ramesh S/o Karan Singh, Ghaggar S/o Tara Chand, Rajesh S/o Dhuppa, Daya S/o Jeet Ram, Dalbir S/o Dalip, Pardeep S/o Ram Phal, Hoshiyar S/o Ram Phal, Ram Meher S/o Gulab, Deepak S/o Ajmer, Satish S/o Ajmer, Rajender S/o Dhupa, Satbir S/o Manphool, Surender S/o Jagdev, Kulwant S/o Chander Singh, Surender S/o Jagdev, Balwan S/o Dharambir, Rajesh S/o Om Parkash, Dalbir S/o Dalip Singh, Dharam S/o Tara and Roshan S/o Ram Swaroop. However in his deposition before this court as PW25 he has named Ramphal S/o Prithvi, Bobal S/o Teka, Nanha S/o Mai Chand but when asked to identify he could only identify Ramphal S/o Prithvi, Bobal @ Langra S/o Teka, Nanha S/o Mai Chand, Rajender S/o Pale and Satta.
I may observe that this witness Sushil has improved upon his earlier statement and has come up with a new story of an incident dated 19th (month he does not remember) which was two months prior to his deposition in the court to justify his leaving the village which was despite a heavy police presence and in respect of which he had not made any complaint to any authorities despite sufficient opportunity in this regard. He has not been able to place on record any documentary record to show that any such incident was happened or reported to the local police. Further, he has exaggerated the incident dated 21.4.2010 on the aspect of damage to his property. He has also now for the first time come up with the story of the incident dated 19.4.2010 though he does not claim to be an eye witness to the same. He has also for the first time deposed on the aspect of a Panchayat of the persons of the 'J' community being held in the village on the date of incident that is 21.4.2010 only after which the incident of stone pelting started at 11:30 AM an aspect which does not find corroboration from the testimony of any other witness. Therefore, under these circumstances all the improvements made by this witness to his earlier statement given to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are liable to be excluded. [Ref: Yudhisthir -vs- The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 1971 SCC (Cri) 684]. No doubt, Sushil has not completely supported the case of the prosecution and has turned hostile on the identity of many accused whom he had earlier named in his statement to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but this in itself would not be a ground to discredit his testimony qua the accused persons whom he had named in his first statement made to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and also identified them in the court qua whom he is held to be a reliable
witness. Testimony of Sandeep S/o Satpal (PW28) Sandeep S/o Satpal (PW28) is aged 21 years and is a daily wages labour. It is evident from the record that he did not receive any injuries in the incident dated 21.4.2010 nor any MLR was prepared. For the first time his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 18.5.2010 that is after one month of the incident wherein he has given the names of Ajit S/o Sukhbir, Anoop S/o Dharma, Amir S/o Tara Chand and Anil S/o Prem Singh. However in the Court he has only identified the accused Anil S/o Prem Singh and Amir S/o Tara Chand. I may observe that no doubt that the statement of Sandeep S/o Satpal under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.PW28/PX1 was recorded after almost one month of the incident i.e. on 18.5.2010 yet the perusal of the same shows that he had specifically mentioned the name of Amir S/o Tara Chand as the person who was causing injuries to the persons belonging to 'B' community by pelting stones. I may further observe that this witness Sandeep who has claimed that he knew Amir S/o Tara Chand whom he had named to the Investigating Officer on 18.5.2010 has not been able to identify Amir S/o Tara Chand by name and it is only by pointing out towards him in the court that he could identified him as one of the assailants. Also, the allegations made by the witness in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW28/PX1 were of causing injuries to the persons of 'B' community by pelting stones whereas in his statement before the Court he has stated that Amir was in fact setting houses on fire. This is
Page No. 648
contradictory to what he has stated to the Investigating Officer in his statement. Further, the accused Amir S/o Tara Chand had been arrested vide memo Ex.PW67/A-74 on 5.9.2010 after he was produced before DSP Tula Ram by the team headed by Insp. Vijay Pal, Insp. Baljeet Singh, Insp. Rajbir, ASI Bhim Singh and Insp. Rohtash at police post Mirchpur. It is not the case of the prosecution that Amir had been apprehended on the pointing out of Sandeep. It is also important to note that the witness Sandeep not being in a position to name the accused Amir despite being the resident of village Mirchpur and presumably being known to the accused, in such capacity a doubt has been created in the mind of the Court that it is not safe to rely upon the sole testimony of Sandeep S/o Satpal (PW28) without any corroboration from independent sources. I may also observe that no Judicial Test Identification Parade of this accused has been got conducted from the witness Sandeep who has identified Amir for the first time in the Court by pointing out towards him and not by name despite the fact that he had named him earlier in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW28/PX1 and claims to have known him previously. It is also evident from the record that the medical examination of Sandeep S/o Satpal (PW28) was conducted on 2.5.2010 by Dr. Puneet vide MLR Ex.PW28/A which does not show any marks/injuries and the only complaint made by him was that of body pain with no mark of injuries (as observed by the doctor) on account of which his medical condition was opined as Simple/ Blunt and he has not been awarded any compensation by the State as per the list Ex.DW38/A (not denied by the prosecution) and also admitted by the witness Sandeep in his crossexamination. Therefore, under these circumstances, I hereby hold that
Sandeep is not a totally reliable witness and it is not safe to rely upon his testimony without any independent reliable corroboration. Testimony of Dhoop Singh S/o Rattan Singh (PW29): Dhoop Singh S/o Rattan Singh (PW29) is aged 74 years and was having four shops at his house out of which two had been given on rent and he himself was allegedly running provisional stores in the other two shops. The testimony of Dhoop Singh establishes that he was also involved in sale of liquor in the village and admits that he used to sell liquor without a license and the only explanation given was that many other persons were also doing the same. He has however denied his involvements in criminal cases on account of the above and states that he had never been taken to the police station or released on bail for the same. For the first time, the statement of Dhoop Singh was recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 23.4.2010 when he was admitted in the hospital for treatment of the injuries received by him in the incident dated 21.04.2010 wherein he suffered fracture of humerus (Grievous). He in his statement at the first instance gave the names of Rajender S/o Pale, Surender S/o Jagdev, Rupesh S/o Tek Ram, Rishi S/o Satbir and Karam Pal S/o Satbir but in his testimony before the Court he has neither named nor identified any of the above accused. Rather there has been a dock identification of accused Sanjay S/o Daya Nand, Jogal S/o Hawa Singh and Bobal S/o Tek Chand which of course under the given circumstances is liable to be rejected. Circumstantial evidence in the form of photographs and
Page No. 650
video clippings taken soon after the incident are also available on the record which have been duly proved by the prosecution. It stands proved from these photographs Ex.PW3/A-79, Ex.PW3/A-83 and Ex.PW3/A91 that two shops of Dhoop Singh situated on the front side of his house are seen as damaged on account of fire which photographs are also reflective of rioting/ tor-phor. Therefore, in view of the above as the medical evidence in the form of MLR of Dhoop Singh Ex.PW29/A, prepared by Dr. Saurabh Arora, showing that he has sustained 'grevious injuries' and also with regard to the corroboration of the oral testimony of Dhoop Singh from the photographs and video clippings taken soon after the incident, I hereby hold that the presence of the witness Dhoop Singh in the village and also at the time when the assailants entered his house and committed rioting stands established and I hold him to be a reliable witness qua the accused so identified by him in the Court. Testimony of Santra W/o Satyawan (PW30) In so far as the witness Santra W/o Satyawan (PW30) is concerned, she is the resident of village Mirchpur and is totally illiterate coming from a very poor family and her MLR Ex.PW30/A dated 30.4.2010 prepared by Dr. Pale Ram reveals that she had not sustained any injuries and was only complaining of pain. This is despite the fact that there was intense brick batting going on in the village and under these circumstances she would have certainly received some injuries, had she been present outside her house or seen some assailants. Her statement for the first time was recorded by the Investigating Officer on
30.4.2010 wherein she has not named any of the accused and it is for the first time that she has now identified the assailants in the Court. I may observe that it is the case of Santra herself that she was not available in the village from 19.4.2010 to 21.4.2010 and returned only in the afternoon of 21.4.2010 but when asked by the Court to tell the time she was unable to tell the time when she returned. This coupled with the fact that she received no injuries in the incident nor she has proved the extent of damage caused to her property and when interrogated by the police on 30.4.2010 she did not name even a single assailant claiming that on seeing the rioting she got scared and went inside her house where she remained after shutting the door as a result of which she was unable to identify any of the assailants. How is it that now after more than one year she has for the first time identified as many as ten accused in the Court and has come up with an altogether new story of the boys pulling out the girls of the 'B' community from their houses which aspect does not find corroboration from the testimony of any other witness. This being the background it is not safe to rely upon her uncorroborated testimony. The probability of Santra returning to the village at the time when the incident of rioting was still going on cannot be ruled out and therefore her testimony to the extent it finds an independent corroboration is admissible but in so far as the identification of the accused for the first time in the Court (dock identification) is concerned, the accused not being arrested at her instance and there being no test identification conducted, the same is required to be discarded. Testimony of Sheela W/o Subhash (PW32)
PW32 Smt. Sheela W/o Subhash, aged 30 years is a resident of village Mirchpur and employed as a Safai Karamchari in the government girl's school at village Mirchpur for the last three years. She has not received any injuries in the incident dated 21.4.2010 despite intense brick batting and her MLR Ex.PW32/A shows that there was no marks of external injuries and hence no opinion was given by the doctor. She has also received a compensation to tune of Rs.10,000/-. In her first statement to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 30.4.2010 which is Ex.PW32/DX1 she has stated that after seeing the crowd she got perplexed and scared due to which reason she could not identify anybody. She is not an eye witness to the incident dated 19.4.2010 and has deposed on the basis of hearsay but states that on 20.4.2010 there was no dispute. According to her, the assailants did not enter inside the 'B' Mohalla but set the houses of 'B' situated on the outer side of the mohalla and Tara Chand and Suman expired due to burns. She is the daughter of Deewan Singh, the neighbour of Tara Chand and has testified that Tara Chand who had got burnt had come to her house for shelter as his house was situated adjoining her house. She has identified the accused Rajender S/o Pale as the person who had set the house of Tara Chand on fire and Kulwinder who had broken the door of her house and come inside and broken her water tank. Sheela has deposed that on the date of the incident her aged parents were alone at home along with her children when the rioting commenced and she reached her house much later by trying to hide herself.
Here, I may observe that this witness is working as a Safai

Karamchari in a school and remains on duty from 8 AM to 2 PM. It is not her case that she was on leave on the date of the incident that is 21.4.2010 and hence the presumption that she returned to the village only later. Though the witness has tried to explain that she normally comes back early after orally informing the Principal of her school but there is no independent corroboration to her statement to prove the same. Though the possibility of the witness returning early after coming to know of the incident in the village cannot be ruled out yet the Rule of Prudence requires that her statement should be read with due care and caution and independent corroboration would be required. Therefore under these circumstances the witness having identified Rajender S/o Pale and Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar for the first time in the Court (dock identification) despite being previously known to her and not having named them initially, her testimony to the extent of this improvement is not reliable and liable to be rejected. Testimony of Rani W/o Sanjay (PW33) This witness is the wife of Sanjay (PW36) who as per the MLR Ex.PW33/A prepared by Dr. Pale Ram on 30.4.2010 did not receive any injuries and therefore no opinion was given. Her statement was recorded for the first time by the Investigating Officer on 30.4.2010 vide Ex.PW33/DX1 wherein she did not name any person as the accused claiming that she did not know name of any of the accused. However when she appeared in the Court to depose she was residing at Ved Pal Tanwar Farm House and for the first time she identified Karambir son of Tara, Rajender son of Dhoop, Balwan son of Inder and Rajender son of Pale. She in her testimony before the Court also claims that she was
pregnant at the time of the incident and had gone to attend the call of nature and while returning to the village feel down accidentally when she started running on seeing the incident. This being the background, no doubt the presence of Rani in the village cannot be disputed but the probability and possibility of her seeing and clearly identifying the assailants is remote in view of the fact that in her first statement given to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 30.4.2010 Ex.PW33/DX1 she has herself claimed that at the time of the incident she was hiding in the gali and was trying to save herself from the brick batting as aspect which also finds corroboration from the statement of her husband (Sanjay PW36) who in his statement to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. had stated that he was trying to save his wife in the gali when the brick batting was going on and therefore was unable to identify the assailants as there was a huge crowd. This, coupled with the fact that Rani did not receive any injuries in the incident as reflected from her MLR Ex.PW33/A the testimony of Rani to the extent of improvement and on the aspect of identification of the accused for the first time in the Court (dock identification) is liable to be discarded and she is an unreliable witness on that aspect though her testimony on the aspect of the incident can always be looked into to the extent of reliable corroboration.
Testimony of Sanjay S/o Raja Ram (PW36)

He is the husband of Rani (PW33) and has not sustained any injuries in the incident dated 21.4.2010 as per MLR Ex.PW36/A prepared by Dr. Pale Ram on 30.4.2010. First time his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 30.4.2010 that is after nine days
of the incident wherein he did not name any of the assailants. According to Sanjay at the time of the incident he went to the roof of Veer Bhan to save his wife and children, from there he witnessed the assailants indulging into damaging the property and household articles (tor phor). I may observe that there are allegations against this witness Sanjay that he is facing criminal prosecution in a large number of cases at the Courts in Hissar and is a regular court bird which fact he has admitted in his crossexamination. It is, therefore, evident that Sanjay is aware of the various legal intricacies and implications. In case if he was in a position to identify the assailants/ accused, he would have certainly mentioned their names to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. or at least to the doctor who had examined him which he did not do. Rather, in his statement to the Investigating Officer he mentioned that at the time the rioting was going on he was in the gali trying to save his wife as there was a big crowd of persons due to which he could not recognize or identify any assailant and therefore he has not named any person in his statement. This aspect finds corroboration from the testimony of his wife Rani (PW33) who states that at the time of the incident she was expecting a child and therefore was hiding in the gali. This coupled with the fact that despite so much of brick batting as claimed by the witness it is strange that Sanjay did not sustain any injuries so much so that the doctor who examined him did not give any opinion on his MLR. This makes his testimony before the Court, particularly to the extent of dock identification of the assailant/ accused for the first time in the Court, doubtful more so because despite being the resident of the same village since his birth and knowing the assailants who were also belonging to the
same village, he identifies most of them only when they are specifically put to him by the prosecution and not of his own. Here I may add that merely because Sanjay (PW36) has been facing prosecution in criminal cases will not per-se make him a totally unreliable witness. His testimony can certainly be looked into for corroborative purposes on the aspect of the incident but insofar as the aspect of identity of the accused/ assailants is concerned, the witness Sanjay for the first time having identified as many as twenty three accused in the Court is totally unreliable and, therefore, under these circumstances, his testimony to the extent of exaggeration, improvement and dock identification of the accused persons for the first time in the Court is liable to be discarded. Testimony of Meena Kumar S/o Satpal (PW37) PW37 Meena S/o Satpal aged 32 years is the brother of Mahajan (PW38). He did not receive any injuries in the incident dated 21.4.2010 despite the intense brick batting and his MLR Ex.PW37/A dated 30.4.2010 prepared by Dr. Pale Ram shows that there was no mark of injury on his body and therefore no opinion has been given by the doctor. In his first statement to the Investigating Officer on 30.4.2010 which is Ex.PW37/DX1 he did not name any of the assailants stating that he had gone to purchase Biri from the shop situated in the gali and there was stone pelting from the other side and in order to save himself he entered a house and could not identify anybody who was indulging into stone pelting. However, now in his testimony before the Court he has for the first time identified Rajender S/o Pale, Dharambir @ Illa S/o Mai Chand, Satte S/o Karan Singh and Rajbir @ Nanha S/o Mai Chand. I may observe that all these accused, that is, Rajender, Dharambir, Rajbir
and Satte have neither been arrested at his instance nor any Identification Parade had been carried out. The dock identification of the accused Rajender, Dharambir, Rajbir and Satte in the Court for the first time is impermissible and I hereby hold that Meena Kumar is an unreliable witness qua the identity of the accused but there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of this witness in so far as the aspect of incident is concerned. Testimony of Mahajan S/o Satpal (PW38) Mahajan S/o Satpal (PW38) aged 30 years is a daily wages labour doing the work of mason with the jamindars belonging to the 'J' community. His MLR Ex.PW38/A proves that he had received Simple injuries caused by Blunt weapon and was taken to General Hospital Hissar by the police on 21.4.2010 itself where he was provided treatment and his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.PW38/PX1 was recorded by SI Bani Singh at the earliest opportunity on 23.4.2010 while he was still hospitalized. In his first statement made to the police he has named Rajender S/o Pale, Rupesh S/o Tek Ram, Illa S/o Mai Chand, Pawan S/o Ram Mehar, Bobal @ Langra S/o Teka, Rishi S/o Satbir, Pradeep S/o Balwan, Kuldeep S/o Ram Mehar, Monu S/o Dr. Suresh, Vikash S/o Dr. Suresh, Rajpal S/o Sui Chand, Sumit S/o Satyawan, Ramesh S/o Karan Singh, Soni S/o Jaibir, Dalbir S/o Dalip, Roshan S/o Ram Swroop, Sonu S/o Pappu, Vipin S/o Pratap, Jasbir S/o Ishwar, Ajit S/o Dalip, Mahesha S/o Dalip, wife of Pale, wife of Dilbagh (Driver), Rajender S/o Sindhu, Joginder S/o Bhim Singh, Joginder @ Jogar S/o Inder Singh, Ghaggar S/o Tara Chand, Dharambir S/o Tara Chand, Suresh S/o Balbir, Moti W/o Ghaggar, Sunil S/o Daya Nand, Karam Pal
S/o Satbir, Mandeep S/o Prema, Hathi S/o Balu Ram, Kuldeep S/o Balbir, Rajender S/o Belu Ram, Daya S/o Jeet Singh, Ajit S/o Sukhbir, Dalbir S/o Dalip, Roshan S/o Ram Swaroop, Nanha S/o Mahi Chand, Ram Phar S/o Prithvi, Baljeet S/o Inder Singh and Jaivir S/o Balbir. whereas in his testimony before the Court he has only identified Rajender S/o Pale, Ram Phal S/o Prithvi, Illa S/o Mai Chand, Lillu S/o Raja Ram, Jugal @ Dogar S/o Hawa Singh, Baljeet S/o Inder, Rupesh S/o Tek Ram, Pawan S/o Ram Mehar, Nanhe S/o Mai Chand, Bobal @ Langra S/o Tek Ram, Jaibir S/o Balbir, Sattu @ Satish S/o Randhir Singh, Kulvinder S/o Ram Mehar, Monu S/o Suresh, Ajit S/o Sukhbir and Deepak S/o Krishan Kumar. No doubt, in his testimony before the Court he has turned hostile with regard to many of the accused but that in itself can be no reason to discard his testimony. I hold that he is a reliable witness qua the accused he has specifically named and identified in the court that is Rajender S/o Pale, Ram Phal S/o Prithvi, Illa S/o Mai Chand, Lillu S/o Raja Ram (absconded accused), Jugal @ Dogar S/o Hawa Singh, Baljeet S/o Inder, Rupesh S/o Tek Ram, Pawan S/o Ram Mehar, Nanhe S/o Mai Chand, Bobal @ Langra S/o Tek Ram, Jaibir S/o Balbir, Sattu @ Satish S/o Randhir Singh, Kulvinder S/o Ram Mehar, Monu S/o Suresh, Ajit S/o Sukhbir and Deepak S/o Krishan Kumar. However, in so far as the accused Jugal S/o Hawa Singh and Satish S/o Randhir Singh are concerned, Mahajan has for the first time in the Court identified both Jugal and Satish and that too not by name but by pointing out towards them after the accused were specifically put to him. This is despite the fact that both the accused are presumably known to the witness being the residents of the same village. Therefore, the testimony of Mahajan to the extent of
identification of Jugal and Satish for the first time in the Court is liable to rejected. I may however add that the testimony of Mahajan on the aspect of incident to the extent of material improvements made by him is required to be read with caution for which independent corroboration would be necessitated.
Testimony of Sube Singh S/o Bhura Ram (PW39) Sube Singh S/o Bhura Ram is aged about 70 years and it is evident from the record that he did not receive any injuries in the incident dated 21.4.2010 despite intense brick batting and his medical examination has never been conducted. In his first statement made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 he has named Rajinder S/o Pali, Karampal S/o Satbir, Vijender S/o Hoshiyar Singh, Mahesh S/o Dalipa, Bobal @ Bangra S/o Teka, Joginder @ Jogar S/o Inder Singh, Dharambir S/o Tara Chand, Suresh S/o Balbir, Nanha S/o Mahi Chand, Mandeep S/o Prema, Hathi S/o Balu Ram, Rajender S/o Dhoopa, Daya S/o Jeet Singh, Kulwant S/o Chander Singh, Sukhbir S/o Manphool, Surender S/o Jagdev, Jai Bir S/o Manphool, Viren S/o Yahspal, Naresh S/o Prem Singh, Dinesh S/o Prem Singh, Rajender S/o Sandhu, Ghaggar S/o Tara Chand, Ajit S/o Dalip, Rajender S/o Bhoopa, Balwan S/o Inder Singh, Satyawan S/o Tara Chand and Ajit S/o Sukhbir whereas in the Court he has only identified Kulwinder @ Baniya S/o Ram Mehar, Rajender S/o Pale, Karambir S/o Tara Chand and Ramesh S/o Dalip Singh. I may observe that the evidence on record also shows that Sube Singh had received compensation for damage to his property but the photograph
Ex.PW3/A-37, Ex.PW3/A-39 and Ex.PW3/A-40 do not reflect any kind of damage to his property though his presence at the spot stands established as reflected in photograph Ex.PW3/A-40. He has in his testimony before the Court admitted that he had got his eyes operated for Cataract in the month prior to that of incident and the photograph Ex.PW3/A40 shows the witness Sube Singh himself standing outside his house with a walking stick wearing dark sun glasses which conclusively proves the aspect of Sube Singh having got his eye operated. If this was the medical condition of Sube Singh then, no doubt his presence at the spot cannot be disbelieved but the possibility or the probability of Sube Singh having clearly seen and identified the assailants out of the mob consisting of hundreds of rioters does not appear to be totally reliable and convincing and under the given circumstances the Rule of Prudence requires an independent reliable corroboration to his testimony relating to the aspect of identification of the accused. Testimony of Vijender S/o Surta (PW40) Vijender S/o Surta (PW40) is aged 28 years is a daily wages labour. It is evident from the record that despite the intense brick batting going on at the spot on 21.4.2010 he did not receive any injuries and there is no medical examination. His first statement was recorded by the police on the same date that is 21.4.2010 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.PW40/PX1 wherein he has named Illa S/o Mai Chand, Rajender S/o Pale, Rajesh S/o Dhoopa, Rishi S/o Satbir, Pawan S/o Ram Mehar, Pradeep S/o Balwan, Rajender S/o Sadhu, Ghaggar S/o Tara Chand, Dharambir S/o Tara Chand, Hoshiyar S/o Mangal, Surender S/o Jagdev, Dinesh S/o Prem Singh, Satyawan S/o Tara Chand, Dalbir S/o
Dalip, Dinesh S/o Amar Lal, Joginder S/o Bhim Singh, Roshan S/o Ram Swaroop, Rajesh S/o Om Prakash, Deepak S/o Ajmer, Suresh S/o Ajmer, Pradeep S/o Ram Phal, Rajbir @ Nanhe S/o Mahi Chand, Ram Phal S/o Prithvi, Surender S/o Jagdev, Ajit S/o Dalip Singh, Jai Bir S/o Manphool and Satyawan S/o Tara Chand whereas in the Court he has only identified Rajender S/o Pale, Bobal @ Langra S/o Tek Ram, Jugal @ Dogar S/o Hawa Singh, Daya S/o Ajit, Dharambir @ Illa S/o Mai Chand, Satish @ Sattu Singh S/o Randhir, Ajit S/o Dalip, Ramphal @ Petla S/o Prithvi and Rajesh S/o Dhoop Singh. His testimony cannot be discarded only because he has turned partly hostile and has not identified all the accused so named by him earlier in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He has for the first time identified in the Court the accused Daya S/o Ajit, Satish @ Sattu S/o Randhir Master and Jugal @ Jogar S/o Hawa Singh which is despite the fact that all the above accused are the residents of the same village and are known to the witness. Vijender who has named all the other accused/ assailants could have certainly named Daya, Satish and Jogal as well which he did not do. In view of the above and also keeping in mind the circumstances that Vijender has not received any injuries despite his presence at the spot and intense brick batting nor his presence is established from any document prepared at the spot including the memos or the photographs/ video clippings (which reflect the presence of many persons), I hereby hold that Vijender is not a totally reliable witness and the Rule of Prudence requires that this Court should look to reliable corroboration not only on the aspect of the incident as also the on the aspect of identification of the accused. Further, all material improvements made by Vijender on the
aspects involving the identification (dock identification) of the accused Daya S/o Ajit, Satish @ Sattu S/o Randhi Master and Jogal @ Jogar S/o Hawa Singh or on the role attributed to the various accused is liable to be rejected. Testimony of Vicky S/o Dhoop Singh (PW42) Vicky S/o Dhoop Singh is aged 21 years and has studied till class 11th and at the time of his deposition was not doing anything. He has a family comprising of his parents and two nephews who are the sons of her deceased brother. It is evident from the record that he did not receive any injuries in the incident dated 21.4.2010 despite the intense brick batting and therefore no MLR was prepared. For the first time his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer on 27.6.2010 which is Ex.PW42/PX1 that is after two months of the date of incident, which is despite the fact, that he was one of the available persons who was actively spear heading the agitations for justice to the victims of atrocities of this incident. No reasonable explanation is forthcoming as to why he was not examined at the earliest prior to 27.06.2010. He has in his testimony before the Court given the names of Illa S/o Mai Chand, Nanha S/o Mai Chand, Tinku @ Petwar, Manjeet S/o Mahender, Joginder @ Jogar S/o Inder, Kala S/o Umed (not arrested), Sunil S/o Dayanand, Manbir S/o Zile Singh, Soni S/o Dalbir, Ram Phal S/o Prithvi, Sanjay S/o Daya Nand, Pradeep S/o Jaibir, Bobal S/o Tek Ram, Satyawan S/o Rajender, Sonu S/o Pappu, Rajender S/o Pale, Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand, Pradeep S/o Suresh, Sumit S/o Satyawan, Rishi S/o Satbir, Manbir S/o Zile Singh, Sandeep S/o Chander Fauji and Soni S/o Dalbir as assailants. However in the Court
he has identified Rajender S/o Pale, Rishi S/o Satbir, Ramphal S/o Prithvi, Sanjay S/o Daya Nand, Pradeep S/o Jaibir, Pradeep S/o Suresh, Satyawan S/o Rajender, Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand, Bobal S/o Tek Ram, Sumit S/o Satyawan, Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar, Sanjay S/o Amar Lal, Sonu S/o Dalbir, Pawan S/o Hoshiyar Singh, Sandeep S/o Chander, Dharambir @ Illa S/o Mai Chand, Pawan S/o Ram Mehar, Daya Kishan S/o Ajit, Balwan S/o Inder, Pradeep S/o Satbir, Rupesh S/o Tek Ram, Kuldeep S/o Dalbir, Praveen S/o Jagdev, Sunil S/o Daya Nand, Jasbir S/o Raja Ram (absconded), Jitender S/o Satbir, Karam Pal S/o Satbir, Pradeep S/o Balwan, Jagdish S/o Lehna Ram, Ajit S/o Sukhbir, Kuldeep S/o Om Prakash, Sonu S/o Ramesh, Joginder S/o Inder Singh, Jogal S/o Hawa Singh, Roshan S/o Ram Swaroop, Manbir S/o Zile Singh, Deepak S/o Krishan, Jagdish S/o Baru Ram, Tinku S/o Sewa Singh, Baljeet S/o Inder and Rajesh S/o Tek Ram which is in total improvement over his earlier statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. I may observe that in so far as the witness Vicky (PW42) is concerned he is an educated person and well aware of his legal and constitutional rights due to which reason he had been actively participating in the Dharnas and protests, both at Hissar and Delhi, in respect of this incident, dated 21.4.2010. Despite the fact that he was actively involved in the follow up of the incident his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW42/PX1 which he duly admits was for the first time recorded after two months of the incident that is on 27.6.2010 and no explanation is forthcoming for the said delay of more than two months. It is unbelievable that under the given circumstances Vicky who was actively involved in a fight for securing justice for his kins that he would have kept quite for two months and that too when during this
period the case was under active investigating and statements of large number of other witnesses were also recorded. I may further observe that despite the intense brick batting, rioting and arson which was going on, Vicky did not receive any injuries nor was he ever treated for the same at any point of time, a fact which he has duly admitted. I may further observe that Vicky is the son of Dhoop Singh (PW29) who had received grievous injuries that is fracture of left Humerus and had to be removed to General Hospital Hissar where he was treated by Dr. Saurav Arora and his MLR Ex.PW29/A. Dhoop Singh in his testimony states that it was the police who had taken him to the hospital along with Suman the deceased daughter of Tara Chand. He had been brought to the hospital by the police whereas Vicky did not accompany him. Had Vicky been present at the spot he would have accompanied his father Dhoop Singh an old man of 74 years who had sustained grievous injuries that is fracture of left humerus and was complaining of swelling and deformity of left arm and pain and swelling below the elbow with abrasion and swelling on the left middle leg. No person under these circumstances would have left his father alone to the care of police and his absence, at the time when Dhoop Singh was taken to the hospital is conspicuous for which no explanation is forthcoming and the conduct of Vicky in this regard is totally unnatural thereby raising a question with regard to this presence at the spot at the time of the incident. (Ref.: Din Dayal -vs- Raj Kumar @ Raju reported in 1999 Cri.L.J. 467) What is more strange is that according to Vicky while his mother and two nephews had escaped from the backside of the house, his ailing father was left at home and if this was so why was it that Vicky did not accompany his aged disabled father to the hospital. What is it that
prevented Vicky to have accompanied his father to the hospital while he was being shifted there by the police and hence all the more reason that his presence at the spot becomes doubtful more so as Dhoop Singh (PW29) the father of Vicky does not corroborate the version given by Vicky. In fact in his testimony before the court, Dhoop Singh nowhere mentions about the presence of Vicky at his house or that the assailants came looking for Vicky and he (Dhoop Singh) asked him (Vicky) to run away from the spot. Rather, this is the explanation which has been put forward by Vicky for the first time in the Court which he even did not tell the Investigating Officer previously when his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded after two months of the incident. Also, Dhoop Singh in his testimony before this Court has neither named nor identified the accused so named by Vicky as the assailants. Here I may also clarify that Vicky having made an exhaustive statement after almost two months of the incident and provided the Investigating Officer the detailed names of the assailants, it is unbelievable that being a resident of the same area he could have missed out anybody. This being the background, the Rule of Prudence necessitates and independent reliable corroboration specifically to the extent of improvements made by him on the aspect of the incident and also on the aspect of identity of the accused. Hence the identification of the accused Jagdish @ Hati S/o Baru Ram, Pawan S/o Hoshiar Singh, Praveen S/o Jagdev, Sanjay @ Sandeep S/o Amar Lal, Jitender S/o Satbir, Kuldeep S/o Dalbir, Kuldeep S/o Om Prkash, Ajit S/o Sukhbir, Jagdish S/o Lehna, Roshan S/o Ram Swaroop, Sonu S/o Ramesh, Pawan S/o Ram Mehar, Deepak @ Sonu S/o Krishan, Balwan S/o Inder, Pradeep S/o Balwan, Rupesh S/o Tek Ram, Baljeet S/o Inder, Jugal S/o
Hawa Singh, Karampal S/o Satbir, Pradeep S/o Satbir, Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar and Daya S/o Ajit for the first time in the Court (dock identification) is out rightly rejected. Further, insofar as the identification of the accused Illa S/o Mai Chand, Nanha S/o Mai Chand, Tinku Petwar S/o Sewa Singh, Joginder @ Jogar S/o Inder, Sunil S/o Dayanand, Manbir S/o Zile Singh, Sonu S/o Dalbir, Ram Phal S/o Prithvi, Sanjay S/o Daya Nand, Pradeep S/o Jaibir, Bobal S/o Tek Ram, Satyawan S/o Rajender, Sonu S/o Pappu, Rajender S/o Pale, Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand, Pradeep S/o Suresh, Sumit S/o Satyawan, Rishi S/o Satbir and Sandeep S/o Chander Fauji whom Vicky had earlier named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded after two months of the incident is concerned, I hereby hold that for the reasons as discussed herein above, it would be necessary for the Court to look for a reliable corroboration the witness Vicky not being totally reliable. Testimony of Dilbagh S/o Gulab Singh (PW43) Dilbagh (PW43) is the son of Gulab Singh (PW48) and the brother of Sanjay (PW44). He is a daily wages labour and has not received any injuries in the incident dated 21.4.2010 nor any MLR was prepared. He claims that his property had been completely damaged by the rioters in the incident dated 21.4.2010 but has not produced any evidence of the same. Rather, this Court has observed from the photograph Ex.PW3/A-108 which photograph shows Dilbagh standing in front of his property at the time when the photograph was taken on 21.4.2010 and also showing that he has not suffered any injuries. The said photograph in fact clearly reflects that there is no damage to his
property situated in the backdrop either by fire or otherwise. In his first statement made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on the same date that is 21.4.2010 which is Ex.PW43/PX1 he has given the names of Rishi S/o Satbir, Rajender S/o Pale, Pradeep S/o Balwan, Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar, Rupesh S/o Tek Ram, Monu S/o Dr. Suresh, Vikash S/o Dr. Suresh, Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand, Illa S/o Mai Chand, Sumit S/o Satyawan, Amit S/o Satyawan, Ramesh S/o Karan Singh, Soni S/o Jaibir, Sonu S/o Pappu, Pawan S/o Ram Mehar, Vipin S/o Pratap, Jasbir S/o Ishwar, Mahesh S/o Dalip, Rajender S/o Sadhu Ram, Bobal @ Langra S/o Teka, Jogender @ Jogga S/o Inder Singh, Karambir @ Ghaggar S/o Tara Chand, Dharambir S/o Tara Chand, Suresh S/o Balbir, Ramphal S/o Prithvi, Sunil S/o Daya Nand, Baljeet S/o Inder, Nanha @ Rajbir S/o Mai Chand, Karam Pal S/o Satbir, Mandeep S/o Prema, Hathi S/o Baru, Kuldeep S/o Balbir, Jaibir S/o Balbir, Rajender S/o Belu Ram, Rajesh S/o Dhoopa, Daya S/o Jeet Singh, Ajit S/o Sukhbir, Joginder S/o Bhim Singh, Roshan S/o Ram Swaroop, Dalbir S/o Dalip Singh, Rajesh S/o Om Prakash, Baljeet S/o Inder Singh, Pradeep S/o Ram Phal, Dinesh S/o Amar Lal, Deepak S/o Ajmer, Satish S/o Ajmer, Ajay S/o Sukhbir, Vijender S/o Hoshiyar Singh, Hoshiyar Singh S/o Mangal, Ajit S/o Dalip Singh, Kulwant S/o Chander Singh, Rajender S/o Dhoopa, Ram Mehar S/o Gulab Singh, Sukhbir S/o Manphool, Satyawan S/o Tara Chand, Jaibir S/o Manphool, Surender S/o Jagdev, Balwan S/o Karambir, Dinesh S/o Prem Singh, Naresh S/o Prem Singh and Viren S/o Yash Pal. However, in the Court he has only identified Rajender S/o Pale, Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar, Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand, Karambir @ Ghaggar S/o Tara Chand, Ram Phal S/o Prithvi and Rishi S/o Satbir.
I may observe that Dilbagh has also appeared before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Iqbal Singh (retired) Commission of Inquiry, Mirchpur, Haryana wherein he had filed an affidavit and also made a statement to the effect that he had not seen any of the assailants. This aspect has been admitted by Dilbagh but I may observe that as per the provisions of Section 6 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, the statement of a witness cannot be used to contradict him. Therefore under these circumstances, the statement made by Dilbagh before the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Iqbal Singh (Retd.) Commission of Inquiry (Mirchpur), Haryana cannot be used for contradicting him under Section 162 Cr.P.C. but it can always be used by the Court to determine the credibility, trustworthiness and truthfulness of the witness. The witness Dilbagh has testified in the Court that he was observing the entire incident from a distance of approximately one killa. This being so, it is doubtful that the persons standing in the main gali would have been clearly visible to Dilbagh. The incident in question had taken place in the main gali in the village from where it spread to other places and in case if Dilbagh was standing at a distance of one Killa then his vision under these circumstances would certainly be obstructed and not clear. Dilbagh in his own testimony has admitted that there are a number of houses between the place where he was standing and the main gali though he has clarified that these houses were built up only till ground floor or first floor. Therefore, under these circumstances the probability and possibility of his clearly identifying the assailants under these circumstances is dim and I hereby hold that Dilbagh is not a totally reliable witness in so far the identification of the assailants is concerned and it is necessary for the Court to look for independent
reliable corroboration in respect of the same.
Further, the witness
Dilbagh has in his testimony before the Court made substantial improvements and exaggerations over his earlier statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded immediately after the incident on 21.4.2010 which are required to be discarded. Testimony of Sanjay (PW44) PW44 Sanjay aged 29 years is the son of Gulab Singh (PW48) and the brother of Dilbagh (PW43). He is a daily wages labourer and is totally illiterate and before the incident was working with the persons from the 'J' community as as Mason. He has not received any injuries in the incident dated 21.4.2010 despite the intense brick batting nor any MLR was prepared. In his first statement given to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 21.4.2010 he has named Rajender S/o Pale, Rishi S/o Satbir, Pradeep S/o Balwan, Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar, Monu S/o Dr. Suresh, Vikash S/o Dr. Suresh, Illa S/o Mai Chand, Nanha S/o Mai Chand, Dalbir S/o Dalip, Hoshiyar S/o Mangal, Satyawan S/o Tara Chand, Rajender S/o Dhoopa, Jaibir S/o Manphool, Ajit S/o Sukhbir, Ram Mehar S/o Gulab, Roshan S/o Ram Swroop, Deepak S/o Ajmer, Dinesh S/o Amar Lal, Satish S/o Ajmer, Kulwant S/o Chander Singh, Viren S/o Yashpal, Krishan S/o Karan Singh, Naresh S/o Prem Singh, Ajit S/o Dalip, Rupesh S/o Tek Ram, Ghaggar S/o Tara Chand, Ram Phal S/o Prithvi, Karam Pal S/o Satbir and Baljeet S/o Inder as the assailants. However in the Court he has only identified Rajender S/o Pale, Rishi S/o Satbir, Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar, Monu S/o Dr. Suresh, Illa S/o Mai Chand, Ramphal @ Petla S/o Prithvi Singh, Dalbir @ Bobal S/o
Tek Ram and Pradeep S/o Satbir. (I may observe that despite the fact that witness Sanjay admitted to the Special Public Prosecutor having named Karam Pal S/o Satbir, Baljeet S/o Inder, Rupesh S/o Tek Ram, Pradeep S/o Balwan, Ghaggar S/o Tara Chand and Nanha S/o Mai Chand but he could not identify them in the Court). He has appeared before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Iqbal Singh (retired) Commission of Inquiry, Mirchpur, Haryana wherein he had filed an affidavit and also made a statement to the effect that he had not seen any of the assailants. This fact he has admitted before this Court but I may observe that as per the provisions of Section 6 of the Commission of Inquiry Act the statement of a witness cannot be used to contradict him. Therefore, under these circumstances, the statement made by Sanjay before the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Iqbal Singh (Retd.) Commission of Inquiry (Mirchpur), Haryana cannot be used for contradicting him under Section 162 Cr.P.C. but it can always be used by the Court to determine the credibility, trustworthiness and truthfulness of the witness. This being the background, I may observe that Sanjay is the son of Gulab Singh Chowkidar who had first received the injuries when he was allegedly hit with a danda by the boys belonging to the 'J' community and after the police came to the village Gulab Singh was shifted to the hospital. It is an admitted case of Sanjay that he did not accompany his father Gulab Singh to the hospital while he was shifted there by the police in an Ambulance. There is also no other corresponding document in the form of memos prepared by the police at the spot, photographs and video clippings taken at the spot itself (which show the presence of many persons including his brother Dilbagh) to
establish his presence in the village at the relevant time. The conduct of this witness Sanjay who is the son of Gulab Singh is not natural and probable and under the given circumstances when his aged father who had been beaten by boys of 'J' community was lying injured in his house after which the rioting had started and Sanjay does not accompany his father to the hospital whereas any other person under similar circumstances would have done so. This coupled with the fact that he did not receive any injuries nor there is any other corresponding proof to establish his presence at the spot that it has become necessary for this Court to take into account reasonable probabilities, having regard to the normal nature and course of human affairs and I hold that it is not safe to rely upon the uncorroborated and unsubstantiated testimony of Sanjay a witness who is not totally reliable and is habitual in frequently changing his stand before various forums. Testimony of Manoj (PW45) PW45 Manoj aged 27 years is the son of Mahender and is a mason by profession and before the incident was working on daily wages. It is evident from the record that despite the intense brick batting he did not receive any injuries in the incident dated 21.4.2010 nor his MLR was prepared. For the first time his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on the date of incident itself that is 21.4.2010 and again on 27.6.2010 wherein he has given the names of Rajender S/o Sandhu, Bobal @ Langra S/o Tek Ram, Joginder S/o Inder Singh, Ghaggar S/o Tara Chand, Karam Bir S/o Tara Chand, Suresh S/o Balbir, Ram Phal S/o Prithvi, Sunil S/o Daya Nand, Baljeet S/o Inder, Nanha S/o Mai Chand,
Karam Pal S/o Satbir, Mandeep S/o Prema, Hathi S/o Baru, Kuldeep S/o Balbir, Jaibir S/o Balbir, Rajender S/o Belu Ram, Rajesh S/o Dhoopa, Daya S/o Jeet Singh, Ajit S/o Sukhbir, Ajay S/o Sukhbir, Bijender S/o Hoshiyar Singh, Hoshiyar Singh S/o Mangal Singh, Ajit S/o Dalip, Kulwant S/o Chander Singh, Rajender S/o Dhoopa, Ram Mehar S/o Gulab Singh, Sukhbir S/o Manphool, Satyawan S/o Tara Chand, Jaibir S/o Man Phool, Surender S/o Jagdev, Balwan S/o Karambir, Dinesh S/o Prem Singh, Naresh S/o Prem Singh, Viren S/o Yash Pal, Sumit & Raj Pal Sons of Sheo Chand. However in the Court he has identified Rajender S/o Pale, Ram Phal S/o Prithvi, Daya S/o Jeet Singh, Amit S/o Satyawan, Sumit S/o Satyawan, Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar, Pawan S/o Ram Mehar, Satyawan S/o Karan Singh, Rishi S/o Satbir, Dalbir S/o Tara Chand, Satish S/o Randhir Singh, Pawan S/o Rajbir, Deepak S/o Krishan Kumar, Baljeet S/o Inder, Karambir S/o Tara Chand, Pradeep S/o Suresh, Pradeep S/o Satbir, Kuldeep S/o Om Prakash, Roshan S/o Ram Swaroop, Jogal S/o Hawa Singh, Sanjay S/o Daya Nand, Karam Pal S/o Satbir and Dharambir @ Bobbal S/o Tek Ram. (Here I may observe that despite the fact that witness Manoj admitted to the Special Public Prosecutor having named Satyawan S/o Tara Chand he failed to identify the accused Satyawan S/o Tara Chand in the Court). Here I may observe that Manoj is a resident of the village since birth and is previously known to the accused in such capacity. He has made a detailed statement to the police soon after the incident on the same day that is 21.4.2010 wherein he has named as many as thirty four accused. He again made a statement to the police on 27.6.2010 that is after two months of the incident wherein he named only three accused that is Sumit, Satta and Rajpal. However, now when he appeared in the
Court to depose for the first time he pointed out towards the accused Pawan S/o Rajbir, Dalbir S/o Tara Chand, Kuldeep S/o Om Prakash, Amit S/o Satyawan, Roshan S/o Ram Swaroop, Pawan S/o Ram Mehar, Pradeep S/o Suresh, Satish S/o Randhir Singh, Deepak @ Sonu S/o Kishan, Pradeep S/o Balwan, Sanjay S/o Daya Nand, Jugal S/o Hawa Singh, Pradeep S/o Satbir, Rishi S/o Satbir and Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar as assailants which is despite the fact that the witness Manoj a resident of the same village was known to all these accused previously and there was also sufficient opportunity for him to have named these accused previously when the Investigating Officer exhaustively interrogated him and recorded his statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on two occasions that is 21.4.2010 and 27.6.2010, which he did not do. Here I may further observe that Manoj in his testimony before the Court admitted his statement dated 21.04.2010 which is Ex.PW45/PX1 but was not very sure if his statement Ex.PW45/PX2 was also recorded on 27.06.2010 and has voluntarily added that so far as he recollects he was only interrogated on 27.06.2010 on the aspect of the damage to the motorcycle belonging to his brother-in-law and the persons responsible for the same but he was not sure whether what he has stated was also recorded. This being the background, the testimony of Manoj to the extent of identification of these accused for the first time in the Court (dock identification of Pawan S/o Rajbir, Dalbir S/o Tara Chand, Kuldeep S/o Om Prakash, Amit S/o Satyawan, Roshan S/o Ram Swaroop, Pawan S/o Ram Mehar, Pradeep S/o Suresh, Satish S/o Randhir Singh, Deepak @ Sonu S/o Kishan, Pradeep S/o Balwan, Sanjay S/o Daya Nand, Jugal S/o Hawa Singh, Pradeep S/o Satbir, Rishi S/o Satbir and Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar) which is a material improvement
over his earlier statements made to the police, is liable to be rejected being unreliable. However I may observe that Manoj had not received any injuries in the incident dated 21.4.2010 despite intense brick batting nor his signatures are present on any of the documents prepared at the spot by the police conclusively establishing his presence nor there is any document in the form of memos, photographs and video clippings showing his presence at the time the police had come to the village. Hence under these circumstances the testimony of Manoj qua the identification of other accused is admissible after a reliable corroboration. Testimony of Rajesh S/o Dalipa (PW46) PW46 Rajesh S/o Dalipa is aged 30 years and is a daily wages labourer. It is evident from the record that despite the intense brick batting at the spot he did not receive any injuries in the incident dated 21.4.2010 nor his MLR was prepared. For the first time his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 21.4.2010 which is Ex.PW46/PX1 wherein he has given the names of Rajender S/o Pale, Rishi S/o Satbir, Pradeep S/o Balwan, Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar, Rupesh S/o Tek Ram, Monu S/o Dr. Suresh, Vikash S/o Dr. Suresh, Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand, Illa S/o Mai Chand, Sumit S/o Satyawan, Amit S/o Satyawan, Ramesh S/o Karan Singh, Soni S/o Jaibir, Sonu S/o Pappu, Pawan S/o Ram Mehar, Vipin S/o Pratap, Jasbir S/o Ishwar, Mahesha S/o Dalipa, Rajender S/o Sandhu, Jogender S/o Bhim Singh, Roshan S/o Ram Swaroop, Dalbir S/o Dalip Singh, Rajesh S/o Om
Prakash, Balwan S/o Inder Singh, Pradeep S/o Ram Phal, Dinesh S/o Amar Lal, Deepak S/o Ajmer, Satish S/o Ajmer, Vijender S/o Hoshiyar Singh, Hoshiyar Singh S/o Mangal, Dalbir S/o Dalip, Dalip S/o Manphool, Jaibir S/o Manphool, Surender S/o Jagdev, Balwan S/o Dharambir and Ajay S/o Sukhbir. However, in the Court out of the above, he has only identified Rajender S/o Pale and there is no reason to disbelieve his testimony and is reliable to this extent. However I may add that there is a dock identification of the accused Ramphal S/o Prithvi by the witness Rajesh despite the fact that the accused Ramphal is the resident of the same village and was known to the witness previously and his testimony to the extent of this improvement is liable to be discarded. Testimony of Satyawan S/o Roshan Lal (PW47) Satyawan S/o Roshan Lal (PW47) is aged 32 years and is a daily wages labour. It is evident from the record that he did not receive any injuries in the incident dated 21.4.2010 despite the intense brick batting. For the first time his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Investigating Officer soon after the incident on 21.4.2010 itself wherein he had named Rajender S/o Pale, Rishi S/o Satbir, Pradeep S/o Balwan, Rupesh S/o Tek Ram, Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar, Monu S/o Dr. Suresh, Vikash S/o Dr. Suresh, Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand, Illa S/o Mai Chand, Sumit S/o Satyawan, Amit S/o Satyawan, Ramesh S/o Karan Singh, Soni S/o Jaibir, Sonu S/o Pappu, Pawan S/o Ram Mehar, Vipin S/o Pratap, Mahesha S/o Dalip, Rajender S/o Sandhu, Bobal @ Langra S/o Teka, Jogender @ Jogar S/o Inder Singh, Ghaggar
S/o Tara Chand, Dharam Bir S/o Tara Chand, Suresh S/o Balbir, Sunil S/o Daya Nand, Hathi S/o Baru Ram, Rajender S/o Belu Ram, Rajesh S/o Dhoopa, Daya S/o Jeet Singh, Roshan S/o Ram Swaroop, Karambir S/o Tara Chand, Dalbir S/o Dalipa and Vijender S/o Hoshiyar Singh as the assailants. However in the Court he has only identified the accused Rajender S/o Pale, Ramphal @ Petla S/o Prithvi and Bobal @ Langra S/o Tek Ram. I may observe that this witness Satyawan has substantially improved upon his earlier statement made to the police. Firstly, coming to the incident dated 19.4.2010, I may observe that Satyawan has come up with a new story of the person coming to Karan Singh and asking him to come as there was a Panchayat with regard to the incident where he had been called. Had this been so, the eye witnesses including Karan Singh would have certainly mentioned about the same in his deposition before the Court as DW13 which he has not done. This story of the Panchayat being held has now been put forward by Satyawan for the first time in the Court. Further, had Satyawan been present at the spot of the incident on 19.4.2010, it is natural that he would have accompanied the injured Karan Singh and Veer Bhan to the hospital which did not happen nor he informed the police about the incident (as he had done when the incident dated 21.4.2010 had taken place). Secondly, there is also an improvement in the statement of Satyawan in so far as the allegations against the accused Vinod Kajal, the then SHO Police Station Narnaund is concerned. He has come up with an altogether new story which is contradictory to the stand of the other prosecution witnesses and the initial version put forward by the prosecution. Satyawan has for the first time in the Court made allegations against Vinod Kajal to the effect that
as soon as the incident started the SHO Vinod Kajal along with other policemen ran away from the village from the kacha rasta going towards village Rakhi. This, I may observe, is contrary to the official record in the form of the Log Book pertaining to the wireless messages showing that at the time when Satyawan alleges that the SHO had run away from the village in fact he (accused Vinod Kajal the then SHO) and his team were very much present in the village and were sending repeated wireless messages asking for more reinforcement/ force from District Head Quarters. This being the background, the dock identification of the accused Ramphal S/o Prithvi for the first time, after the witness has substantially improved upon the material particulars and given a new twist to the prosecution case, is liable to be rejected. I also hold that Satyawan is not a totally reliable witness and his testimony to the extent of improvements and exaggerations which are materially different to the version of the prosecution is liable to be discarded. Testimony of Gulaba S/o Jai Lal (PW48) It is evident from the record that Gulab Singh @ Gulaba aged 70 years is admittedly the Chowkidar of the village and his MLR Ex.PW48/A was prepared by Dr. Sandeep Kumar (General Hospital Hissar) dated 21.4.2010 which proves that he had received three injuries which were opined to be Simple/Blunt. This being so, the presence of Gulaba in the village at the time of the incident particularly at the commencement of the incident cannot be doubted. However in so far as the possibility and probability of identification of the assailants are concerned I may observe that Gulaba has given two statements to the
Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. First on 23.4.2010 and thereafter on 27.6.2010 wherein he had given the names of Rajender S/o Pale, Karam Pal S/o Satbir, Rishi S/o Satbir, Pradeep S/o Balwan Singh, Kuldeep S/o Ram Mehar, Rupesh S/o Tek Ram, Monu S/o Dr. Suresh, Vikash S/o Dr. Suresh, Raj Pal S/o Sheo Chand, Illa S/o Mai Chand, Sumit S/o Satyawan, Amit S/o Satyawan, Ramesh S/o Karan Singh, Soni S/o Jaibir, Sonu S/o Pappu, Pawan S/o Ram Mehar, Vipin S/o Pratap, Jasbir S/o Ishwar, Mahesha S/o Dalip, Wife of Pale, Wife of Dilbagh (Driver), Wife of Pappu, Rajender S/o Sandhu, Bobal S/o Teka, Jogender S/o Inder Singh, Ghaggar S/o Tara Chand, Dharam Bir S/o Tara Chand, Suresh S/o Balbir, Bhoti W/o Ghaggar, Bharpai W/o Kapoora, Ram Phal S/o Prithvi, Sunil S/o Daya Nand, Baljeet S/o Inder Singh, Nanha S/o Mai Chand, Mandeep S/o Prema, Hathi S/o Baru Ram, Kuldeep S/o Balbir, Jaibir S/o Balbir, Rajender S/o Belu Ram, Dhoopa S/o Mangal, Daya S/o Jeet Singh, Ajit Singh and wife of Kapura S/o Ram Singh. However, when he appeared to testify in the Court, he has only identified Rajender S/o Pale, Karam Pal S/o Satbir, Ram Phal S/o Prithvi, Rishi S/o Satbir, Illa S/o Mai Chand, Bobal S/o Teka, Baljeet S/o Inder, Daya S/o Jeet Singh, Pradeep S/o Satbir, Balwan S/o Inder, Manbir S/o Zile Singh, Sunil S/o Daya Nand and Naseeb S/o Prem Singh. While evaluating the testimony of a witness it is necessary for the Court to take into account reasonable probabilities, having regard to the testimonies of other reliable witnesses and the circumstantial evidence on record. Site plan showing the house of Gulaba has been duly proved by the witnesses and it is an admitted case that the house of Gulaba is situated at the extreme South corner and is across two streets
and five rows of houses from house of Tara Chand (deceased). It is therefore evident that Gulaba being the first person to receive injuries in the morning after which he was brought back to his house, is not an eye witness to the burning of the house of Tara Chand. Gulab Singh in his testimony has admitted that after he was inflicted injuries he was taken to his house where he lay on his cot and was provided home treatment in the form of milk mixed with turmeric powder. Therefore it is evident that he never came back to main gali or to the 'B' Basti to inform other persons as to what had happened. Therefore under these circumstances the testimony of Gulaba to the extent of the incident which transpired in the morning wherein he was beaten cannot be disputed and is held reliable. However, in what transpired thereafter and with regard to the persons involved in the incident of rioting which followed, Gulab Singh is not a totally reliable witness. I may observe that Gulab Singh had been making constant improvements and exaggerations wherein names of assailants were being randomly added. Here it has become necessary for this Court to minutely examine the prosecution version for ensuring itself as to whether any innocent has been implicated in the crime or not. Therefore the statement of Gulab Singh to the extent of reliable corroboration is admissible but in so far as Pradeep S/o Satbir, Manbir S/o Zile Singh and Naseeb S/o Prem Singh are concerned, since it is for the first time in the Court that they have been identified by Gulab Singh, it is very unsafe to rely upon his testimony to this extent the benefit of which has to go to Pradeep, Manbir and Naseeb.
Testimony of Pradeep S/o Tara Chand (PW49)
Page No. 680
Pradeep (PW49) is aged 20 years is the son of deceased Tara Chand and was a resident of village Mirchpur at the time of the incident. He is the son of Smt. Kamla (PW50) and step brother of Amar Lal who has been examined as CW1. At the time of his deposition in the court he was working as a Clerk in the SDM Office, Hissar which job was given by the government after the incident when his father and sister were burnt alive and prior to this he was studying in the first year at government college Jind. It is evident from the record that he did not receive any injuries in the incident dated 21.4.2010 despite the intense brick batting. Pradeep claims himself to be an eye witness to the incident and in order to evaluate the credibility and correctness of his claim it has become necessary for this Court to examine his testimony in detail. At the very outset I may observe that Pradeep has in his deposition before this Court come up with a version which is contradictory to the version of the prosecution. Pradeep is the only witness who has testified that on 19.4.2010 after the quarrel between the boys belonging to the boys of 'J' community and 'B' community there was a meeting of the persons from the 'J' community where they decided that they would the persons from the 'B' community a lesson. Further, he is the only witness who has deposed that thereafter Veer Bhan and Karan Singh were beaten on 20.4.2010 which is despite the fact that the Special Public Prosecutor had tried to refresh his memory by giving him a suggestion that the incident of beating in fact took place on 19.4.2010 which he denied and rather insisted upon his version of the incident. This apparently goes to prove that Pradeep is not an eye witness to the incident dated 19.4.2010 or of what had transpired on 20.4.2010 and
therefore his testimony on the aspects narrated by him in respect of the incidents dated 19.4.2010 and 20.4.2010 is required to be rejected. Further, according to Pradeep it was only after Tara Chand and Suman had come out of their house that petrol was sprinkled on them and they were set on fire by the assailants including ladies of 'J' community and then pushed inside their house which was set on fire. This version has been introduced by Pradeep for the first time in the Court since Pradeep in his statement made to the police on 27.6.2010 which is Ex.PW49/PX3 did not mention about the same. It is further evident from his testimony that he has totally improved and changed his version as to the manner of occurrence to the extent that Tara Chand and Suman were dragged out of the house and set on fire in the street by pouring petrol on them and thereafter pushed back inside the house and locked from outside after which the house was set on fire. This version does not find support from the testimony of any other eye witness so examined by the prosecution (except his mother Kamla whose presence at the spot is itself doubtful). In fact this version given by Pradeep is contrary to the dying declaration made by Tara Chand to the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class which is Ex.PW55/B wherein the deceased Tara Chand does not mention about the presence of Pradeep and has specifically stated that the house was set on fire by persons from the 'J' community and it was Rajender who had lit the fire. Tara Chand did not tell the Ld. Judicial Magistrate that petrol was poured over him or that he was pushed and locked inside the house. Further, this version given by Pradeep regarding pouring of petrol over Tara Chand and Suman also does not find any support from the postmortem reports of the deceased Tara Chand and Suman or from the FSL report. In fact the postmortem
reports of both the deceased do not reflect any kind of burns caused by oil or petrol (which burns are of different nature). Even the FSL report rules out the presence of Hydrocarbons of Petroleum including kerosene, petrol and diesel. The half burnt clothes of Suman which were sent to FSL also do not show the presence of petrol or kerosene. Therefore under these circumstances, the oral testimony of Pradeep to this extent is liable to be rejected. Now coming to the reasonable probabilities, having regards to the normal nature and course of human affairs, it is an admitted case that Pradeep was the real brother of deceased Suman and the son of the deceased Tara Chand. According to Pradeep at the time his house was being set on fire by the assailants, he was in the gali in front of his house and was hiding in the house of his neighbour from where he had witnessed the incident. Any person under the given circumstances on seeing his sister and father being burnt alive would certainly have made some attempt to save them at the time of the assault or to rescue them later on, which has not happened. Rather, even after the alleged assailants including the ladies had gone away from the spot, there is nothing on record to show that the witness Pradeep had made any attempt to raise an alarm or to rescue his handicapped sister or aged father from the house. In fact the deceased Chand had himself come out of the burning house in order to save himself and had gone to the house of his neighbour Deewan Singh, where he was given water and it was only after the police came to the spot that he was shifted to the hospital by them. What is it that prevented Pradeep from coming to the rescue of his father who was still alive at that time and for accompanying him to the hospital. It is further evident that it was not Pradeep who had
assisted in removing the dead body of Suman from the house but the evidence on record establishes that it was the police officials who got the body of Suman removed from the house after breaking its roof as the door to the room where she was trapped was not opening. Strange is the behaviour of Pradeep who does not accompany his wounded father to the hospital or even the dead body of his sister when it was removed to the hospital in an ambulance by the police. Any son or brother under the given circumstances would not sit back as was done by Pradeep. In fact the evidence on record establishes that Tara Chand and Suman had been removed to the hospital in different vehicles and it was Amar Lal, the step brother of this witness Pradeep, who had accompanied Tara Chand to the hospital along with his cousin Ashok S/o Maha Singh (hostile witness). It is impossible that a brother would see the dead body of his sister being removed from the debris and not himself assist the police in the same or that after the body was removed and sent to the hospital he would not have accompanied the same. Any other person in his position if present at the spot would have certainly tried to rescue his father and sister and in the said process would have received at-least some burn injuries and would have also accompanied the injured and the deceased to the hospital which is not the case. Also, the explanation given by Pradeep that he was attending to his mother Kamla who had become unconscious on witnessing the incident, does not appear to be convincing. Had this been so and Kamla (PW50) was medically unfit and unconscious as claimed by Pradeep, the team of doctors and the police who had already reached the village and was present at the spot, would have certainly removed Kamla to the hospital just as they had shifted the other injured, which again did not happen.
It is further evident and strange that despite all the rioting and arson which was happening in the area, and the house being the target, Pradeep sustained no injuries. The version of Pradeep includes the presence of Vinod Kajal SHO at the time of the incident and being mixed up with the boys from the 'J' community also does not inspire confidence and finds no independent corroboration from any other source. In fact it is for the first time that he has come up with this version in his testimony before this Court, there being no mention of this fact in his statement made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.PW49/PX3. I may also observe that after the incident the Government of Haryana had announced compensation for the victims and also government jobs to the family members of the deceased. The perusal of the record Ex.DW38/A proves that on the ground of divided liability as Amar Lal was the son from the first marriage of Tara Chand and Kamla was his second wife all the benefits were given by the Government to the family of the deceased and equally divided amongst Amar Lal and Kamla on the principle of half death compensation. Therefore, now having acquired a government job, the possibility of Pradeep showing himself as an eye witness and exaggerating the incident, being an interested witness having a directed interest in ensuring the conviction of the accused, in order to secure the benefits given to him on account of the aforesaid incident cannot be ruled out. Hence, his above statement is liable to be read with due caution more so in view of material contradictions in his testimony with regard to the incident. [Ref.: State of Maharastra -vs- Ahmed Shaikh Babajan & Others reported in 2009 (1) RCR (Criminal) wherein it has been held that the term interested
postulates that the person concerned has some direct or indirect interest in seeing that the accused is somehow or the other convicted either because he had some animus with the accused or for some other oblique motive]. Now, in view of the above discussion while assessing the credibility of the witness Pradeep qua the identification of the various accused, I may observe that the Investigating Officer had recorded the statement of Pradeep under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on three occasions. First on 21.4.2010, thereafter on 27.6.2010 and lastly on 27.7.2010. In his statement to the police he had given the names of Rajender S/o Pale, Rishi S/o Satbir, Pradeep S/o Balwan, Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar, Rupesh S/o Tek Ram, Dharam Bir S/o Tara Chand, Pawan S/o Ram Mehar, Jogender S/o Bhim Singh, Karambir @ Ghaggar S/o Tara Chand, Balwan S/o Dharambir, Hoshiyar S/o Mangal Ram, Viren S/o Yash Pal, Surender S/o Jagdev, Rajender S/o Dhoopa, Baljeet S/o Inder, Vinod Kajal, Amit S/o Satyawan, Sumit S/o Satyawan, Ram Phal S/o Prithvi, Pradeep S/o Suresh, Rajesh S/o Dhoopa, Vikash S/o Sunehra, Vipin S/o Ishwar, Pradeep S/o Jaivir, Angoori W/o Satyawan, Bharma W/o Pali, Amba W/o Pappu, Suresh S/o Balbir, Vikash S/o Dr. Suresh, Karam Pal S/o Satbir, Ghaggar S/o Tara and Pawan S/o Ram Mehar. However, now when he has testified in the Court and deposed, he only admitted his statement dated 27.6.2010 which is Ex.PW49/PX3 and denied having made any statements on 21.4.2010 which is Ex.PW49/PX1 and 27.7.2010 which is Ex.PW49/PX2. Pradeep has admitted his signatures on the seizure memo of the motorcycle and ashes prepared on the date of incident that is 21.4.2010 which are Ex.PW49/A and Ex.PW49/B apparently establishing his presence at the spot when these exhibits were
lifted. I may observe that in his testimony before the Court Pradeep has identified Rajender S/o Pale, Pawan S/o Ram Mehar, Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar, Vipin S/o Ishwar, Suresh S/o Balbir, Vikash S/o Suresh, Monu S/o Suresh, Dharambir S/o Tara, Ghaggar S/o Tara, Rishi S/o Satbir, Karam Pal S/o Satbir, Ram Phal @ Petla S/o Prithiv, Rinku S/o Daya Nand, Pradeep S/o Jaibir, Monu @ Sunil S/o Daya Nand, Sumit S/o Satyawan, Amit S/o Satyawan, Vikash S/o Sunehara, Sonu S/o Ramesh, Pradeep S/o Jogbir, Pradeep S/o Suresh Kumar, Dharambir @ Dalbir S/o Dalip Singh, Jogender S/o Inder Singh and Naveen @ Teena S/o Rajbir and for the first time he has identified the accused Dalbir S/o Dalip, Naveen @ Tina S/o Rajbir, Pradeep S/o Joginder, Joginder S/o Inder, Sonu S/o Ramesh, Sunil S/o Daya Nand and Monu S/o Ramesh in the Court. In view of the above background, and on account of the material discrepancies, inconsistencies, improvements made by Pradeep in his testimony before the court which are contrary to the account given by other eye witnesses and also to the medical, forensic and other circumstantial evidence on record, he is not a trustworthy witness. Though the presence of Pradeep in the village may be possible but certainly not at the spot that is in front of his house and that too at the time when his house was set on fire. I hereby hold that it is not safe to rely upon his testimony without independent reliable corroboration. Further, in so far as the dock identification of the accused Dalbir S/o Dalip, Naveen @ Tina S/o Rajbir, Pradeep S/o Joginder, Joginder S/o Inder, Sonu S/o Ramesh, Sunil S/o Daya Nand and Monu S/o Ramesh is concerned, his testimony to that extent is liable to be rejected altogether.
Testimony of Kamla W/o Tara Chand (PW50) Smt. Kamla aged about 60 years is the wife of Late Tara Chand and the mother of Pradeep (PW49) and step mother of Amar Lal (CW1). It is evident from the record that she did not receive any injuries in the incident dated 21.4.2010 despite intense brick batting nor her MLR was prepared. I may bring on record the fact that on the directions of the court the eye sight of Kamla was got tested from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences wherein her vision from the left eye has been found to be PL (+) perception of light with HM (hand movement) close to face with LE manifest convergent squint and that from the right eye was found to be 6/18 unaided and it has been reported that she can see clearly till a distance of six to eight meters without assistance. The left eye had advanced lenticular changes and it was opined by the Medical Board that she could recognize and see objects and people up to a distance of at least six to eight meters without assistance. This report has not been disputed by either of the parties conclusively establishes that Kamla can clearly recognize objects and people up to a distance of six to eight meters without assistance. Further, a spot visit had been undertaken by this court on 26.2.2011 prior to the commencement of the recording of evidence and the entire area where the incident had taken place including the main gali, Chaupals ('J' Chaupal and 'B' Chaupal), water tank, houses of Karan Singh, Veer Bhan, Tara Chand, Chander, Nawab, Pawan, Satpal, Bane Singh, Rajender, Manoj, Ram Niwas, Rajmal and Rajesh as shown in the site plan Ex.PW54/B had been visited. The gali in which the house of
Tara Chand that is witness Pradeep (PW49), Kamla (PW50) and Amar Lal (CW1) is situated can hardly accommodate hundred to hundred and fifty persons and the statement of Kamla that there were three to four hundred persons in the gali reflects the extent of her exaggeration. It is evident from the record that the house of Chander the cousin of her husband Tara Chand (her Jeth) where she claims she was hiding has not been shown to be in the same gali, rather it is evident from the testimony of Sheela (PW32) that it is her house which is situated opposite the house of Tara Chand and it is also the case of prosecution that Tara Chand had rushed out from his house and entered the house of Deewan Singh in a burnt condition. On one side of the house of Tara Chand there is a vacant plot and as per Ex.PW54/A2 belongs to Soni S/o Sudan 'B' whereas on the other side there is a constructed house of Mahender S/o Sube Singh 'B' as shown in Ex.PW52/A1. During the course of arguments this Court was informed that Chander is the brother of Mahender whose house is situated next to his house and assuming this to be correct, it is impossible that Kamla who can only see up to six to eight meters unaided could have seen anything from this distance (house of Chander which is adjoining the house of Mahender) which as per the observation of the Court (as the spot has been personally inspected by the Court) would be more than fifteen meters away from her house. Even otherwise her vision would not have been uninterrupted on account of the obstruction caused by the crowd of persons in the main street and it is impossible that she could have seen anything from the said house so as to clearly identify the assailants as claimed by her. Here I also wish to observe that as per the list of properties damaged on account of fire, the house of Chander also finds a mention and the video clippings and
photographs placed on record also show extensive damage to a property which has been identified by Amar Lal (CW1) at the final stage to be the property of Chander. If this be so and the property of Chander was also damaged in the rioting and fire, how is it possible that Kamla would have hidden herself in the said property and I do not find her testimony convincing in this regard. Further, it is evident that Kamla in her testimony before this Court has totally improved and changed her version with regard to the manner of occurrence which is contradictory to the version given by the prosecution. According to Kamla, after the incident dated 19.4.2010 Karan Singh and Veer Bhan were beaten on the next day and thereafter Gulaba who had gone to take lassi from the village was also beaten whereas the case of the prosecution is that the incident of beating of Karan Singh and Veer Bhan took place on 19.4.2010 and the incident of beating of Gulaba Chowkidar took place on 21.4.2010 morning. It is also alleged by Kamla that Tara Chand and Suman were dragged out of the house and Tara Chand was beaten with dandas after which kerosene oil was poured over them and they were pushed back into the house and locked from outside. This version does not find a support from any other independent eye witness so examined by the prosecution. In fact this version is even contrary to the dying declaration of Tara Chand which he had made to the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class wherein the deceased Tara Chand does not mention about the presence of Kamla and has specifically stated that the house was set on fire by persons from the 'J' community and it was Rajender who had lit the fire. Tara Chand did not tell the Ld. Judicial Magistrate that kerosene was poured over him or that he was pushed and locked inside the house. Further, this version given
by Kamla regarding pouring of kerosene over Tara Chand and Suman also does not find any support from the postmortem reports of the deceased Tara Chand and Suman or from the FSL report. In fact the postmortem reports of both the deceased do not reflect any kind of burns caused by oil or petrol (which burns are of different nature) nor the postmortem report of Tara Chand reflect any kind of force being used on him in the form of dandas etc. as claimed by Kamla as no such injuries have been observed on his body. The FSL report also rules out the presence of Hydrocarbons of Petroleum including kerosene, petrol and diesel. The half burnt clothes of Suman which were sent to FSL also do not show the presence of petrol or kerosene. Therefore under these circumstances, the oral testimony of Kamla to this extent is liable to be rejected. Now coming to the reasonable probabilities, having regards to the normal nature and course of human affairs, it is an admitted case that Kamla is the mother of the deceased Suman and the wife of the deceased Tara Chand. She states that she was hiding behind the wall in the house of Chander Bhan which is adjoining her house. The fact that the house of Chander Bhan is situated adjoining the house of Tara Chand has not been proved by the prosecution though at the final stage during the course of arguments it was submitted by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor for the victims that Chander is the brother of Mahender residing in the adjoining house. Assuming that to be correct, keeping in view the medical condition of Kamla whose unaided vision from only one eye is clearly upto six to eight meters, it is impossible that she could have clearly seen the happenings as claimed by her more so as the photographs and video clippings placed on record also show an extensive
damage to the house of Chander on account of rioting and if this is correct, then it is impossible that Kamla would be hiding behind the walls of the house of Chander under these circumstances. Further, assuming that Kamla was in fact hiding in the adjoining house yet in case of such an eventuality her behaviour and conduct again does not appear to be natural and probable. Any person under the given circumstances on seeing her unmarried daughter and husband being burnt alive would have at least raised some alarm or pleaded with the assailants as many other witnesses before this Court including Sube Singh and Dhoop Singh claimed to have done which she did not do. Rather, even after the assailants had left the spot, it was Tara Chand himself who rushed out of his house and went to the house of Deewan Singh to save himself where he was offered water. Tara Chand does not mention about the presence of Kamla to anybody including the Judicial Magistrate First Class. Further, when the dead body of her handicapped daughter Suman was being removed by the police after breaking the roof, the presence of Kamla is not established. The behaviour and conduct of Kamla is most un-natural. In a situation when she allegedly saw the ladies amongst the assailants drowsing her daughter with kerosene oil, how is it that Kamla was not shaken at all and she chose to remain in hiding. For a moment even if it is believed that she was fearing for her own life at that moment then what happened to her after the assailants went away. Why is it that she made no attempt to break the door of the room where Suman was hiding. It also appears improbable that a mother on seeing the dead body of an unmarried girl being removed from the debris by police officials, would neither assist the police either in removal of the body or would not have accompanied
her to the hospital. Any other person in the position of Kamla would have raised a hue and cry and if not, would have tried her best to save her daughter and husband at her own risk of life from the burning house which has not happened. I may further observe that after Tara Chand was taken away by the police to the hospital in an ambulance along with Amar Lal neither Kamla herself accompanied the dead body of her daughter Suman to the hospital which was being taken in a separate vehicle nor asked any other male member of her family including her son Pradeep who according to her was present at the spot to accompany the dead body, which conduct does not appear natural and probable. The explanation so given by her also does not appear to be very convincing that she had become unconscious on seeing the condition of Tara Chand and Suman. If that be so then why is that despite the availability of team of doctors and police in her house, who had removed Tara Chand and Suman to the hospital that she (Kamla) who had become unconscious was not given any medical treatment or taken to the hospital at the instance of her son Pradeep. Here I may also observe that the dead body of Suman lay unattended in the Mortuary at the Hospital at Hansi for almost one day and it was only on the next day that is 22.4.2010 that when the dead body was shifted to General Hospital Hissar where Amar Lal was already present that it was identified by him and his cousin Suresh (PW24) rather than by Pradeep (PW49) the real brother of Suman or by Kamla her mother. It is also surprising to note that when a huge crowd of three to four hundred persons (according to Kamla) had swarmed the street in front of her house and were indulging into stone pelting that she did not sustain any injuries. Further, I may observe that according to Kamla she had seen
Gulab Singh Chowkidar profusely bleeding from the head.
This is
contrary to the medical record of Gulab Singh which does not show any bleeding from the head and no such injury as claimed by Kamla. This claim of Kamla proves her exaggeration and also raises questions regarding the truthfulness and correctness of her testimony before the Court. I may further observe that after the incident, the Government of Haryana had announced compensation for the victims and also government jobs to the family members of the deceased. The perusal of the record Ex.DW38/A proves that on the ground of divided liability as Amar Lal was the son from the first marriage of Tara Chand and Kamla was his second wife all the benefits were given by the Government to the family of the deceased and equally divided amongst Amar Lal and Kamla on the principle of half death compensation. The witness Kamla in her testimony before the court has, despite receiving a huge amount of compensation from the Government of Haryana pleaded ignorance about the same and has rather informed the court further that a sum of Rs. four lacs which was kept in her house for the marriage of her daughter Suman and jewellery had also been looted, there being no proof of the same being available on record. Therefore, now having obtained government jobs for her sons and cash amount compensation, the possibility of Kamla showing herself as an eye witness and exaggerating the incident being an interested witness having a directed interest in ensuring the conviction of the accused in order to secure the benefits given to her family on account of the aforesaid incident and also in order to seek revenge cannot be ruled out. [Ref.: State of Maharastra -vsAhmed Shaikh Babajan & Others reported in 2009 (1) RCR
(Criminal) wherein it has been held that the term interested postulates that the person concerned has some direct or indirect interest, in seeing that the accused is somehow or the other convicted either because he had some animus with the accused or for some other oblique motive]. For the first time her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Investigating Officer on the date of incident that is 21.4.2010 where she has given the names of Rishi S/o Satbir, Pradeep S/o Balwan, Bhim Singh S/o Joginder, Viren S/o Yash Pal, Surender S/o Jagdev, Rajender S/o Dhoopa, Baljit S/o Inder, Rajender S/o Pale, Kulvinder S/o Ram Mehar, Rupesh S/o Tek Ram, Dharambir S/o Tara Chand, Pawan S/o Ram Mehar, Joginder S/o Bhim Singh, Karambir @ Ghaggar S/o Tara Chand, Balwan S/o Dharambir, Hoshiyar S/o Mangal Ram and Rajender S/o Dhoopa. I may further observe that it was on 21.4.2010 that Kamla had lost her husband and daughter and it was on the same day that her statement was recorded in the village because she did not accompany the dead body of her daughter or her burnt husband to the hospital. It is in this statement that she has identified as many as sixteen assailants as above. However when she appeared before the Court to depose she has identified as many as eighty one accused namely Ajit S/o Sh. Sukhbir, Ajit S/o Sh.Dalip, Amit S/o Sh. Satyawan, Anil @ Neela S/o Sh. Prem Singh, Anup S/o Sh. Dharma, Balwan S/o Sh. Inder Singh, Balwan S/o Sh. Jeela, Bobal @ Langra S/o Sh. Tek Ram, Dalbir S/o Sh. Dalip Singh, Dalbir S/o Sh. Tara, Daya Singh S/o Sh. Ajeet Singh, Deepak @ Sonu S/o Sh. Krishan @ Pappu, Dharambir S/o Sh. Tara Chand, Dharambir @ Illa S/o Sh. Mai Chand, Dinesh S/o Sh. Prem, Hoshiar Singh S/o Sh. Mangal, Jagdish @ Hathi S/o Sh. Baru Ram,
Jagdish @ Jangla S/o Sh. Lahna Ram, Jaibir S/o Sh. Balbir, Jaibir S/o Sh. Mnaphool, Jasbir S/o Sh. Ishwar, Jasbir @ Lillu S/o Sh. Raja Ram, Jitender S/o Sh. Satbir, Jogal @ Doger S/o Sh. Hawa Singh, Joginder @ Jogar S/o Sh. Bhim Singh, Jokhar @ Joginder S/o Sh. Inder Singh, Jora Singh S/o Sh. Balwan, Karambir S/o Sh. Tara Chand, Karampal S/o Sh. Satbir, Krishan S/o Sh. Karan Singh, Krishan Kr. @ Dhaula S/o Sh. Satyawan, Kuldeep @ Midda S/o Sh. Balbir, Kulvinder S/o Sh. Ram Mahar, Manbir S/o Sh. Jile Singh, Monu S/o Sh. Suresh, Nasib S/o Sh. Prem Singh, Naveen @ Tina S/o Sh. Rajbir, Pappu S/o Sh. Pyara, Pardeep S/o Sh. Ramphal, Pardeep S/o Sh. Balwan, Pawan S/o Sh. Hoshiar Singh, Pawan S/o Sh. Rajbir, Pawan S/o Sh. Ram Mahar, Pawan @ Tinku S/o Sh. Sewa Ram, Pradeep S/o Sh. Satbir, Pradeep S/o Sh. Jagbir, Pradeep S/o Sh. Suresh, Praveen S/o Sh. Jagdev, Rajbir @ Nanha S/o Sh. Mai Chand, Rajesh S/o Sh. Dupa, Rajinder S/o Sh. Pali, Rajinder S/o Sh. Balu, Rajinder S/o Sh. Dhup Singh, Rajinder Kr. S/o Sh. Sadhu Ram, Rajpal S/o Sh. Sheo Chand, Rakesh @ Kala S/o Sh. Satyawan, Ramesh S/o Sh. Karan Singh, Ramesh @ Mahesh S/o Sh.Dalip Singh, Ramphal S/o Sh. Prithvi, Rishi S/o Sh. Satbir, Roshan Lal S/o Sh. Ram Swarup, Sandeep S/o Sh. Mahinder Singh, Sandeep S/o Sh. Raj Kumar, Sandeep S/o Sh. Rattan Singh, Sandeep @ Langra S/o Sh. Chander, Sanjay @ Sanjeep S/o Sh. Amar Lal, Satta Singh S/o Sh. Karan Singh, Sattu Singh @ Satish S/o Sh. Randhir Master, Satyawan S/o Sh. Tara Chand, Satyawan S/o Sh. Rajinder, Sheela @ Sunil S/o Sh. Bira, Sonu @ Monu S/o Sh. Ramesh, Sunil S/o Sh. Daya Nand, Sunil @ Sonu S/o Sh. Jaibir, Surender S/o Sh. Jagda, Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Balbir, Vedpal S/o Sh. Dayanand, Vedpal @ Bedoo S/o Sh. Karan Singh, Vijender @ Handa S/o Sh. Hoshiar Singh, Vikash S/o Sh. Sunehera @ Sumer Singh,
Vinod S/o Sh. Ram Niwas, Vinod S/o Sh. Jagdeep and Viren S/o Sh. Yashpal. Here I may observe that most of the accused whom Kamla has identified in the Court have not been named by her but she has identified them by randomly pointing out towards them. In fact for the first time in the Court there has been a dock identification of the accused Ajit S/o Sh. Sukhbir, Ajit S/o Sh. Dalip, Amit S/o Sh. Satyawan, Anil @ Neela S/o Sh. Prem Singh, Anup S/o Sh. Dharma, Balwan S/o Sh. Inder Singh, Balwan S/o Sh. Jeela, Bobal @ Langra S/o Sh. Tek Ram, Dalbir S/o Sh. Dalip Singh, Dalbir S/o Sh. Tara, Daya Singh S/o Sh. Ajeet Singh, Deepak @ Sonu S/o Sh. Krishan @ Pappu, Dharambir @ Illa S/o Sh. Mai Chand, Dinesh S/o Sh. Prem, Jagdish @ Hathi S/o Sh. Baru Ram, Jagdish @ Jangla S/o Sh. Lahna Ram, Jaibir S/o Sh. Balbir, Jaibir S/o Sh. Mnaphool, Jasbir S/o Sh. Ishwar, Jasbir @ Lillu S/o Sh. Raja Ram, Jitender S/o Sh. Satbir, Jogal @ Doger S/o Sh. Hawa Singh, Jokhar @ Joginder S/o Sh. Inder Singh, Jora Singh S/o Sh. Balwan, Karambir S/o Sh. Tara Chand, Karampal S/o Sh. Satbir, Krishan S/o Sh. Karan Singh, Krishan Kr. @ Dhaula S/o Sh. Satyawan, Kuldeep @ Midda S/o Sh. Balbir, Manbir S/o Sh. Jile Singh, Monu S/o Sh. Suresh, Nasib S/o Sh. Prem Singh, Naveen @ Tina S/o Sh. Rajbir, Pappu S/o Sh. Pyara, Pardeep S/o Sh. Ramphal, Pawan S/o Sh. Hoshiar Singh, Pawan S/o Sh. Rajbir, Pawan @ Tinku S/o Sh. Sewa Ram, Pradeep S/o Sh. Satbir, Pradeep S/o Sh. Jagbir, Pradeep S/o Sh. Suresh, Praveen S/o Sh. Jagdev, Rajbir @ Nanha S/o Sh. Mai Chand, Rajesh S/o Sh. Dupa, Rajinder S/o Sh. Balu, Rajinder Kr. S/o Sh. Sadhu Ram, Rajpal S/o Sh. Sheo Chand, Rakesh @ Kala S/o Sh. Satyawan, Ramesh S/o Sh. Karan Singh, Ramesh @ Mahesh S/o Sh.Dalip Singh, Ramphal S/o Sh. Prithvi, Rishi S/o Sh. Satbir, Roshan Lal S/o Sh. Ram Swarup, Sandeep S/o Sh. Mahinder
Singh, Sandeep S/o Sh. Raj Kumar, Sandeep S/o Sh. Rattan Singh, Sandeep @ Langra S/o Sh. Chander, Sanjay @ Sanjeep S/o Sh. Amar Lal, Satta Singh S/o Sh. Karan Singh, Sattu Singh @ Satish S/o Sh. Randhir Master, Satyawan S/o Sh. Tara Chand, Satyawan S/o Sh. Rajinder, Sheela @ Sunil S/o Sh. Bira, Sonu @ Monu S/o Sh. Ramesh, Sunil S/o Sh. Daya Nand, Sunil @ Sonu S/o Sh. Jaibir, Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Balbir, Vedpal S/o Sh. Dayanand, Vedpal @ Bedoo S/o Sh. Karan Singh, Vijender @ Handa S/o Sh. Hoshiar Singh, Vikash S/o Sh. Sunehera @ Sumer Singh, Vinod S/o Sh. Ram Niwas and Vinod S/o Sh. Jagdeep and for the reasons already discussed herein above I am not inclined to rely upon the testimony of Kamla qua the identification of the accused which is liable to be rejected. In view of the above background and on account of the material discrepancies, inconsistencies and improvements made by Kamla in her testimony before the court which are contrary to the other eye witness account and circumstantial evidence on record, I hereby hold that Kamla is not a reliable, truthful, credible and trustworthy witness, her very presence at the spot at the time of the incident being doubtful and hence her entire testimony is, therefore, liable to be rejected. Testimony of Amar Lal S/o Tara Chand (CW1) Amar Lal (CW1) is the son of the deceased Tara Chand who had accompanied his father to the hospital and is a witness to the Dying Declaration of Tara Chand but was not examined by the prosecution but finding him to be a necessary witnesses for a just decision of the case he had been called to the Court and examined as a Court Witness. In his testimony before the Court Amar Lal has named and identified the
accused Rajender S/o Pale, Ramphal S/o Prithvi, Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar, Rishi S/o Satbir, Karampal S/o Satbir and Vikas S/o Sunehra as the persons who were present at the spot and had come to his house. As per the allegations while Ramphal S/o Prithvi and Kulvinder S/o Ram Mehar sprinkled oil from the cans Rajender S/o Pale set their house on fire and in the meanwhile the crowd outside was indulging into hurling of abuses/gali galoj, they were hurling caste abuses and when his father and sister came out of the house they were caught by these persons standing outside and oil was sprinkled on them, after which they were pushed inside the house and the door of the house was latched with the help of the kundi (bolt). Further, Kulvinder S/o Ram Mehar, Vikas S/o Sunehra, Rishi S/o Satbir and Karampal S/o Satbir accompanied by many other persons removed their clothes and danced in the gali in front of their house and after about two minutes went away from the spot. Here I may observe that this version of Amar Lal does not find a support from any other independent eye witness so examined by the prosecution. In fact this version is even contrary to the dying declaration of Tara Chand which he had made to the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class wherein the deceased Tara Chand does not mention about the presence of Amar Lal and has specifically stated that the house was set on fire by persons from the 'J' community and it was Rajender who had lit the fire. Tara Chand did not tell the Ld. Judicial Magistrate that kerosene was poured over him or that he was pushed and locked inside the house. Further, this version given by Amar Lal regarding pouring of kerosene over Tara Chand and Suman also does not find any support from the postmortem reports of the deceased Tara Chand and Suman or from the FSL report. In fact the postmortem reports of both the deceased do not
reflect any kind of burns caused by oil or petrol (which burns are of different nature). The FSL report also rules out the presence of Hydrocarbons of Petroleum including kerosene, petrol and diesel. The half burnt clothes of Suman which were sent to FSL also do not show the presence of petrol or kerosene. Therefore under these circumstances, the oral testimony of Amar Lal to this extent is liable to be rejected. I may observe that Amar Lal has remained with the Investigating Officer right from the initial stages of investigations. He had made four statements which are Ex.CW1/A to Ex.CW1/D but he had not named any of the above assailants in the first two statements that is Ex.CW1/A and Ex.CW1/B recorded soon after the incident on 22.4.2010 and it was for the first time that he named the assailants after two months of the incident in his statement made to the Investigating Officer on 27.6.2010 vide Ex.CW1/C and also named the then SHO Vinod Kajal on 27.7.2010 vide Ex.CW1/D. He has also admitted having made an undated statement which is Ex.CW1/DX2 wherein none of the assailants have been named despite the fact that they are all residents of the same village and were known to him prior to the incident. No doubt the presence of Amar Lal at the spot stand established keeping in view of the fact that he is the son of the deceased Tara Chand who had accompanied the deceased Tara Chand to the hospital and had remained till the last rites of his father and sister Suman were conducted but the possibility of Amar Lal (CW1) now exaggerating the incident and naming the assailants on account of revenge cannot be ruled out.
I may also observe that after the incident the Government of Haryana had announced compensation for the victims and also
government jobs to the family members of the deceased. The perusal of the record Ex.DW38/A proves that on the ground of divided liability as Amar Lal was the son from the first marriage of Tara Chand and Kamla was his second wife all the benefits were given by the Government to the family of the deceased and equally divided amongst Amar Lal and Kamla on the principle of half death compensation. Therefore, now having acquired a government job, the possibility of Amar Lal showing himself as an eye witness and exaggerating the incident, being an interested witness having a directed interest in ensuring the conviction of the accused, in order to secure the benefits given to him on account of the aforesaid incident cannot be ruled out. Hence, his above statement is liable to be read with due caution more so in view of material contradictions in his testimony with regard to the incident. [Ref.: State of Maharastra -vs- Ahmed Shaikh Babajan & Others reported in 2009 (1) RCR (Criminal) wherein it has been held that the term interested postulates that the person concerned has some direct or indirect interest in seeing that the accused is somehow or the other convicted either because he had some animus with the accused or for some other oblique motive]. Therefore, under these circumstances it is not safe to rely upon the testimony of Amar Lal to the extent of identification of the accused (whom he had named for the first time after two months of the incident) without an independent reliable corroboration.
Categorization of witnesses:
Therefore, on the basis of my aforesaid evaluation and
assessment of the testimonies of the various eye witnesses who have supported the prosecution case qua the identity of the accused, I now proceed to classify them into three categories. Firstly, those who are reliable witnesses and whose testimonies can be read without any independent corroboration; Secondly, those who are not totally reliable and whose testimony can be read to the extent of reliable corroboration and Lastly, those who are unreliable and whose testimonies are liable to be rejected:
Sr. No. Category witnesses 1. 2. Reliable Partly/ not totally reliable
of Names of witnesses Sushil (PW25), Dhoop Singh (PW29) Sandeep (PW28), Mahajan (PW38), Sube Singh (PW39), Vijender (PW40), Vicky (PW42), Dilbagh (PW43), Sanjay (PW44), Manoj (PW45), Rajesh (PW46), Satyawan (PW47) Gulaba (PW48), Pradeep (PW49) and Amar Lal (CW1)
3.
Unreliable
Rajbir (PW10), Sunita (PW13), Santra (PW30), Sheela (PW32) Rani (PW33), Sanjay (PW36), Meena Kumar (PW37) and Kamla (PW50)
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE ACCUSED:

Coming to the careful assessment and evaluation of the probative value of the evidence adduced by the prosecution including the
ocular, medical, forensic and circumstantial evidence as discussed herein above which are now being put into scales for a cumulative evaluation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a similar case of rioting involving a large number of offenders had observed that the manner in which the evidence should be appreciated in such cases is a difficult task and the criminal Courts have to do their best in dealing with such cases while sifting the evidence carefully and deciding which part of it was true and which was not. In the case of Masalti -vs- State of U.P. reported in AIR 1965 SC 202 the Hon'ble Apex Court had laid down a principle which would be applicable to our case in hand. It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that where a "Court has to deal with the evidence pertaining to the commission of an offence involving a large number of offenders and a large number of victims, it is usual to adopt the test that the conviction could be sustained only if it is supported by two/ three or more witnesses who give a consistent account of the incident. It was further observed by the Hon'ble Court that in a sense the test may be described as mechanical; but it cannot be treated as irrational or unreasonable. This principle which was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Masalti in the year 1965 was again adverted to by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. -vs- Dan Singh & Ors. reported in (1997) 3 SCC 747 and the Hon'ble Court adopted the above principle/ test laid down in the case of Masalti while examining the testimonies of eye witnesses in order to ascertain the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and observed that: ... Even though we see no reason to disregard their evidence, nevertheless, keeping in mind the observations of this Court in Masalti's case (supra),
we feel that even though a very large number of members of the unlawful assembly had taken part in the attack on the Doms, it would be safe it only those of the respondents should be held to be the members of the unlawful assembly who have been specifically identified by at-least four eye witnesses.... It is in this background of the aforesaid principles that we now proceed to examine the testimonies of the eye witnesses, in order to determine as to which of the respondents could be stated to have been a part of the unlawful assembly whose common object was to cause damage to the properties of the members of the 'B' community and cause injuries/ death. I hereby proceed to give my findings vis-a-vis the various accused as under:
Allegations against the accused Charan Singh S/o Sadhu Ram, Rakesh @ Nakli S/o Amar Lal @ Lala, Shamsher S/o Rajender, Sandeep S/o Ram Swaroop and Sandeep S/o Joginder:
Insofar as the above accused Charan Singh S/o Sadhu Ram, Rakesh @ Nakli S/o Amar Lal @ Lala, Shamsher S/o Rajender, Sandeep S/o Ram Swaroop and Sandeep S/o Joginder are concerned, they have not been identified by any witness of the prosecution. Initially allegations were made against them by the witnesses and they were named in the statements made to the investigating officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but in the Court none of the prosecution witness has identified them. I may also add that at no point of time they were subjected to any Test Identification Parade after their arrest by the police. For the sake of clarity and convenience the ocular evidence against the above accused is briefly culled out as under:
Sr. Name of the Statement under Section No. accused 161 Cr.P.C. Named / identified by witness 1. Charan Singh Ashok S/o S/o Sadhu Ram Maha Singh
Statement in the court Allegations by None
Allegations Named/ identified witness Caused injuries pelting stones Caused injuries pelting stones Caused injuries pelting stones Caused injuries pelting stones Caused injuries pelting stones None by
2.
Rakesh @ Ishro W/o Nakli S/o Amar Pasha Lal @ Lala Samsher Rajender S/o Sunita W/o Satbir
None by
None
3.
None by
None
4.
Sandeep S/o Sunita D/o Ram Swaroop Ved
None by
None
5.
Sandeep Joginder
S/o Kela W/o Jaibir
None by
None
Therefore, it is evident from the aforesaid the despite being specifically named in the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the accused Charan Singh S/o Sadhu Ram, Rakesh @ Nakli S/o Amar Lal @ Lala, Shamsher S/o Rajender, Sandeep S/o Ram Swaroop and Sandeep S/o Joginder have not been identified by any of the witness in the Court nor there is any evidence to connect them with the alleged offence and therefore under these circumstances I hereby hold that the allegations against these accused and their presence at the spot at the time of the incident does not stand established and proved.
Allegations against the accused Anoop S/o Dharma, Dinesh S/o Prem, Ramesh S/o Karan Singh, Sandeep S/o Mahender, Sandeep S/o Raj Kumar, Sandeep S/o Rattan Singh, Sunil @ Sheela S/o Bira, Surender S/o Jagdev, Viren S/o Yashpal, Balwan S/o Dharambir, Hoshiar S/o Mangal Ram, Jaibir S/o Balbir, Jaibir S/o Manphool, Jaibir S/o Ishwar, Joginder S/o Bhim Singh, Jora Singh S/o Balwan Singh, Kishan S/o Karan Singh, Kishan Kumar @ Dhaula S/o Satyawan, Rakesh @ Kala S/o Satyawan, Ved Pal @ Bedu S/o Karan Singh, Vinod S/o Jagdev and Satyawan S/o Tara Chand:
Coming now to the allegations against the accused Anoop S/o Dharma, Dinesh S/o Prem, Ramesh S/o Karan Singh, Sandeep S/o Mahender, Sandeep S/o Raj Kumar, Sandeep S/o Rattan Singh, Sunil @ Sheela S/o Bira, Surender S/o Jagdev, Viren S/o Yashpal, Balwan S/o Dharambir, Hoshiar S/o Mangal Ram, Jaibir S/o Balbir, Jaibir S/o Manphool, Jaibir S/o Ishwar, Joginder S/o Bhim Singh, Jora Singh S/o Balwan Singh, Kishan S/o Karan Singh, Kishan Kumar @ Dhaula S/o Satyawan, Rakesh @ Kala S/o Satyawan, Ved Pal @ Bedu S/o Karan Singh, Vinod S/o Jagdev and Satyawan S/o Tara Chand they have all been identified by only one witness i.e. Kamla (PW50) the wife of the deceased Tara Chand. For the sake of clarity and convenience the ocular evidence against the above accused is briefly culled out as under:
Sr. Name of the No. accused
Statement of Kamla under Statement in the court Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.10 Whether Allegations Named/ Allegations
Page No. 706
named / identified 1. Anoop S/o Dharma Not Named Nil
identified by witness Only by Kamla W/o Tara Chand General allegations of causing rioting, arson, looting and burning of houses. General allegations of causing rioting, arson, looting and burning of houses. General allegations of causing rioting, arson, looting and burning of houses. General allegations of causing rioting, arson, looting and burning of houses. General allegations of causing rioting, arson, looting and burning of houses. General allegations of causing rioting, arson, looting and burning of houses. General allegations of causing rioting, arson, looting and burning of
Page No. 707
2.
Dinesh S/o Prem
Not Named
Nil
Only by Kamla W/o Tara Chand
3.
Ramesh S/o Karan Singh
Not Named
Nil
4.
Sandeep S/o Mahender
Not Named
Nil
5.
Sandeep S/o Raj Kumar
Not Named
Nil
6.
Sandeep S/o Rattan Singh
Not Named
Nil
7.
Sunil @ Sheela Not Named S/o Bira
Nil
houses. 8. Surender S/o Jagdev Named Rioting and Only by damage to Kamla W/o property by Tara Chand fire General allegations of causing rioting, arson, looting and burning of houses. General allegations of causing rioting, arson, looting and burning of houses. General allegations of causing rioting, arson, looting and burning of houses. General allegations of causing rioting, arson, looting and burning of houses. General allegations of causing rioting, arson, looting and burning of houses. General allegations of causing rioting, arson, looting and burning of houses. General allegations of causing rioting, arson, looting and burning of houses.
9.
Viren S/o Yashpal
Named
Mischief by Only by fire Kamla W/o Tara Chand
10. Balwan S/o Dharambir
Named
Rioting and Only by damage to Kamla W/o property by Tara Chand fire
11.
Hoshiar S/o Mangal Ram
Named
12. Jaibir S/o Balbir
Not Named
Nil
13. Jaibir S/o Manphool
Not Named
Nil
14. Jaibir S/o Ishwar
Not Named
Nil
Page No. 708
15. Joginder S/o Bhim Singh
Named
General allegations of causing rioting, arson, looting and burning of houses. General allegations of causing rioting, arson, looting and burning of houses. General allegations of causing rioting, arson, looting and burning of houses. General allegations of causing rioting, arson, looting and burning of houses. General allegations of causing rioting, arson, looting and burning of houses. General allegations of causing rioting, arson, looting and burning of houses. General allegations of causing rioting, arson, looting and burning of houses. General allegations of
Page No. 709
16. Jora Singh S/o Balwan Singh
Not Named
Nil
17. Kishan S/o Karan Singh
Not Named
Nil
18. Kishan Kumar @ Dhaula S/o Satyawan
Not Named
Nil
19. Rakesh @ Kala Not Named S/o Satyawan
Nil
20. Ved Pal @ Not Named Bedu S/o Karan Singh
Nil
21. Vinod S/o Jagdev
Not Named
Nil
22. Satyawan S/o Tara Chand
Not Named
Nil
Only by Kamla W/o
Tara Chand
causing rioting, arson, looting and burning of houses.
I may observe that Kamla Devi W/o Late Tara Chand in her first statement made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on the date of incident itself that is 21.4.2010 had named only sixteen persons as under: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Rishi S/o Satbir Pradeep S/o Balwan Bhim Singh S/o Joginder Viren S/o Yash Pal Surender S/o Jagdev Rajender S/o Dhoopa Baljit S/o Inder Rajender S/o Pale Kulvinder S/o Ram mehar Rupesh S/o Tek Ram Dharambir S/o Tara Chand Pawan S/o Ram Mehar Joginder S/o Bhim Singh Karambir @ Ghaggar S/o Tara Chand Balwan S/o Dharambir Hoshiyar S/o Mangal Ram
However, now when she has appeared before the Court she has identified as many as eighty one accused as under:
Page No. 710
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.
Ajit S/o Sukhbir Ajit S/o Dalip Amit S/o Satyawan Anil @ Neela S/o Prem Singh Anup S/o Dharma Balwan S/o Inder Singh Balwan S/o Jeela Bobal @ Langra S/o Tek Ram Dalbir S/o Dalip Singh Dalbir S/o Tara Daya Singh S/o Ajit Singh Deepak @ Sonu S/o Krishan@ Pappu Dharambir S/o Tara Chand Dharambir @ Illa S/o Mai Chand Dinesh S/o Prem Hoshiyar Singh S/o Mangal Jadgish @ Hathi S/o Baru Ram Jagdish @ Jangla S/o Lahna Ram Jaibir S/o Balbir Jaibir S/o Manphool Jasbir S/o Ishwar Jasbir @ Lillu S/o Raja Ram Jitender S/o Bhim Singh Jitender @ Jogar S/o Bhim Singh Joggar @ Joginder S/o Inder Singh Jora Singh S/o Balwan Karambir S/o Tara Chand Karampal S/o Satbir Krishan S/o Karan Singh
Page No. 711
30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58.
Krishan Kumar @ Dhaula S/o Satyawan, Kuldeep @ Midda S/o Balbir Kulvinder S/o Ram Mehar Manbir S/o Jile Singh Monu S/o Suresh Nasib S/o Prem Singh Naveen @ Tina S/o Rajbir Pappu S/o Pyara Pardeep S/o Ramphal Pardeep S/o Balwan Pawan S/o Hoshiar Singh Pawan S/o Sh. Rajbir Pawan S/o Ram Mehar Pawan @ Tinku S/o Sewa Ram Pradeep S/o Satbir Pradeep S/o Jagbir Pradeep S/o Suresh Praveen S/o Jagdev Rajbir @ Nanha S/o Mai Chand Rajesh S/o Dhoop Singh Rajender S/o Pale Rajender S/o Balu Rajinder Kumar S/o Sadhu Ram Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand Rakesh @ Kala S/o Satyawan Ramesh S/o Karan Singh Ramesh @ Mahesh S/o Dalip Singh Ramphal S/o Prithvi Rishi S/o Satbir
Page No. 712
59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81.
Roshan Lal S/o Ram Swaroop Sandeep S/o Mahinder Singh Sandeep S/o Raj Kumar Sandeep S/o Rattan Singh Sandeep @ Langra S/o Chander Sanjay @ Sanjeep S/o Amar Lal Satta Singh S/o Karan Singh Sattu Singh @ Satish S/o Randhir Master Satyawan S/o Tara Chand Satyawan S/o Rajinder Sheela @ Sunil S/o Bira Sonu @ Monu S/o Ramesh Sunil S/o Daya Nand Sunil @ Sonu S/o Jaibir Surender S/o Jagda Suresh Kumar S/o Balbir Vedpal S/o Dayanand Vedpal @ Bedoo S/o Karan Singh Vijender @ Handa S/o Hoshiar Singh Vikash S/o Sunehera @ Sumer Singh Vinod S/o Ram Niwas Vinod S/o Jagdeep Viren S/o Yashpal Here, I may observe that in so far as the above accused are
concerned they only have been identified by the witness Kamla (PW50) and none else. The Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that Kamla (PW50) is not a reliable witness and no conviction can be based on her sole testimony. He has argued that firstly Kamla has not been
named in the FIR lodged by Karan Singh and her name even does not appear in the dying declaration of Tara Chand before the police and also before the Magistrate. Secondly Kamla has not been shown to be present in any of the documents prepared at the spot by the Investigating Officer including the site plan. Thirdly that despite the allegations of intense brick batting going on at the spot she had sustained no injuries. Fourthly despite her alleged presence at the spot she did not accompany her husband Tara Chand who had sustained 99% burns or the dead body of her daughter Suman to the hospital which conduct is not natural. Fifthly that she has made major improvements while deposing in the court regarding the names of the accused persons, that is, she had named fifteen to sixteen persons in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded on the date of incident itself (21.4.2010) whereas in the court she has claimed to identify eighty one accused persons as the assailants, whom she had seen at the time of the incident. Lastly that it does not seem worthy of belief that she knew eighty one persons all residents of the same village despite which she did not name them before the police and for the sixty five persons whom she has identified other than the sixteen persons whom she had named in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. no Test Identification Parade had been conducted and the said persons have been identified in the court for the first time. Ld. Defence Counsel has further pointed out that defence has been lead by the accused Vinod S/o Jagdev, Viren S/o Yashpal, Dinesh S/o Prem Singh, Hoshiyar S/o Mangal Ram, Rakesh @ Kala S/o Satyawan and Dalbir S/o Manphool which is also required to be considered to ascertain the credibility and truthfulness of this witness Kamla (PW50). He has submitted that the accused Vinod S/o Jagdev is a
Teacher by profession employed at Rajpura School where he was present from 7:50 AM till 12:45 noon a fact which has been proved by DW9 Dalser Lohan who has proved the attendance record of the accused Vinod S/o Jagdev which is Ex.DW9/C. In respect of the accused Viren S/o Yashpal he has pointed that Viren was in fact admitted in Punia Nursing Home Home, Jind from 20.4.2010 till 22.4.2010 a fact which has been established by Dr. Balbir Singh Punia (DW26) who has proved the treatment papers of accused Viren S/o Yashpal which are Ex.DW26/E and the discharge summary which is Ex.DW26/F. He has also pointed out that in fact the accused Dinesh S/o Prem Singh is the boy who had been inflicted injuries in the incident which took place in the morning in the main gali and was a prelude to the later incident of rioting and had to be rushed to General Hospital Jind for immediate treatment a fact which has been proved and established by Dr. Rajesh Gandhi (DW32). He has submitted that in so far as the accused Hoshiyar S/o Mangal is concerned he was working as Collie at Sugar Mill Jind and was present there on 21.4.2010 which attendance record of Hoshiar has been duly proved by DW23 Ranbir Singh vide Ex.DW23/A. Ld. Defence Counsel has also pointed out that the accused Sandeep S/o Raj Kumar is a student of D Ed. (Diploma in Eduction) and on the date of incident he was present at Ahar College, Panipat which fact has been proved by DW24 Ram Mehar vide Ex.DW24/A proving his attendance at the College on the date of the incident. He has further argued that the accused Rakesh @ Kala S/o Satyawan was employed as a Driver of the school van and remained on duty of the van of Jyoti Society and his attendance record has been duly proved by DW8 Shamsher which is Ex/DW8/A. Ld. Defence Counsel has also placed his reliance on the
testimony of one Ram Chander a resident of the same village and a Brahmin by caste who has proved the presence of accused Jaibir S/o Manphool along with him from 6 AM and till 7.30-7.45 PM on 21.4.2010. He has also submitted that the call details record of Sandeep S/o Mahender duly proved by DW34 Pawan Kumar would prove the presence of the accused Sandeep at Gurgaon on the date of the incident and not at village village Mirchpur which only goes to prove the extent to which Kamla has falsely implicated young boys belonging to the 'J' community. On the other hand the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor for the victims has vehemently argued that Kamla (PW50) being the wife of the deceased Tara Chand and the mother of the deceased Suman is the most reliable witness who had witnessed the occurrence. The Ld. Public Prosecutor has pointed out that an explanation is forthcoming on behalf of Kamla in this regard wherein she has explained that she was hiding behind the boundary wall of the adjoining house of Chander the nephew of deceased Tara Chand from where she had seen not only the assailants but the manner in which the offence was committed and being terrified and fearing for her life she did not come out and later when she saw the dead body of her daughter and her husband having sustained more that 90% burns she herself became unconscious not able to withstand the sight. He has submitted that under these circumstances it was not possible for Kamla to have accompanied either her husband or the body of her daughter to the hospital which is natural under the given circumstances. I have considered the rival contentions and I may observe that in so far as the accused Surender S/o Jagdev, Viren S/o Yashpal,
Balwan S/o Dharambir, Hoshiyar S/o Mangal Ram and Jogender S/o Bhim Singh are concerned, they are the only accused who were previously named by Kamla in her statement made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. whereas in so far as the other accused are concerned, they have not been named by her previously and have been identified by her in the Court for the first time (dock identification). Here, I may observe that for the reasons already discussed in detail and not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity Kamla (PW50) has been held by this Court to be an unreliable witness whose testimony qua the identification of the accused is unacceptable. In so far as the accused Anoop S/o Dharma, Dinesh S/o Prem, Ramesh S/o Karan Singh, Sandeep S/o Mahender, Sandeep S/o Raj Kumar, Sandeep S/o Rattan Singh, Sunil @ Sheela S/o Bira, Surender S/o Jagdev, Viren S/o Yashpal, Balwan S/o Dharambir, Hoshiar S/o Mangal Ram, Jaibir S/o Balbir, Jaibir S/o Manphool, Jaibir S/o Ishwar, Joginder S/o Bhim Singh, Jora Singh S/o Balwan Singh, Kishan S/o Karan Singh, Kishan Kumar @ Dhaula S/o Satyawan, Rakesh @ Kala S/o Satyawan, Ved Pal @ Bedu S/o Karan Singh, Vinod S/o Jagdev and Satyawan S/o Tara Chand are concerned, there is no other evidence against them and the testimony of Kamla is uncorroborated. Also, the call detail records of mobile no. 9540151131 in the name of/ used by accused Sandeep Kumar S/o Mahender Singh R/o H.No. 284, village Mirchpur, Tehsil Narnaund, District Hissar, Haryana which is Ex.DW34/F establishes his location of at Gurgaon on 21.4.2010 throughout the day and similarly the location and presence of the accused Vinod S/o Jagdev, Viren S/o Yashpal. Dinesh S/o Prem Singh, Hoshiyar S/o Mangal, Rakesh @ Kala S/o Satyawan and Dalbir S/o Manphool is also established at other locations
specifically of the accused Dinesh S/o Prem Singh who had allegedly received injuries in the morning and had received treatment at General Hospital Jind, all the more warranting the rejection of testimony of Kamla. In view of the above, I hereby hold that accused Anoop S/o Dharma, Dinesh S/o Prem, Ramesh S/o Karan Singh, Sandeep S/o Mahender, Sandeep S/o Raj Kumar, Sandeep S/o Rattan Singh, Sunil @ Sheela S/o Bira, Surender S/o Jagdev, Viren S/o Yashpal, Balwan S/o Dharambir, Hoshiar S/o Mangal Ram, Jaibir S/o Balbir, Jaibir S/o Manphool, Jaibir S/o Ishwar, Joginder S/o Bhim Singh, Jora Singh S/o Balwan Singh, Kishan S/o Karan Singh, Kishan Kumar @ Dhaula S/o Satyawan, Rakesh @ Kala S/o Satyawan, Ved Pal @ Bedu S/o Karan Singh, Vinod S/o Jagdev and Satyawan S/o Tara Chand are concerned there being no other evidence against them except the testimony of Kamla (PW50) who has been held to be an unreliable witness, that the allegations made against these accused and their presence at the spot at the time of the incident has not been established and proved.
Allegations against the accused Pawan @ Tinku S/o Sewa Singh @ Sewa Ram and Sonu @ Mandeep S/o Dalbir:
Coming now to the allegations against the accused Pawan @ Tinku S/o Sewa Singh and Sonu @ Mandeep S/o Dalbir. I may observe that they have only been identified by Vicky (PW42). For the sake of clarity and convenience the ocular evidence against the above accused is briefly culled out as under:
Sr. Name of Statement of Vicky under No. the Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated accused 27.6.2010
Statement in the court
Page No. 718
Whether named / identified 1. Pawan @ Tinku S/o Sewa Singh Named
Allegations
Named/ identified by witness Identified only by Vicky by pointing out and by name
Allegations
Caused damage to the property and injuries by pelting stones
No specific allegations and only identified as one of the boys present along with the rioters. As the person who had come to his shop and indulged into damage (torphor)
2.
Sonu @ Named Mandeep S/o Dalbir
Caused damage to the property and injuries by pelting stones
Identified only by Vicky by pointing out and by name
The Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that Vicky S/o Dhoop Singh (PW42) is not a reliable witness and had been introduced by the prosecution later on 27.06.2010 which is after two months of occurrence when his statement under 161Cr.P.C. Ex.PW42/PX1 was recorded. It is pointed out that Vicky has in his testimony before this court totally changed and improved his version as evident from his confrontation. It is submitted that Vicky did not in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. name majority of the accused whom he has identified in Court despite admitting that he knew those persons by name. Ld. Counsel has also pointed out that in fact Vicky has identified as many as ten accused only after refreshing his memory though earlier he had named only twelve and therefore his evidence on leading questions is not admissible qua his identification of accused in the Court for first time. The Ld. Special Public Prosecutor for the victims has vehemently argued that Vicky (PW42) is an eye witness to the entire
incident and was present at the time when the rioting was taking place. He has pointed out that Vicky is a resident of the same area and most of the assailants who were belonging to the same village were known to Vicky in such capacity and therefore being a reliable witness, conviction can be based on his sole testimony. I have considered the rival contentions and I may observe that the only witness who has identified the accused Pawan @ Tinku S/o Sewa Singh and Sonu S/o Dalbir as the assailants, is Vicky who is not a totally reliable witness. The allegations which Vicky made against the accused are of a general nature and non specific. He does not specifically attribute any overt act to Pawan @ Tinku S/o Sewa Singh and has simply stated that he was present at the time of the incident through in his earlier statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW42/PX1 to the police he had specifically told the Investigating Officer that Pawan was involved in stone pelting. Similarly in so far as accused Sonu S/o Dalbir is concerned Vicky has contradicted his own statement made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW42/PX1 wherein he had stated that Sonu was involved in causing damage to the property by stone pelting (tor-phor) whereas now before the court he had stated that Sonu had entered his shop and damaged the property, an allegation which his father Dhoop Singh (PW29) also an eye witness who had even received injuries at the time of the incident, does not corroborate. Therefore under the given circumstances and keeping in view the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Masalti Vs. State of UP (Supra) and State of UP Vs. Dan Singh (Supra) the uncorroborated testimony of Vicky with regard to the presence of
Pawan @ Tinku S/o Sewa Singh and Sonu S/o Dalbir, I hereby hold that their presence at the spot of the incident has not been established beyond reasonable doubt.
Allegations against the accused Amir S/o Tara Chand:

Coming now to the allegations against the accused Amir S/o Tara Chand. I may observe that he has only been identified by Sandeep (PW28). For the sake of clarity and convenience the ocular evidence against the above accused is briefly culled out as under:
Sr. Name of the Statement of Sandeep Statement in the court No. accused under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 18.5.2010 Whether named / identified 1. Amir S/o Tara Named Chand Allegations Named/ identified by witness Identified only by Sandeep S/o Satpal by pointing out but not by name despite the fact that he was named earlier in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Allegations
Caused injuries by pelting stones
Setting houses on fire
The Ld. Defence Counsel appearing on behalf of Amir S/o Tara Chand has vehemently argued that the witness Sandeep who has earlier named Amir in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. could not identify Amir by name and has only identified him by pointing towards him. It is pointed out that the witness has identified Amir in the court but
Page No. 721
his names did not figure in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and was declared hostile since he had denied that in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. he had named Ajit and Anoop and, therefore, his testimony is not reliable qua any of them, that is, Anil, Amir, Ajit and Anoop. I have considered the submissions made before me. Firstly I may observe that the argument raised by the Ld. Counsel regarding non mentioning of the name of Amir by the witness Sandeep to the Investigating Officer in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is factually incorrect. Secondly it is evident that the statement of Sandeep S/o Satpal under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is Ex.PW28/PX1 was recorded after almost one month of the incident that is on 18.5.2010 wherein he has specifically mentioned the name of Amir S/o Tara Chand as the person who was causing injuries to the persons belonging to 'B' community by pelting stones. Thirdly I may observe that this witness Sandeep despite having named Amir S/o Tara Chand in his statement Ex.PW28/PX1 dated 18.5.2010 has not been able to identify Amir S/o Tara Chand by name and it was only by pointing out towards him in the court that he has identified him. Fourthly the allegations made by the witness in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW28/PX1 were of causing injuries to the persons of 'B' community by pelting stones whereas in his testimony before the Court he has deposed that Amir was in fact setting houses on fire. This is contradictory to what he has stated to the Investigating Officer. Fifthly the accused Amir S/o Tara Chand had been arrested vide memo Ex.PW67/A-74 on 5.9.2010 after he was produced before DSP Tula Ram by the team headed by teams headed by Insp. Vijay Pal, Insp. Baljeet Singh, Insp. Rajbir, ASI Bhim Singh and
Insp. Rohtash at police post Mirchpur and not on the pointing out of Sandeep. Lastly it is evident from the record that the medical examination of Sandeep S/o Satpal (PW28) was conducted on 2.5.2010 by Dr. Puneet vide MLR Ex.PW28/A which does not show any injuries and the only complaint made by him was on body pain with no mark of injuries (as observed by the doctor) on account of which his injuries were opined as Simple/ Blunt. It is evident that he has not been awarded any compensation by the State as per the list Ex.DW38/A (not denied by the prosecution) and also admitted by the witness Sandeep in his crossexamination. Hence in view of the aforesaid the witness Sandeep, not being in a position to name the accused Amir despite being the resident of village Mirchpur and presumably being known to the accused in such capacity a doubt has been created in the mind of the Court and it is not safe to rely upon the sole uncorroborated testimony of Sandeep S/o Satpal (PW28) without any corroboration from independent sources. I may also observe that no Judicial Test Identification Parade of this accused has been got conducted from the witness Sandeep who has identified Amir for the first time in the Court by pointing out towards him and not by name despite the fact that he had named him earlier in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW28/PX1 and claims to have known him previously. Therefore under the given circumstances and keeping in view the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Masalti Vs. State of UP (Supra) and State of UP Vs. Dan Singh (Supra) it is not safe to convict the accused Amir S/o Tara Chand on the basis of uncorroborated testimony of Sandeep and I hereby hold that the
allegations made against the accused Amir S/o Tara Chand do not stand substantiated nor his presence at the spot of the incident stands established and proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Allegations against the accused Jagdish @ Hathi S/o Baru Ram, Pawan S/o Hosiyar Singh, Praveen S/o Jagdev, Sandeep S/o Chander, Sanjay @ Sandeep S/o Amar Lal, Jitender S/o Satbir, Kuldeep S/o Balbir, Sonu S/o Ramesh and Joginder S/o Inder:
Coming now to the allegations against the accused Jagdish @ Hathi S/o Baru Ram, Pawan S/o Hoshiyar Singh, Praveen S/o Jagdev, Sandeep S/o Chander, Sanjay @ Sandeep S/o Amar Lal, Jitender S/o Satbir and Kuldeep S/o Balbir. I may observe that these accused have been identified only by Vicky (PW42) and Kamla (PW50) the wife of the deceased Tara Chand whereas in so far as Sonu S/o Ramesh and Joginder S/o Inder are concerned they have been identified in the court by Vicky (PW42), Pradeep (PW49) and Kamla (PW50). For the sake of clarity and convenience the ocular evidence against the above accused is briefly culled out as under:
Sr. Name of Name of the witness who has No. the named/ identified the accused accused in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Name of the witness 1. Jagdish @ (1) Praveen S/o Hathi S/o Surat Singh Baru Ram (not examined by the prosecution rather examined by the accused in their defence wherein he has not identified the Allegations Rioting, damage to property by fire Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the court Name of the Allegations witness (1) Vicky S/o Dhoop Singh (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010 and has identified As the boy who along with other rioters were having dandas in their hands and were hitting persons from 'B' community and
Page No. 724
accused Jagdish) (2) Sanjay S/o Bani Singh (not examined in the court)
the accused for also indulging the first time into tor phor in the court) and damaged to property of the 'B'. (2) Kamla W/o Tara Chand (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) General allegations of rioting and arson
2.
Pawan S/o Abhishek S/o Hoshiyar Sanjay Singh (not identified the accused Pawan in the Court)
Caused (1) Vicky S/o injuries by Dhoop Singh pelting stones (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) (2) Kamla W/o Tara Chand (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court)
General allegations of indulging into stone pelting and exhorting by using caste abuses .
General allegations of rioting and arson
3.
Praveen S/o Jagdev
Abhishek S/o Sanjay (not identified
Caused injuries by stone pelting
(1) Vicky S/o General Dhoop Singh allegations of (not named in rioting and
Page No. 725
Praveen in the Court)
the statement arson under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) (2) Kamla W/o Tara Chand (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) General allegations of rioting and arson
4.
Sandeep S/o Chander
(1) Vicky S/o Dhoop Singh (2) Shanti W/o Jugtiram (declared hostile and not identified the accused Sandeep)
Damage to the property, poured oil and caused injuries by pelting stones
(1) Vicky (previously named in statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010) (2) Kamla (previously not named in statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010)
As the person who had come to his shop and and indulged into damage (tor phor) to his property and arson General allegations of rioting and arson.
5.
Sanjay @ Sandeep S/o Amar Lal
Shanti W/o Jugti Caused Ram injuries by (declared hostile pelting stones in the court and has not identified Sanjay @ Sandeep)
(1) Vicky S/o Dhoop Singh (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated
General allegations of rioting and arson.
Page No. 726
27.6.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) (2) Kamla W/o Tara Chand (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) 6. Jitender Aman S/o Surta Rioting S/o Satbir (declared hostile in the court and has not identified Jitender S/o Satbir) (1) Vicky S/o Dhoop Singh (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) (2) Kamla W/o Tara Chand (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) 7. Kuldeep Praveen S/o Damage to S/o Balbir Surat Singh the property (not examined by General allegations of rioting and arson.
(1) Vicky S/o General Dhoop Singh allegations of (not named in rioting and
Page No. 727
the prosecution rather examined by the accused in their defence)
the statement arson. under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) (2) Kamla W/o Tara Chand (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) General allegations of rioting and arson.
8.
Sonu S/o Satbir S/o Caused Ramesh Bhaleram injuries by (not examined in pelting stones the court by the prosecution)
(1) Vicky S/o Dhoop Singh (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) (2) Pradeep S/o Tara Chand (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010 and has identified the accused for
Was having a danda in his hands and was hitting persons from 'B' community and also indulging into tor phor and damaged to property of the 'B'. General allegations of being present along with the assailants.
Page No. 728
the first time in the court) (3) Kamla W/o Tara Chand (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dt. 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) 9. Jogender S/o Inder (1) Jagpal S/o Inder (not examined by the prosecution) (2) Ramniwas S/o Rajmal (not examined by the prosecution) (3) Vicky S/o Dhoop Singh (named in statement dated 27.6.2010) Damage to the property and mischief by fire. (1) Vicky S/o Dhoop Singh General allegations of being part of the crowd indulging into rioting
Indulged into tor phor and damaged his property. General allegations of being present along with the assailants.
(2) Pradeep S/o Tara Chand (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dt. 27.6.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) (3) Kamla W/o Tara Chand (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dt. 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court)
General allegations of being present along with the assailants.
The Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that Vicky S/o Dhoop Singh (PW42) is not a truthful witness and had been
introduced by the prosecution later on 27.06.2010 which is after two months of occurrence when his statement under 161Cr.P.C. Ex.PW42/PX1 was recorded. It is pointed out that Vicky has in his testimony before this court totally changed and improved his version as evident from his confrontation and in his earlier statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. he has not named Jagdish @ Hathi S/o Baru Ram, Pawan S/o Hoshiar Singh, Praveen S/o Jagdev, Sanjay @ Sandeep S/o Amar Lal, Jitender S/o Satbir and Kuldeep S/o Balbir whom he has identified in Court for the first time despite admitting that he knew these persons by name. The Ld. Counsel has also pointed out that Vicky had only named the accused Sandeep S/o Chander in his statement Ex.PW42/PX1 and his testimony qua Sandeep S/o Chander does not find any independent reliable corroboration since the only corroboration forthcoming is from the statement of Kamla (PW50) who herself is not a reliable witness and no conviction can be based on her sole testimony. Ld. Defence Counsel has also pointed out that the accused Sanjay S/o Amar Lal was not even present in the village at the time of the incident since he is a Teacher employed at Rajpura School where he was present from 7:40 AM till 12:45 PM a fact which has been proved by DW9 Dalser Lohan. He has further argued that the accused Kuldeep S/o Balbir was admitted in Punia Nursing Home Home, Jind from 19.4.2010 till 21.4.2010 a fact which has been proved by Dr. Balbir Singh Punia (DW26) who has also proved the treatment papers of accused Kuldeep S/o Balbir which are Ex.DW26/C and the discharge summary which is Ex.DW26/D. I have considered the rival contentions. At the very outset I may observe that in so far as Vicky (PW42) and Pradeep (PW49) are
concerned, for the reasons already discussed in detail and not being repeated for the sake of brevity, have both been held to be not totally reliable qua the identification of the accused and therefore it is necessary to look for independent reliable corroboration. whose testimony has been rejected. I may further observe that there has been a dock identification of the accused Jagdish @ Hati S/o Baru Ram, Pawan S/o Hoshiar Singh, Praveen S/o Jagdev, Sanjay @ Sandeep S/o Amar Lal, Jitender S/o Satbir, and Kuldeep S/o Balbir by Vicky (PW42) and Kamla (PW50) in the Court and also of Joginder @ Jogar S/o Inder by Pradeep (PW49) and Kamla (PW50) and of Sandeep S/o Chander by Kamla (PW50) and of Sonu S/o Ramesh by all the three witnesses that is Vicky (PW42), Pradeep (PW49) and Kamla (PW50) which is despite the fact that all the above accused are residents of the same village and are known to the witnesses in such capacity. Hence, the testimonies of Vicky (PW42) and Pradeep (PW49) to the extent of dock identification of the aforesaid accused is unacceptable. Further, the allegations made by Vicky in the Court against the accused are general in nature and he has not specifically attribute any overt act to accused Jagdish @ Hathi S/o Baru Ram and has simply stated he was the boy who along with other rioters were having dandas in their hands and were hitting persons from 'B' community and also indulging into tor phor and damage to property of the 'B' though in his earlier statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW42/PX1 to the police he had not named the accused Jagdish @ Hathi S/o Baru Ram. I may further observe that Dhoop Singh (PW29) who is the father of Vicky
In so far as Kamla
(PW50) is concerned she has been held to be an unreliable witness
(PW42) and had even received injuries in the incident, in his testimony before this Court has neither named nor identified the accused Jagdish @ Hathi S/o Baru Ram, Pawan S/o Hoshiar Singh, Praveen S/o Jagdev, Sandeep S/o Chander, Sanjay @ Sandeep S/o Amar Lal, Jitender S/o Satbir, Joginder @ Jogar S/o Inder and Kuldeep S/o Balbir so named by Vicky as the assailants. Similarly in so far as accused Sandeep S/o Chander is concerned Vicky has contradicted his own statement made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW42/PX1 wherein he had stated that Sandeep was involved in damage to the property, poured oil and caused injuries by pelting stones whereas now before the court he had stated that Sandeep had entered his shop and damaged the property, an allegation which his father Dhoop Singh (PW29) also an eye witness who had even received injuries at the time of the incident does not corroborate. Therefore in view of the above the testimony of Vicky (PW42) finding no reliable corroboration in so far as the aspect of presence of the accused Jagdish @ Hathi S/o Baru Ram, Pawan S/o Hoshiar Singh, Praveen S/o Jagdev, Sandeep S/o Chander, Sanjay @ Sandeep S/o Amar Lal, Jitender S/o Satbir, Joginder @ Jogar S/o Inder and Kuldeep S/o Balbir at the spot are concerned. Hence keeping in view the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Masalti Vs. State of UP (Supra) and State of UP Vs. Dan Singh (Supra), I hereby hold that the prosecution has failed to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Jagdish @ Hathi S/o Baru Ram, Pawan S/o Hoshiar Singh, Praveen S/o Jagdev, Sandeep S/o Chander, Sanjay @ Sandeep S/o Amar Lal, Jitender S/o Satbir, Joginder @ Jogar S/o Inder, Kuldeep S/o Balbir and Sonu S/o Ramesh and establish their presence at
the spot at the time of the incident beyond reasonable doubt.
Allegations against the accused Vipin S/o Joginder, Pradeep S/o Jagbir, Dalbir S/o Dalip, Naveen @ Tina S/o Rajbir and Suresh S/o Balbir:
Coming now to the allegations against the accused Vipin S/o Joginder, Pradeep S/o Jagbir, Dalbir S/o Dalip, Naveen @ Tina S/o Rajbir, Suresh S/o Balbir and Vikas S/o Sumer. I may observe that in so far as the accused Vipin S/o Joginder is concerned he has only been identified by Pradeep (PW49) whereas all the others that is Dalbir S/o Dalip, Pradeep S/o Jagbir, Naveen @ Tina S/o Rajbir and Suresh S/o Balbir have been identified by only Pradeep (PW49) and Kamla (PW50) the son and the wife of the deceased Tara Chand. For the sake of clarity and convenience the ocular evidence against the above accused is briefly culled out as under:
Sr. Name of Name of the witness who has No. the named/ identified the accused accused in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Name of the witness 1. Allegations Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the court Name of the Allegations witness (1) Pradeep S/o Tara Chand (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) General allegations of rioting and arson.
Vipin S/o Chanderpati W/o Caused Joginder Sajjana injuries by (declared hostile stone pelting in the court and has not identified Vipin)
Page No. 733
2.
Pradeep (1) Krishna W/o Caused S/o Jagbir Raghubir injuries by (declared hostile stone pelting in the court and has not identified Pradeep)
(1) Pradeep (previously not named in statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010) (2) Kamla (previously not named in statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010) (1) Pradeep (previously not named in statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010) (2) Kamla (previously not named in statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010)
3.
Dalbir S/o (1) Rajesh S/o Dalip Bhambu (2) Satyawan S/o Roshan (3) Susheel S/o Surta (4) Sunita W/o Surta (5) Mahajan S/o Satpal (6) Chander S/o Laxman (None of the above cited witnesses of the prosecution have identified the accused Dalbir in the court nor any Judicial Test Identification Parade has been conducted)
Rioting, damage to property by fire, causing injuries
4.
Naveen @ Satbir S/o Caused Tina S/o Bhaleram injuries by Rajbir (not appeared in pelting stones the court to identify the accused Naveen @ Tina
(1) Pradeep (previously not named in statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated
Page No. 734
27.6.2010) (2) Kamla (previously not named in statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010) 5. Suresh (1)Ram Niwas S/o Balbir S/o Rajmal (2) Manoj S/o Mahender (3) Pradeep S/o TaraChand Rioting, damage property fire (1) Pradeep to (previously by named in statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010) (2) Kamla (previously not named in statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010) General allegations of rioting and arson.
may observe that in his deposition before this Court,
Pradeep S/o Tara Chand (PW49) has denied having made any statement to the police either on 21.4.2010 which is Ex.PW49/PX1 or on 27.7.2010 which is Ex.PW49/PX2 and has only admitted his statement dated 27.6.2010 which is Ex.PW49/PX3. The Ld. Defence counsel has vehemently argued that Pradeep son of deceased Tara Chand is not a reliable witness and his presence at the spot is doubtful due to following reasons: That Pradeep has not been named in the FIR lodged by Karan Singh and his name even does not appear in the dying declaration
of Tara Chand before the police and also before the Magistrate. That despite the allegations of intense brick batting going on at the spot, Pradeep had sustained no injuries.
That despite his alleged presence at the spot he did not accompany his father Tara Chand who had sustained 99% burns or the body of his sister Suman to the hospital which conduct is not natural. That he has made major improvements while deposing in the court regarding the names of the accused persons, that is, he had named fifteen persons in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded on 27.6.2010 which is Ex.PW49/PX3 whereas in the court he has claimed to identify twenty four accused persons as the assailants whom he had seen at the time of the incident. That it does not seem worthy of belief that he knew twenty four persons all residents of the same village despite which he did not name them before the police and for the nine persons whom he has identified other than the fifteen persons whom he had named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. no Test Identification Parade had been conducted and the said persons have been identified in the court for the first time. On the other hand the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor for the
victims has vehemently argued that Pradeep (PW49) being the son of the deceased Tara Chand and the brother of the deceased Suman is the most reliable witness who had witnessed the occurrence. The Ld. Public Prosecutor has pointed out that an explanation is forthcoming on behalf of Pradeep in this regard wherein he has explained that at the time of incident he was standing in the gali/ street near his house and when he
tried to save his father and sister stones were also thrown on him and he did not go forward to save them fearing for his life and later when he and his mother (Kamla) saw the dead body of Suman and Tara Chand having sustained more that 90% burns, his mother Kamla herself became unconscious due to which reason he was taking care of his mother Kamla Devi and could not accompany the dead body of his sister Suman or his injured father Tara Chand to hospital. He has submitted that given these circumstances it was not possible for Pradeep to have accompanied either his father or the body of her sister to the hospital which is natural under the given circumstances. I have considered the rival contentions and I may observe that in so far as witness Pradeep (PW49) is concerned, for the reasons already discussed herein above which are not being repeated for the sake of brevity this Court has held that he is not a totally reliable witness qua the identity of the accused and hence the necessity of looking for a reliable corroboration. Coming first to the accused Vipin S/o Joginder it is evident that Pradeep (PW49) is the only witness who has identified him in the Court and there is no corroboration forthcoming from any other source. Coming next to the accused Pradeep S/o Jagbir, Dalbir S/o Dalip, Naveen @ Tina S/o Rajbir and Suresh S/o Balbir the only evidence on record against them is the testimony of Pradeep (PW49) and Kamla (PW50) to which there is no other corroboration. Kamla (PW50) has already been held to be a totally unreliable witness whose testimony stands rejected altogether. Therefore no reliable corroboration forthcoming to the testimony of Pradeep (PW49) in so far as the accused Vipin S/o Joginder, Pradeep S/o Jagbir, Dalbir S/o Dalip, Naveen @ Tina
S/o Rajbir and Suresh S/o Balbir, I hereby hold that keeping in view the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Masalti Vs. State of UP (Supra) and State of UP Vs. Dan Singh (Supra) the allegations made against the above accused do not stand substantiated and proved nor their presence at the spot at the time of the incident stands established beyond reasonable doubt.
Allegations against the accused Vikas S/o Sumer @ Sunehra

In so far as the accused Vikas S/o Sunehra @ Sumer is concerned he has been identified in the Court by Pradeep (PW49), Kamla (PW50) and Amar Lal (CW1) the sons and the wife of the deceased Tara Chand. For the sake of clarity and convenience the ocular evidence against the above accused is briefly culled out as under:
Sr. Name of Name of the witness who has No. the named/ identified the accused accused in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Name of the witness 1. Allegations Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the court Name of the Allegations witness 1) Pradeep General allegations of rioting and arson. General allegations of rioting and arson.
Vikas S/o (1) Chandrapati Caused Sunehra W/o Sajjana injuries by @ Sumer (declared hostile stone pelting in the court and does not identify the accused Vikas) (2) Pradeep S/o Tara Chan (named in statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010)
(2) Kamla (not named in statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010) (3) Amar Lal S/o Tara Chand
Removed clothes and dancing in the

Page No. 738
(CW1)
gali after setting his house on fire.
The Ld. Defence counsel has vehemently argued that it is not safe to rely upon the uncorroborated testimony of Pradeep (PW49), Kamla (PW50) and Amar Lal (CW1) being unreliable and inconsistent. He has also pointed out that Vikas has lead evidence in defence showing that on the date of the incident he was present at village Uchana where he had gone to purchase chicks for his poultry farm and therefore the question of his being present in the village at the time of the incident does not arise. The Ld. Special Public Prosecutor has opposed the argument of the Ld. Defence Counsel and has pointed out that Pradeep (PW49) has at the first instance named Vikas S/o Sunehra in his statement to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and there is no reason to disbelieve his version. He has also argued that Kamla (PW50) and Amar Lal (CW1) are the wife and son of deceased Tara Chand and there is no reason to disbelieve their testimonies. I have considered the rival contentions and the various authoritative pronouncements of the higher courts placed before me by the Ld. Counsels. I may observe that the witness Chanderpati W/o Sajna who had earlier named the accused Vikas in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has not identified the accused Vikas in the Court and has been declared hostile. Further, it is evident that there has been a dock identification of accused Vikas S/o Sunehra by the witness Kamla (PW50) and Amar Lal (CW1) who both have for the first time identified the accused in the Court despite the fact that he is a resident of the same
village and was known to them even prior to the incident.
Even
otherwise Kamla (PW50) for the reasons already discussed herein above and are not being repeated for the sake of brevity, has been held to be a totally unreliable witness who testimony qua the identification of the accused Vikas S/o Sunehra would otherwise stand rejected. It is also evident that no Test Identification of the accused has been conducted nor he has been apprehended on their pointing out. In so far as Pradeep (PW49) is concerned, he too has not been held to be a totally reliable witness for the reasons already discussed herein above and not being repeated for the sake of brevity whose testimony would require an independent reliable corroboration which in the present case is not forthcoming. This coupled with the fact that the accused Vikas has lead reliable documentary evidence to prove that is into business of Poultry. Dalbir Singh (DW28) Incharge of DM Poultry Research and Breeding Farm, Uchana Khurd, Jind has proved that the accused Vikas S/o Sumer Singh who is running a Poultry Farm under the name and style of M/s. V & V Poultry Farm, had come to him at 8 AM to get the chicks already purchased by him earlier vaccinated so that they could be delivered to his poultry farm thereafter. Dalbir Singh (DW28) has proved that on 21.4.2010 Vikas remained with him till 6 PM and during the day 11,220 (eleven thousand two hundred and twenty) chicks were vaccinated. He has also proved the receipt regarding the sale of the chicks on 21.4.2010 to Vikas which is Ex.DW28/A and has deposed that thereafter the said chicks were delivered to the poultry farm of Vikas in the evening. This testimony of Dalbir also finds due corroboration from the testimony of Sajjan (DW36) who is the driver employed with DM Poultry Research and Breeding farm, Uchana Khurd, District, Jind on Tata 407 tempo
bearing no. HR 56 0695 has proved that on 21.4.2010 he had made the delivery of chicks to V & V Poultry Farm, village Mirchpur from DM Poultry Research Farm vide challan ExDW28/A which bears his signatures at point A which were affixed by him at the time of loading at Jind and has also proved the signatures of the customer at point B (signatures of Vikas) which were affixed after the delivery of the chicks at the destination (Mirchpur at the poultry farm of Vikas). Both Dalbir and Sajjan are independent witnesses who are only professionally acquainted with Vikas and the documentary record regarding the purchase and delivery of the chicks which is maintained in regular course of business and has not been satisfactorily controverted there being a presumption of its regularity. Therefore under these circumstances, keeping in view the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Masalti Vs. State of UP (Supra) and State of UP Vs. Dan Singh (Supra) I hereby hold that it is not safe to rely upon the uncorroborated testimonies of Pradeep (PW49) and Amar Lal (CW1) which does not find any independent corroboration from any other source and under the given circumstances benefit of doubt is liable to be given to the accused Vikas S/o Sunehra.
Allegations against the accused Ajeet S/o Dalip Singh and Rajesh S/o Dhoop Singh:
Coming now to the allegations against accused Ajeet S/o Dalip and Rajesh S/o Dhoop Singh who have been identified by Vijender (PW40) and Kamla (PW50). For the sake of clarity and convenience the ocular evidence against the above accused is briefly culled out as under:
Sr. Name of Name of the witness who has No. the named/ identified the accused
Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused

Page No. 741
accused
in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Name of the witness Allegations Rioting, damage to property by fire, causing injuries
in the court Name of the Allegations witness (1) Vijender S/o Surta Singh As the person who was having a lathi in his hand and was running and beating the 'B' General allegations of rioting and arson
1.
Ajeet S/o Dalip Singh
(1) Vijender S/o Surta Singh (2) Mahajan S/o Satpal (not named or identified in the court) (3) JaiSingh S/o Sudhan (not examined by the prosecution) (4) Sube Singh S/o Bhura (not identified in the court)
(2) Kamla W/o Tara Chand (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) Mischief by fire (1) Vijender S/o Surta Singh (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) (2) Kamla W/o Tara Chand (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and
2.
Rajesh S/o Dhoop Singh
Pradeep S/o TaraChand (not identified the accused in the court)
As the person who was having a gandase in his hand and running after the 'B' stating maro inhe (kill them).
Page No. 742
has identified the accused for the first time in the court)
The Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that in so far as the witness Vijender S/o Surta (PW40) is concerned he is a tutored witness in as much as initially he named Bobal and Illa as the persons who had damaged his house and it was later in the leading questions, while refreshing his memory, that he named others including Rajender, Rajesh, Rajbir and Ramphal. It is pointed out that in the court Vijender could not identify Rajbir @ Nanha and has only identified Jogal, Daya, Satish and Ajit by pointing out and not by name and therefore having improved his previous statement Ex.PW40/PX1 his testimony is liable to be rejected. The Ld. Special Public Prosecutor has on the other hand stated that given the manner in which the statements have been recorded by the Investigating Officer in a stereotyped manner, the benefit of the same cannot go to the accused and once the presence of the witness is found established, there is no reason to doubt his statement. I have considered the rival contentions. In so far as the accused Rajesh S/o Dhoop Singh is concerned, it is for the first time in the Court that Vijender has identified Rajesh despite the fact that they are both residents of the same village. be rejected. Further, in so far as the accused Ajit S/o Dalip Singh is concerned Vijender has named him previously in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and also identified him in the Court. In his defence For the reasons already discussed above the dock identification of accused Rajesh by Vijender is liable to
Page No. 743
the accused Ajit S/o Dalip Singh has not lead any evidence but in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he has denied the allegations and the incriminating material against him and has stated that he was not even present in the village at the time of the incident being away to his sister's house at village Kharkara, Hansi since 18.4.2010 to 21.4.2010 and was apprehended by the police in the night hours. Here, I may observe that Kamla (PW50) has been held to be a totally unreliable witness and therefore under these circumstances her testimony qua the identification of the accused has to be rejected. Further, in so far as Vijender is concerned this Court has for the reasons already elaborated above and not being repeated for the sake of brevity, held him to be not a totally reliable witness whose testimony would required independent corroboration which in the present case is not forthcoming qua the accused Ajit S/o Dalip. Therefore under these circumstances keeping in view the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Masalti Vs. State of UP (Supra) and State of UP Vs. Dan Singh (Supra)I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Rajesh S/o Dhoop Singh and Ajit S/o Dalip and establish their presence at the spot of the incident beyond reasonable doubt..
Allegations against the accused Pradeep S/o Ramphal and Vedpal S/o Daya Nand:
Coming now to the accused Pradeep S/o Ramphal and Vedpal S/o Daya Nand. They have been identified by Santra (PW30) and Kamla (PW50). For the sake of clarity and convenience the ocular
evidence against the above accused is briefly culled out as under:

Sr. Name of Name of the witness who has No. the named/ identified the accused accused in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Name of the witness 1. Pradeep S/o Ram Phal (1) Bani Singh S/o Bhaleram (not examined by the prosecution) (2) Chander S/o Laxman (not examined by the prosecution) (3) Sanjay S/o Laxman (not examined by the prosecution) Allegations Rioting, damage to property by fire, causing death and injuries Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the court Name of the Allegations witness (1) Santra W/o Satyawan (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 30.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) (2) Kamla W/o Tara Chand (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) 2. Vedpal Amar S/o Tara S/o Chand Dayanand (not identified in the court) Provided shelter to accused Sanjay @ Handa (1) Santra W/o Satyawan (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dt. 30.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) (2) Kamla W/o As the boy who was dancing naked before the ladies of the 'B' community
As the person who had jellie and gandase and indulging into stone pelting
General
Page No. 745
Tara Chand allegations of (not named in rioting and the statement arson under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court)
Ld. Defence counsel has vehemently argued that Santra (PW30) is not a truthful witness and it is not safe to rely upon her testimony in view of the fact that she herself in her testimony before the court has admitted that she had left the village on 19.4.2010 and returned in the afternoon of 21.4.2010 and therefore under these circumstances it is not possible for her to have witnessed the incident as claimed by her. He has further argued that Santra has identified about ten accused by faces but she did not know anyone by name despite being the residents of the same village. Further, she has tried to specifically attribute roles to all the ten accused persons identified by her and all such facts as deposed by her are total improvements as in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to the police dated 30.04.2010 which is Ex.PW30/DX1 wherein she had earlier stated that she could not identify any one of the assailants and also admits that she did not tell the names of the assailants to the police. The Ld. Special Public Prosecutor has on the other hand argued that Santra had returned to the village at the time when the incident was going on and has identified the accused and also attributed specific roles to them and merely because she is unable to name them would be no ground to reject her testimony.
Page No. 746
I have considered the rival contentions and I may observe that Santra who is a resident of village Mirchpur had claimed that she was away from the village since 19.4.2010 and returned only in the afternoon of 21.4.2010. This Court has for the reasons already discussed herein above held that the Rule of Prudence requires that there should be independent reliable corroboration with regard to her testimony. There has been a dock identification of the accused Pradeep S/o Ramphal and Vedpal S/o Daya Nand in the Court by Santra and therefore under these circumstances her testimony to the extent of this improvement is required to be discarded. Kamla too has identified the accused Pradeep and Vedpal for the first time in the Court. Her testimony even otherwise has been held not reliable for the reasons already discussed herein above and not being repeated for the sake of brevity. Therefore in view of the aforesaid and keeping in view the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Masalti Vs. State of UP (Supra) and State of UP Vs. Dan Singh (Supra) I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove the substantiate the allegations against the accused Pradeep S/o Ramphal and Vedpal S/o Dayanand and establish their present at the spot of the incident beyond reasonable doubt.
Allegations against the accused Balwan Singh S/o Jailal, Rajender S/o Belu Ram, Sunil S/o Jaibir, Rajender S/o Dhoop Singh, Pawan S/o Rajbir and Dalbir S/o Tara Chand :
In so far as the accused Balwan Singh S/o Jailal, Rajender S/o Belu Ram and Sunil S/o Jaibir are concerned they have been identified by Sanjay (PW36) and Kamla (PW50) whereas Rajender S/o Dhoop Singh has been identified by Rani (PW33) and Kamla (PW50).
Further, the accused Pawan S/o Rajbir and Dalbir S/o Tara Chand have been identified by Manoj (PW45) and Kamla (PW50). For the sake of clarity and convenience the ocular evidence against the above accused is briefly culled out as under:
Sr. Name of Name of the witness who has No. the named/ identified the accused accused in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Name of the witness 1. Allegations Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the court Name of the Allegations witness (1) Sanjay S/o Raja Ram (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 30.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) (2) Kamla W/o Tara Chand (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) 2. Rajender S/o Belu Ram (1) Praveen S/o Surat Singh (not examined by the prosecution) (2) Sanjay S/o
Balwan Ashok S/o Maha Caused Singh S/o Singh injuries by Jai Lal (turned hostile pelting stones. on identity of accused Balwan)
As the person who was having jellie, gandase and lathi and was indulging into beating persons from the 'B' community under the influence of alcohol General allegations of rioting and arson
Rioting, damage to property by fire
(1) Sanjay S/o Raja Ram (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated
As the person who was indulging into stone pelting.
Page No. 748
Satpal (not examined by the prosecution)
30.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) (2) Kamla W/o Tara Chand (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) General allegations of rioting and arson
3.
Sunil S/o Jaibir
(1) Nawab S/o Rioting and Laxman damage to (not examined property by the prosecution) (2) Karambir S/o Balbir (not examined by the prosecution)
(1) Sanjay S/o Raja Ram (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 30.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) (2) Kamla W/o Tara Chand (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court)
As the person who was indulging into stone pelting.
4.
Rajender S/o Dhoop
(1) Jai Singh S/o Rioting, Sudhan damage to (not examined property by
(1) Rani W/o As the person Sanjay who was (not named in indulging into
Page No. 749
Singh
by the prosecution) (2) Pradeep S/o Tara Chand (not identified the accused in the Court) (3) Sube Singh S/o Bhura (not identified the accused in the Court) (4) Satpal S/o Pratap (not examined by the prosecution)
fire, causing death and injuries
the statement stone pelting under Section and brick 161 Cr.P.C. batting dated 30.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) (2) Kamla W/o Tara Chand (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) General allegations of rioting and arson
5.
Pawan S/o Abhishek S/o Rajbir Sanjay (not identified the accused in the Court)
Caused (1) Manoj S/o injuries by Mahender pelting stones (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 & 27.6.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) (2) Kamla W/o Tara Chand (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for
Part of the crowd indulging into stone pelting, arson and burning the houses belonging to the members of 'B' community.
Page No. 750
the first time in the court) 6. Dalbir S/o Ashok S/o Maha Caused Tara Singh injuries by Chand (turned hostile pelting stones and does not identify the accused Dalbir) (1) Manoj S/o Mahender (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 & 27.6.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) (2) Kamla W/o Tara Chand (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) Part of the crowd indulging into stone pelting, arson and burning the houses belonging to the members of 'B' community.
In so far as the witnesses Sanjay (PW36) and Rani (PW33) are concerned the Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that they are both husband and wife and are most unreliable witnesses keeping in view the criminal background and record of Sanjay who is a pick-pocket having a number of criminal cases pending in the courts at Hissar. Ld. Counsel has pointed out that both PW33 Rani and PW36 Sanjay have for the first time identified the accused Balwan Singh S/o Jailal, Rajender S/o Belu Ram, Sunil S/o Jaibir and Rajender S/o Dhoop Singh not having named them previously in their statements under Section 161
Page No. 751
Cr.P.C. recorded on 30.4.2010 after almost nine days of the incident. He has further argued that even Manoj S/o Mahender (PW45) who claim himself to be the eye witness to the incident and had made two statements to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. first on 21.4.2010 and second on 27.6.2010 has failed to name the accused Pawan S/o Rajbir and Dalbir S/o Tara Chand in the said statements and now before the Court has for the first time identified them and hence under these circumstances their testimonies qua these accused are liable to be rejected. He has further pointed out that Sanjay (PW36) is a person with a criminal background having faced litigation for pick pocketing and sale of illicit liquor who had while deposing in the Court initially named only four persons namely Rajender son of Pale, Ramphal son of Prithvi, Lillu grandson of Pratap and Daya and later on claiming that he could identify others by faces went on to identify twenty persons for the first time in Court by faces and hence his testimony is liable to be discarded. Ld. Defence Counsel has also pointed out that in so far as Sunil S/o Jabir is concerned he was he is a Teacher employed at Rajpura School and on 21.4.2010 he was present in the school from morning till evening where his presence has been established from the attendance register produced before this Court duly proved by Dilsher (DW9). He has argued that even the accused Rajender S/o Belu was not present in the village and was in his fields with Ramesh (a person from 'B' community) and his son Sonu a fact which has been proved by Pasha (a person from 'B' community) examined in the Court as DW15 showing that he had been falsely implicated. On the other hand the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor for the victims has vehemently argued that merely because Sanjay has faced a
prosecution in criminal cases would be no ground to disbelieve his statement once his presence at the spot stands established. be of no consequence the witness Pasha being unreliable. I have considered the rival contentions and at the very outset I may observe that the accused Balwan Singh S/o Jailal, Rajender S/o Belu Ram, Sunil S/o Jaibir have been pointed out and identified for the first time in the Court (dock identification) by the witnesses Sanjay (PW36) and Kamla (PW50); similarly the accused Rajender S/o Dhoop Singh has been identified for the first time in the Court (dock identification) by witnesses Rani (PW33) and Kamla (PW50) and the accused Pawan S/o Rajbir and Dalbir S/o Tara Chand have been identified for the first time in the Court (dock identification) by the witnesses Manoj (PW45) and Kamla (PW50) which is despite the fact that they are all residents of the same village and were known to each other and at no point of time these accused have been subjected to any kind of prior identification by these witnesses nor any of the above accused were apprehended at the instance or pointing out of these witnesses. Hence, for the reasons already discussed in detail and not being repeated for the sake of brevity the identification of the above accused for the first time in the Court by witnesses Rani (PW33), Sanjay (PW36), Manoj (PW45) and Kamla (PW50), is liable to be rejected. I may further observe that witnesses Rani (PW33), Sanjay (PW36) and Kamla (PW50) have already for the reasons discussed herein above in detail and not being repeated for the sake of brevity, held to be unreliable qua the identity of the accused. Under these circumstances the testimony of Manoj (PW45) who has not been held to
He has
further submitted that the defence so put forward by the accused would
be a totally reliable witness would require an independent reliable corroboration which in the case of accused Pawan S/o Rajbir and Dalbir S/o Tara Chand is not forthcoming. Therefore under the given circumstances and keeping in view the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Masalti Vs. State of UP (Supra) and State of UP Vs. Dan Singh (Supra) I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused and establish the present of accused Balwan Singh S/o Jailal, Rajender S/o Belu Ram, Sunil S/o Jaibir, Rajender S/o Dhoop Singh, Pawan S/o Rajbir and Dalbir S/o Tara Chand at the spot of the incident beyond reasonable doubt.
Allegations against the accused Kuldeep S/o Om Prakash:

Coming now to the allegations against the accused Kuldeep S/o Om Prakash. He has been identified by Vicky (PW42) and Manoj (PW45). For the sake of clarity and convenience the ocular evidence against the above accused is briefly culled out as under:
Sr. Name of Name of the witness who has No. the named/ identified the accused accused in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Name of the witness 1. Kuldeep S/o Om Prakash Allegations Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the court Name of the Allegations witness (1) Vicky (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010 and has identified the accused for As the person who was having lathi and was hitting persons from the 'B' community and also indulged into tor-phor and damage to
Page No. 754
(1) Suresh S/o Caused Chander injuries by (not examined pelting stones by the prosecution) (2) Angoori W/o Dalip (dropped by the prosecution)
the first time in the court) (2) Manoj (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 & 27.6.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court)
the property General allegations of being a part of the crowd indulging in to rioting.
Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that Kuldeep S/o Om Prakash has for the first time being identified by both Vicky (PW42) and Manoj (PW45) despite the fact that he was previously known to them being resident of the same village and therefore under these circumstances there being no independent corroboration forthcoming it is not safe to rely upon their testimonies. Ld. Special Public Prosecutor for the victims has opposed the submissions made by the Ld. Defence Counsel and has argued that there is no reason why these testimonies are required to be discarded. I have considered the rival contentions. At the very outset I may observe that both Suresh and Angoori who had previously named the accused Kuldeep S/o Om Prakash in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have not proved the allegations against this accused and in fact there has been a dock identification of the accused Kuldeep for the first time in the Court by Vicky (PW42) and Manoj (PW45). There is no previous identification of the accused Kuldeep by either Vicky or Manoj nor he has been arrested at their instance. It is further evident that the
allegations made against Kuldeep by Manoj are of a general nature that is of being a part of the crowd indulging into rioting whereas Vicky has identified him as one of the boys having lathi in his hand and hitting persons from the 'B' community which lathi till date has not been recovered nor any witness from the 'B' community has identified Kuldeep as the person who had hit him with the lathi. Therefore under the given circumstances and keeping in view the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Masalti Vs. State of UP (Supra) and State of UP Vs. Dan Singh (Supra) I hereby hold that the allegations made by the prosecution qua the accused Kuldeep S/o Om Prakash do not stand substantiated and proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Allegations against the accused Pappu S/o Pyare Lal :

Coming now to the accused Pappu S/o Pyare Lal who has been identified by Sunita (PW13) and Kamla (PW50). For the sake of clarity and convenience the ocular evidence against the above accused is briefly culled out as under:
Sr. Name of Name of the witness who has No. the named/ identified the accused accused in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Name of the witness 1. Allegations
Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the court Name of the Allegations witness (1) Sunita (testimony rejected being tainted with falsehood) Brought bullock cart filled with brick bats
Pappu S/o Krishna W/o Caused Pyare Lal Raghubir injuries by (examined in the pelting stones court but turned hostile and does
Page No. 756
not identify the accused Pappu)
(2) Kamla (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court)
At the very outset I may observe that the accused Pappu S/o Pyare Lal has been identified for the first time in the court by PW13 Sunita and PW50 Kamla. In fact, as already observed, PW.13 Sunita had wrongly deposed by claiming herself to be Sunita whereas her actual name is Kanta and not Sunita. In fact it is also observed by this court that she has wrongly shown the MLR of her son Sunil aged 10 years as her own MLR vide Ex.PW13/A bearing her thumb impressions. When this witness was cross-examined by the defence with regard to her identity she stated that she was also known as Kanta but insisted that her real name was Sunita which name was present on all the documents including ration card, election card etc. When asked to produce the proof thereof she did not do so. Rather, later when her mother in law Kela was examined as PW20 it was she who produced her election card and informed the court that Sunita the present witness was in fact her daughter in law Kanta and also in the list of witnesses Sunita has been shown to be daughter of Ved and not wife which conclusively establish that Kanta has impersonated herself as Sunita and has deposed as such and therefore her testimony being tainted with falsehood is liable to be rejected. In so far as the witness Kamla (PW50) is concerned vide a
Page No. 757
detailed discussion as aforesaid she has been held by this Court to be totally unreliable witness whose testimony qua the identity of the accused has been rejected. Therefore under the given circumstances and keeping in view the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Masalti Vs. State of UP (Supra) and State of UP Vs. Dan Singh (Supra) I hereby hold that the allegations against the accused Pappu S/o Pyara and his presence at the spot, does not stand established and proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Allegations against the accused Naseeb S/o Prem Singh:

In so far as the accused Naseeb S/o Prem Singh is concerned he has been identified in the court by Gulaba (PW48) and Kamla (50). For the sake of clarity and convenience the ocular evidence against the above accused is briefly culled out as under:
Sr. Name of Name of the witness who has No. the named/ identified the accused accused in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Name of the witness 1. Naseeb S/o Prem Singh Allegations
Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the court Name of the Allegations witness (1) Gulaba S/o Jai Lal (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 23.4.2010 & 27.6.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) As the boy who along with other rioters were indulging into arson, burning of houses, stone pelting and rioting
Ishro W/o Pasha Caused (declared hostile injuries by in the court and pelting stones not identified the accused Naseeb)
Page No. 758
(2) Kamla W/o Tara Chand (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court)
The Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that Gulaba (PW48) had not received any injuries in the incident of rioting which took place on 21.4.2010 and a new story has been introduced by the prosecution to the extent that Gulaba was carrying lassi to his house when he was attacked by Rajender S/o Pale, Karampal S/o Satbir and Rampal S/o Prithvi who were without any weapons. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel that as per allegations these boys felled Gulab and gave blows to him with his own walking stick from where he was taken to his house by the villagers of his basti and thereafter the occurrence started. It is pointed out by the Ld. Counsel that Gulab Singh in his testimony has given a totally improved version and was also confronted with his earlier statement Ex.PW48/PX1. It is pointed out that earlier in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. given to the police after three days of the incident (23.4.2010) he had only named three persons that is Rajender S/o Pale, Karampal S/o Satbir and Rampal S/o Prithvi as the persons who were responsible for setting his house on fire but later after refreshing his memory in his second statement given to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.4.2010 he has named Rishi, Illa, Bobal, Baljeet and Daya to the police and therefore this part of evidence is not
admissible as the prosecution cannot seek corroboration from his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is further pointed that in his deposition before this court he has identified thirteen persons namely Karampal, Rishi Rajender son of Pale, Daya, Dharambir @ Illa, Baljit, Ramphal S/o Prithvi, Bobal, Pradeep S/o Satbir, Balwan S/o Inder, Manbir S/o Zile, Sunil S/o Dayanand and Naseeb S/o Prem out of which Pradeep S/o Satbir, Balwan S/o Inder, Manbir S/o Zile, Sunil S/o Dayanand and Naseeb S/o Prem have not been named by him in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The Ld. Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the victims has pointed out that Gulaba is the first person who had been assaulted and injured by the assailants while he was returning to the 'B' Basti after bringing lassi from the village and the medical evidence shows that he had even received injuries and had to be taken to the hospital on 21.4.2010 itself which establishes his presence in the village and also at the time of the incident and there is no room for any doubt. I have considered the rival contentions and at the very outset I may observe that in so far as Kamla (PW50) is concerned, she vide a detailed discussion not being repeated for the sake of brevity, has been held to be a totally unreliable witness whose testimony qua the identity of the accused is required to be rejected. The accused Naseeb S/o Prem Singh has raised a plea of alibi. According to him, he is an employee of Rajpura School and at the time of the incident he was in the School and in this regard he has examined Dalsher an employee of the School as DW9 who has deposed about the presence of Naseeb in the School from morning till later afternoon. In this background I may observe that the identification of
the accused Naseeb S/o Prem Singh by Gulab Singh for the first time in the Court (dock identification) cannot be relied upon more so there being no independent reliable corroboration to the same. Therefore under the given circumstances and keeping in view the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Masalti Vs. State of UP (Supra) and State of UP Vs. Dan Singh (Supra) I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and establish the presence of accused Naseeb S/o Prem Singh at the spot of the incident beyond reasonable doubt.
Allegations against the accused Ajeet S/o Sukhbir:

Coming now to the allegations against the accused Ajeet S/o Sukhbir. He has been identified in the Court by Mahajan (PW38), Vicky (PW42) and Kamla (PW50). For the sake of clarity and convenience the ocular evidence against the above accused is briefly culled out as under:
Sr. Name of Name of the witness who has No. the named/ identified the accused accused in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Name of the witness 1. Ajeet S/o Sukhbir (1) Sube Singh S/o Bhuraram (does not identify the accused Ajeet in the Court) (2) Baniya S/o Surta (not examined by the prosecution) (3) Bani Singh S/o Bhaleram
Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the court Name of the Allegations witness (1) Mahajan S/o Satpal As the person who had come to call Veer Bhan and Karan Singh on the night of 19.4.2010 and took them to the house of Pale where Veer Bhan and Karan Singh were beaten but did not see
Page No. 761
Allegations Damage to the property and mischief by fire.
(not examined by the prosecution) (4) Mahajan S/o Satpal (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 23.4.2010) (2) Vicky S/o Dhoop Singh (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court)
him on 21.4.2010. As the person who had come to call Veer Bhan and Karan Singh on the night of 19.4.2010. Also as the person who was indulging into stone pelting having a gandases in his hand. General allegations of rioting and arson
(3) Kamla (not named in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court)
Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that it is not safe to rely upon the uncorroborated testimony of Mahajan (PW38), Vicky (PW42) and Kamla (PW50) being unreliable and inconsistent in their testimonies. Ld. Defence Counsel has also argued that in fact Ajeet S/o Sukhbir was not present in the village on 21.4.2010 since he was admitted in Punia Nursing Home from 19.4.2011 to 21.4.2010 which fact has been proved by DW26 Dr. Balbir Singh Punia who has proved the prescription slip and treatment slip of the accused Ajeet which are Ex.DW26/A and Ex.DW26/B. The Ld. Special Public Prosecutor has
opposed the argument of the Ld. Defence Counsel and has pointed out that Mahajan (PW38) has named Ajeet S/o Sukhbir in his statement to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. at the first instance. I have considered the rival contentions. At the very outset I may observe that as per the allegations on 19.4.2010 it was the accused Ajeet S/o Sukhbir who had gone to call Veer Bhan and Karan Singh to the house of Pale on on the pretext of a settlement where both Veer Bhan and Karan Singh were beaten but since the said incident is a subject matter of a separate FIR pending disposal before the competent Court at Hissar, this Court is therefore refraining from making any observations on the said aspect except to the extent that Karan Singh (DW13) in his testimony has not supported the case of the prosecution nor has he identified the accused Ajeet as one of the assailants in the incident dated 19.4.2010. I may further observe that the witnesses Sube Singh S/o Bhuraram, Baniya S/o Surta and Bani Singh S/o Bhale Ram had earlier named the accused Ajeet in their statements made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but Sube Singh S/o Bhura Ram has not been able to identify the accused Ajeet whereas the witnesses Baniya S/o Surta and Bani Singh S/o Bhale Ram have not been examined by the prosecution. Further, the witness Mahajan (PW38) has specifically in his testimony stated that he did not see Ajeet during the incident dated 21.4.2010. In so far as the witness Vicky (PW42) and Kamla (PW50) are concerned they have conducted a dock identification of this accused Ajeet S/o Sukhbir for the first time in the Court which is despite the fact that they were known to the accused prior to the incident being residents of the same village. It is evident that there is no Test Identification of the
accused Ajeet by these witnesses nor he was arrested at their instance. The testimony of Kamla (PW50) for the reasons already discussed herein above and not being repeated for the sake of brevity has been held to be unreliable and therefore under these circumstances the testimonies of both Vicky (PW42) and Kamla (PW50) are liable to be rejected qua the identification of the accused Ajeet S/o Sukhbir and I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to establish the presence of Ajeet S/o Sukhbir at the spot beyond reasonable doubt.
Allegations against the accused Vijender S/o Hoshiyar Singh, Ramesh S/o Dalip and Rajender S/o Sadhu Ram:
Coming now to the allegations against the accused Vijender S/o Hoshiyar Singh, Ramesh S/o Dalip and Rajender S/o Sadhu Ram who have been identified in the Court by Santra (PW30), Sube Singh (PW39) and Kamla (PW50). For the sake of clarity and convenience the ocular evidence against the above accused is briefly culled out as under:
Sr. Name of Name of the witness who has No. the named/ identified the accused accused in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Name of the witness 1. Vijender S/o Hoshiyar Singh (1) Sube Singh S/o Bhura Ram (named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010) (2) Rajmal S/o Poker (not examined Allegations Rioting, damage to property by fire
Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the court Name of the Allegations witness (1) Santra (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 30.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time As the person who was indulging into stone pelting
Page No. 764
by the prosecution) (3) Satpal S/o Pratap (not examined by the prosecution) (4) Satyawan S/o Roshan (does not identify the accused)
in the court) (2) Sube Singh Named but not identified the accused (3) Kamla (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) Rioting, damage to property by fire, causing death and injuries (1) Santra (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 30.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) (2) Sube Singh (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) (3) Kamla (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. General allegations of rioting and arson
2.
Ramesh Jagpal S/o Bir S/o Dalip Singh (not examined by the prosecution)
As the boy who was carrying a lathi and was indulging in stone pelting.
As the person who was indulging into stone pelting and burning of houses
Page No. 765
dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) 3. Rajender (1) Jaswant S/o S/o Sadhu Jagbir Ram (not examined by the prosecution) (2) Dilbagh S/o Sube Singh (does not identify the accused) (3) Chander S/o Laxman (not examined by the prosecution) (4) Manoj S/o Mahender (does not identify the accused) (5) Sube Singh S/o Bhura Ram (named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010) Rioting, damage to property by fire (1) Santra (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 30.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) As the person who was pressurized by the persons belonging to 'J' community after which he joined them in stone pelting
(2) Sube Singh Named but not identified the accused (3) Kamla (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) General allegations of rioting and arson
Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that no reliance can be placed on the testimonies of Santra (PW30), Sube Singh (PW39) and Kamla (PW50) on the ground that they are unreliable and untrustworthy witnesses. He has vehemently argued that Sube Singh (PW39) is aged 70 years who had undergone eye injury before the incident and could not have identified the assailants with precision as claimed by him. Ld. Counsel has pointed out that Sube Singh has not
received any injuries in the incident and has in his testimony admitted that he has deposed on the basis of what was told to him Karan Singh and Veer Bhan and therefore his testimony to that extent is liable to be rejected. He has further argued that despite having named the accused Vijender S/o Hosiyar and Rajender S/o Sadhu he has failed to identify them in the Court and there is a total improvement in his version given to the Court. In so far as the witness Santra (PW30) and Kamla (PW50) are concerned the Ld. Counsel has submitted that they are unreliable witnesses and their presence at the time of the incident is doubtful. The Ld. Special Public Prosecutor on the other side has opposed the grounds raised by the Ld. Defence Counsel and has stressed that there is no reason why the witnesses Santra (PW30) and Sube Singh (PW39) be held unreliable. I have considered the rival contentions and also the testimonies of the witnesses. At the very outset I may observe that in so far as the witness Kamla (PW50) is concerned, she has already vide a detailed discussion not being repeated for the sake of brevity, been held to be an unreliable witness on account of which her testimony qua the identification of the accused stands rejected. In so far as the accused Ramesh S/o Dalip is concerned his dock identification has been conducted by Santra (PW30), Sube Singh (PW39) and Kamla (PW50) whereas Jagpal who had previously named him in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has not been examined by the prosecution and therefore the accused Ramesh S/o Dalip not being subjected to any Test Identification previously nor being arrested at the instance of these witnesses the testimonies of Santra (PW30), Sube Singh (PW39) and Kamla (PW50) are rejected.
Now coming to the accused Rajender S/o Sadhu Ram, I may observe that it is for the first time in the Court that this accused has been identified (dock identification) by the witnesses Santra (PW30) and Kamla (PW50) which is unacceptable in view of the fact that no test Identification of this accused was conducted by these witnesses previously nor he was arrested at their instance. I may further add that Rajender S/o Sadhu Ram had been previously named by Jaswant S/o Jagbir, Dilbagh S/o Sube Singh, Chander S/o Laxman and Manoj S/o Mahender in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. made to the police out of which Jaswant and Chander have not been examined by the prosecution whereas Dilbagh and Manoj have turned hostile on the identity of the accused Rajender S/o Sadhu and have not identified him in the Court. Further, in so far as the accused Vijender S/o Hoshiyar is concerned, it is for the first time in the Court that the accused Vijender has been identified (dock identification) by the witness Santra (PW30) and Kamla (PW50) which is unacceptable. The witnesses Rajmal and Satpal who had previously named him in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have not been examined by the prosecution for the reasons that they had been won over. The Satyawan (PW47) has turned hostile on his identity and has not identified Vijender. Therefore, now it is only the witness Sube Singh (PW39) who has not been held to be a totally reliable witness who had previously named the accused Vijender S/o Hoshiyar Singh and Rajender S/o Sadhu and has also identified them in the Court but no independent reliable corroboration is forthcoming to the testimony of Sube Singh in this regard. Hence under the given circumstances and applying the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Masalti Vs. State of
UP (Supra) and State of UP Vs. Dan Singh (Supra), I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Vijender S/o Hoshiyar Singh, Ramesh S/o Dalip and Rajender S/o Sadhu Ram and establish their presence at the spot of the incident beyond reasonable doubt.
Allegations against the accused Anil S/o Prem Singh:

In so far as the accused Anil S/o Prem Singh is concerned he has been identified in the Court by Sandeep (PW26), Sanjay (PW36) and Kamla (PW50). For the sake of clarity and convenience the ocular evidence against the above accused is briefly culled out as under:
Sr. Name of Name of the witness who has No. the named/ identified the accused accused in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Name of the witness 1. Anil S/o Prem Singh Allegations
Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the court Name of the Allegations witness (1) Sandeeep As the person who was setting houses belonging to the members of 'B' community on fire Indulging into stone pelting and damaging the household articles and properties by entering the houses
Sandeep S/o Rioting Satpal (named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 18.5.2010)
(2) Sanjay (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dt. 30.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court)
Page No. 769
Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that the witness Sandeep who despite the fact that he had earlier named the accused Anil S/o Prem Singh in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. could not identify him by name and it was only when the accused was put to him that he identified him by pointing towards him. He has further argued that in so far as Sanjay and Kamla are concerned they are tutored witnesses who have not named the accused Anil S/o Prem Singh in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and therefore under these circumstances the benefit of same should go to the accused. Ld. Special Public Prosecutor for the victims has vehemently opposed the plea raised by the Ld. Defence Counsel and has argued that there is no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of these witnesses. I have considered the submissions made before me. At the very outset I may observe that it is for the first time in the Court that the accused Anil S/o Prem Singh has been identified (dock identification) by witnesses Sanjay (PW36) and Kamla (PW50) both of whom have already been held by this Court to be totally unreliable qua the identity of the accused. In so far as the witness Sandeep S/o Satpal is concerned he for the first time made a statement to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW28/PX1 on 18.5.2010 which is after almost
Page No. 770
one month of the incident wherein he had named the accused showing that he knew Anil S/o Prem Singh previously. If this be so then it is very strange that in the Court he has only identified the accused Anil S/o Prem Singh by pointing out and not by name for which no explanation if forthcoming. Under these circumstances the possibility of tutoring of the witness cannot be ruled out and therefore it is necessary to seek reliable corroboration more so since no Judicial Test Identification Parade of the accused has been is not got conducted which independent under the reliable given corroboration forthcoming. Therefore
circumstances and keeping in view the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Masalti Vs. State of UP (Supra) and State of UP Vs. Dan Singh (Supra) I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Anil S/o Prem Singh and establish his present at the spot at the time of the incident beyond reasonable doubt.
Allegations against the accused Jagdish S/o Lehna Ram:

In so far as the accused Jagdish S/o Lehna Ram is concerned, he has been identified by Santra (PW30), Vickey (PW42) and Kamla (PW50). For the sake of clarity and convenience the ocular evidence against the above accused is briefly culled out as under:
Sr. Name of Name of the witness who has No. the named/ identified the accused accused in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Name of the witness 1. Allegations Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the court Name of the Allegations witness (1) Santra W/o As the person Satyawan who had stated (not named in maro in dedya
Page No. 771
Jagdish Aman S/o Surta Rioting S/o Lehna (declared hostile Ram and not
identified the accused Jagdish)
the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 30.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court)
ne bhanjod ne kutya ne (beat these 'B' dogs) and was carrying jellie and had indulged into stone pelting and also into beating with jellie. General allegations as one of the assailants
(2) Vicky S/o Dhoop Singh (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) (2) Kamla W/o Tara Chand (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court)
Ld. Defence counsel has vehemently argued that in so far as the testimonies of Santra (PW30), Vicky (PW42) and Kamla (PW50) are concerned they have all identified the accused Jagdish S/o Lehna Ram for the first time in the court despite the fact that the accused being the
Page No. 772
resident of the same village was known to all of them previously. He has submitted that this has been done only on the tutoring of the other members of the victim community and hence their testimonies are unreliable. The Ld. Special Public Prosecutor has on the other hand vehemently opposed the plea raised by the Ld. Defence Counsel submitting that there is no reason to discard the testimonies of these witnesses. I have considered the rival contentions. At the very outset I may observe that there it is for the first time in the Court that accused Jagdish S/o Lehna Ram has been identified (dock identification) by the witnesses Santra (PW30), Vicky (PW42) and Kamla (PW50) not withstanding the fact that the accused is a resident of the same village and was known to all these witnesses prior to the incident. The testimony of Kamla (PW50) has already been held to be unreliable by this Court and in so far as the dock identification of the accused Jagdish by Santra (PW30) and Vicky (PW42) is concerned, the same is unacceptable. Therefore under the given circumstances and keeping in view the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Masalti Vs. State of UP (Supra) and State of UP Vs. Dan Singh (Supra) I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Jagdish S/o Lehna Ram and establish his presence at the spot at the time of incident beyond reasonable doubt.
Allegations against the accused Dharambir S/o Tara Chand:

Coming now to the allegations against the accused Dharambir S/o Tara Chand who has been identified in the Court by
Sanjay (PW36), Pradeep (PW49) and Kamla (PW50). For the sake of clarity and convenience the ocular evidence against the above accused is briefly culled out as under:
Sr. Name of Name of the witness who has No. the named/ identified the accused accused in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Name of the witness 1. Dhambir S/o Tara Chand (1) Karambir S/oBalbir (not examined by the prosecution) (2) Sushil S/o Surta (not identified the accused Dharambir in the Court) (3) Kamla W/o Tara Chand (named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010) (4) Baniya S/o Surta (not examined by the prosecution) (4) Pradeep S/oTara Chand (named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dt. 27.6.10) (5) Jagpal S/o Bir Singh (not examined) Allegations Rioting, damage to property by fire, causing death and injuries Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the court Name of the Relevant witness Testimony (1) Sanjay (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 30.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) (2) Pradeep S/o Tara Chand As the person who was indulging into burning of houses.
General allegations of being a part of the rioters
(3) Kamla W/o General Tara Chand allegations of rioting and arson
Page No. 774
Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that the witness Sanjay (PW36) has not named the accused Dharambir S/o Tara Chand in his statement made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 30.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court. In so far as the witnesses Pradeep (PW49) and Kamla (PW50) are concerned, Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that despite the fact that they had earlier named the accused Dharambir S/o Tara Chand in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. they could not identify him by name and it was only when the accused was put to them that they identified him by pointing towards him. He has further argued that all the aforesaid witnesses namely Sanjay (PW36), Pradeep (PW49) and Kamla (PW50) are unreliable witnesses and therefore under these circumstances it is not safe to rely upon their testimonies without independent corroboration. Ld. Special Public Prosecutor for the victims has vehemently opposed the plea raised by the Ld. Defence Counsel and has argued that there is no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of these witnesses and the witnesses Pradeep (PW49) and Kamla (PW50) are consistent in their depositions having named the accused earlier in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. I have considered the rival contentions and I may observe that in so far as the witnesses Sanjay (PW36) and Kamla (PW50) are concerned they have both been held by this Court to be totally unreliable witnesses qua the identity of the accused. Even otherwise the witness Sanjay (PW36) has for the first time identified the accused Dharambir S/o Tara Chand in the Court which is unacceptable. Pradeep (PW49) has not been held to be a totally reliable witness whose testimony would require an independent reliable corroboration which is not forthcoming.
Therefore under the given circumstances and keeping in view the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Masalti Vs. State of UP (Supra) and State of UP Vs. Dan Singh (Supra) I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Dharambir S/o Tara Chand and establish his presence at the spot at the time of incident beyond reasonable doubt.
Allegations against the accused Satyawan S/o Rajender:

Coming now to the allegations against the accused Satyawan S/o Rajender he has been identified in the Court by Sanjay (PW36), Vicky (PW42) and Kamla (PW50). For the sake of clarity and convenience the ocular evidence against the above accused is briefly culled out as under:
Sr. Name of Name of the witness who has No. the named/ identified the accused accused in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Name of the witness 1. Satyawan Vickey S/o S/o Dhoop Singh Rajender (named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010) Allegations Damage to the property, poured kerosene oil and caused injuries by pelting stones
Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the court Name of the Allegations witness (1) Sanjay (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 30.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) (2) Vicky As the person who was indulging into stone pelting
As the person who along with others were

Page No. 776
sprinkling oil on the walls of their shop and setting it on fire (3) Kamla (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) General allegations of rioting and arson
Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that it is not safe to rely upon the uncorroborated testimony of Sanjay, Vicky and Kamla being unreliable and inconsistent in their testimonies. The Ld. Special Public Prosecutor has opposed the argument of the Ld. Defence Counsel and has pointed out that Vicky at the first instance named Satyawan S/o Rajender in his statement to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW42/PX1. I have considered the rival contentions. At the very outset I may observe that in so far as the witnesses Sanjay (PW36) and Kamla (PW50) are concerned, vide a detailed discussion not being repeated for the sake of brevity, they have been held to be unreliable witnesses whose testimonies qua the identity of the accused are rejected. Even otherwise, Sanjay (PW36) has for the first time identified the accused Satyawan S/o Rajender in the Court which is unacceptable. In so far as Vicky (PW42) is concerned he has not been held to be a totally reliable witness by this Court whose testimony would require independent reliable corroboration
Page No. 777
with regard to the incident as and also the identification of the accused. He has for the first time named the accused Satyawan S/o Rajender in his statement dated 27.6.2010 which was recorded after a gap of two months which is despite the fact that he was one of the active torch bearers of the victims who were organizing Dharnas at Hissar and Delhi. The presence of Vicky in his own house at the time of incident is doubtful because Dhoop Singh in his statement to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and also before this Court does not speak about the presence of Vicky in the house. In fact the possibility of the accused Satyawan S/o Rajender being named on tutoring cannot be ruled out more so because Dhoop Singh (PW29) in his testimony before this court and also in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. does not name or identify the accused Satyawan S/o Rajender so named by Vicky as one of the boys who were sprinkling oil on the walls of their shops and setting it on fire. I may further observe that Satyawan S/o Rajender is a mechanic who works at Suresh Tractor Works at Jind and the proprietor Suresh has appeared in the Court and deposed as DW41 to the extent that Satyawan was in fact present at his workshop at Jind on the date of incident where he was staying over night due to work pressure. This being the background and applying the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Masalti Vs. State of UP (Supra) and State of UP Vs. Dan Singh (Supra) I hereby hold that in the absence of any independent reliable corroboration which in the case of Satyawan S/o Rajender is not forthcoming, the prosecution has failed to prove and establish the presence of Satyawan S/o Rajender at the spot at the time of incident beyond reasonable doubt.
Page No. 778
Allegations against the accused Roshan S/o Ram Swaroop:

In so far as the accused Roshan S/o Ram Swaroop is concerned he has been identified in the Court by Vicky (PW42), Manoj (PW45) and Kamla (PW50). For the sake of clarity and convenience the ocular evidence against the above accused is briefly culled out as under:
Sr. Name of Name of the witness who has No. the named/ identified the accused accused in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Name of the witness 1. Roshan S/o Ram Swaroop Allegations
Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the court Name of the Allegations witness (1) Vicky (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) (2) Manoj (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 & 27.6.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) As one of the boys who were having dandas in their hands and were hitting persons from 'B' community and also indulging into tor phor and damaged to property of the 'B'. General allegations of being a part of the crowd indulging into stone pelting, arson and burning of other houses in the 'B' Basti.
(1) Satyawan S/o Damage to Roshan the property (does not identify the accused Roshan in the Court) (2) Bani Singh S/o Bhaleram (not examined by the prosecution) (3) Mahajan S/o Satpal (does not identify the accused Roshan in the Court) (4) Sushil S/o Surta (does not identify the accused Roshan in the Court)
Page No. 779
Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that the witnesses Vicky (PW42), Manoj (PW45) and Kamla (PW50) have not named the accused Roshan S/o Ram Swaroop in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and have identified the accused for the first time in the Court. It is argued that the testimonies of these witnesses based upon tutoring, it is not safe to rely upon their testimonies without independent corroboration. Ld. Special Public Prosecutor for the victims on the other hand has argued that there is no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of these witnesses who have identified the accused in the Court and made specific allegations against him. I have considered the rival contentions and at the very outset I may observe that all the three witnesses that is Vicky (PW42), Manoj (PW45) and Kamla (PW50) have for the first time identified (dock identification) the accused Roshan S/o Ram Swaroop in the Court which is despite the fact that the accused Roshan being the resident of the same village was known to them previously. It is also evident from the record that there has been no Test Identification of the accused Roshan by any of these witnesses previously nor he was arrested at their instance. He was initially named by Satyawan S/o Roshan, Bani Singh S/o Bhaleram,
Mahajan S/o Satpal, and Sushil S/o Surta but in their testimonies before this Court neither Satyawan, nor Mahajan nor Sushil have either named or identified him. Bani Singh has not been examined by the prosecution. Therefore under the given circumstances and applying the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Masalti Vs. State of UP (Supra) and State of UP Vs. Dan Singh (Supra), I hereby that the allegations against the accused Roshan S/o Ram Swaroop and his presence at the spot at the time of incident does not stand substantiated and proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Allegations against the accused Manbir S/o Zile Singh:

Now coming to the allegations against the accused Manbir S/o Zile Singh who has been identified by witness Vicky (PW42), Gulaba (PW48) and Kamla (PW50). culled out as under: For the sake of clarity and convenience the ocular evidence against the above accused is briefly
Sr. Name of Name of the witness who has No. the named/ identified the accused accused in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Name of the witness 1. Manbir S/o Zile Singh (1) Vicky S/o Dhoop Singh (named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010) Allegations Caused injuries and damage of property by throwing stones
Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the court Name of the Allegations witness (1) Vicky S/o Dhoop Singh As the person who along with other rioters had come to their shop and caused tor-phor to his property & arson
Page No. 781
(2) Ishro W/o Caused Pasha injuries by (declared hostile pelting stones and not identified the accused Manbir)
(2) Gulaba S/o Jai Lal (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 23.4.2010 & 27.6.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) (3) Kamla W/o Tara Chand (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court)
As the person who along with other rioters were indulging into arson, burning of houses, stone throwing and rioting.
Ld. Defence counsel has vehemently argued that Vicky S/o Dhoop Singh (PW42) is not reliable witnesses since in his testimony before this court Vicky has totally changed and improved his version as evident from his confrontation. The Ld. Counsel has also pointed out that the testimony of Vicky qua Manbir S/o Zile Singh does not find any independent reliable corroboration since the only corroboration forthcoming is from the statement of Gulaba (PW48) and Kamla (PW50) who themselves are not reliable witness and no conviction can be based on their sole testimony. The Ld. Special Public Prosecutor has on the other hand argued that Vicky (PW42), Gulaba (PW48) and Kamla (PW50) are all
eye witnesses to the entire incident and were present in the village at the time when the rioting was taking place. In so far as the witness Gulaba (PW48) is concerned it has been pointed out that Gulaba is the first person who had been assaulted and injured by the assailants while he was returning to the 'B' Basti after bringing lassi from the village and the medical evidence shows that he had even received injuries and had to be taken to the hospital on 21.4.2010 itself which establishes his presence in the village and also at the time of the incident and there is no room for any doubt. It is also argued that Kamla (PW50) is the wife of deceased Tara Chand and the mother of deceased Suman and is a reliable witness and conviction can be based upon her sole testimony. I have considered the rival contentions and at the very outset I may observe that it is for the first time in the Court that the accused Manbir S/o Zile Singh has been identified (dock identification) by the witness Kamla (PW50) who herself has been held to be an unreliable witness and also by Gulaba (PW48) which is unacceptable. Isro W/o Pasha who had earlier named the accused Manbir in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has turned hostile and has not identified the accused Manbir in the Court. In so far as the witness Vicky (PW42) is concerned, this Court has vide a detail discussion held that he is not a totally reliable witness whose testimony would require independent reliable corroboration. The statement of Vicky under Section 161 Cr.P.C. where he has named Manbir was recorded after a gap of two months which is despite the fact that he was one of the active torch bearers of the victims who were organizing Dharnas at Hissar and Delhi. The possibility of the accused Manbir S/o Zile Singh being named on tutoring cannot be ruled out more so because Dhoop Singh
(PW29) in his testimony before this court and also in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. does not name or identify the accused Manbir S/o Zile Singh so named by Vicky as one of the assailant who had entered his house. Rather, the presence of Vicky in his own house at the time of incident is doubtful because Dhoop Singh in his statement to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and also before this Court does not speak about the presence of Vicky in the house. I may further observe that Manbir S/o Zile Singh is a government servant being employed as (VLDA Veterinary Live Stock Development Assistant) in the veterinary hospital and was stated to be on duty for vaccination of cattle under the National Programme of FMD along with Jagdish (DW11) and it has been proved by Dr. Rajesh Malik (DW12) that he reported for duty and thereafter left for FMD programme along with Jagdish (DW11). It has also come on record that around 700-800 cattle were vaccinated in village Mirchpur on that day in two kilometer area. Here I may observe that village Mirchpur is a big village with the population of about fifteen thousand persons with extensive area. Many of the residents of village Mirchpur who have appeared as prosecution and defence witnesses have admitted that in case, if some incident happens at one part of the village there is a possibility, that persons staying on the other end of the village may not be aware of the same immediately. Accused Manbir has stated that he along with Jagdish (DW11) had vaccinated about 700800 cattle in the two kilometers area of the village adjoining the veterinary hospital on 21.4.2010 which hospital is situated on the other end of the village. If this be so then it is not possible that Manbir would have been present at the 'B' Basti at the time of the incident.
Therefore under the given circumstances and applying the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Masalti Vs. State of UP (Supra) and State of UP Vs. Dan Singh (Supra) and there being no other independent corroboration to the testimonies of Vicky (PW42) and the testimonies of Gulaba (PW48) and Kamla (PW50) are being rejected I hereby hold that the allegations against the accused Manbir S/o Zile Singh do not stand substantiated and proved.
Allegations against the accused Satish S/o Randhir:

Coming now to the allegations against the accused Satish S/o Randhir. He has been identified by Mahajan (PW38), Vijender (PW40), Manoj (PW45) and Kamla (PW50). For the sake of clarity and convenience the ocular evidence against the above accused is briefly culled out as under:
Sr. Name of Name of the witness who has No. the named/ identified the accused accused in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Name of the witness 1. Satish S/o (1) Sunita W/o Randhir Satbir (not examined by the prosecution) Allegations
Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the court Name of the Relevant witness testimony As the person who had entered into his house and also indulged into loot pat/ looting the property
Caused (1) Mahajan injuries by S/o Satpal pelting stones (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 23.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court)
Page No. 785
(2) Vijender S/o Surta (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) (3) Manoj S/o Mahender (not named in his statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 & 27.6.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) (4) Kamla (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court)
As the person who was indulging into stone pelting
As the person who was a part of the crowd indulging into stone pelting, arson and burning of other houses in the 'B' Basti
Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that in so far as the accused Satish S/o Randhir is concerned he has been identified for the first time in the Court by the witnesses Mahajan (PW38), Vijender (PW40), Manoj (PW45) and Kamla (PW50) and therefore it is not safe to rely upon the
unsubstantiated version of these witnesses.
The Ld. Special Public
Prosecutor has opposed the ground raised by the Ld. Defence Counsel and has argued that merely because the accused has been identified for the first time in the Court would not be a ground to discredit the testimony of these witnesses in the Court. I have considered the rival contentions and I may observe that the accused Satish S/o Randhir had been initially named as an assailant by only Sunita W/o Raghubir who has not been examined by the prosecution. For the first time in the Court the accused Satish has been identified (dock identification) by witnesses Mahajan (PW38), Vijender (PW40), Manoj (PW45) and Kamla (PW50) all of whom were previously known to the accused being resident of the same village. No Test Identification of this accused had ever been got conducted nor he was arrested at the instance of any of the above witnesses. Vide a detail discussion not being repeated for the sake of brevity, Kamla (PW50) has already been held to be an unreliable witness whose testimony qua the identity of the accused is rejected. Therefore under the given circumstances and applying the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Masalti Vs. State of UP (Supra) and State of UP Vs. Dan Singh (Supra), it is not safe to rely upon the uncorroborated testimonies of Mahajan (PW38), Vijender (PW40) and Manoj (PW45) all of whom have for the first time identified the accused in the Court, I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Satish S/o Randhir and his presence at the spot at the time of incident beyond reasonable doubt.
Page No. 787
Allegations against the accused Jugal S/o Hawa Singh:

In so far as the accused Jugal S/o Hawa Singh is concerned he has been identified in the Court by Dhoop Singh (PW29), Sanjay (PW36), Mahajan (PW38), Vijender (PW40), Vicky (PW42), Manoj (PW45) and Kamla (PW50). For the sake of clarity and convenience the ocular evidence against the above accused is briefly culled out as under:
Sr. Name of Name of the witness who has No. the named/ identified the accused accused in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Name of the witness 1. Jugal S/o Hawa Singh (1) Aman S/o Surta (does not identify the accused Jugal) Allegations Damage to the property
Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the court Name of the Relevant witness testimony (1) Dhoop Singh S/o Rattan Singh (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 23.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) (2) Sanjay (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 30.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) Rioting after entering the compound of his house by breaking the door
As the person who was indulging into stone pelting
Page No. 788
(3) Mahajan Tor-phor and S/o Satpal damage to (not named in property his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 23.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) (4) Vijender S/o Surta (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) (5) Vicky (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010 and has identified the accused in the Court) (6) Manoj S/o Mahender (not named in his statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 & 27.6.2010 and
Setting the houses belonging to the members of 'B' community on fire
Having dandas in his hands and was hitting persons from 'B' community and also indulging into tor phor and damaged to property of the 'B'. Being a part of the crowd indulging into stone pelting, arson and burning of other houses in the 'B' Basti.
Page No. 789
has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) (7) Kamla (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) General allegations of rioting and arson
Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that in so far as the accused Satish S/o Randhir is concerned he has been identified for the first time in the Court by the witnesses Dhoop Singh (PW29), Sanjay (PW36), Mahajan (PW38), Vijender (PW40), Vicky (PW42), Manoj (PW45) and Kamla (PW50) and therefore it is not safe to rely upon the unsubstantiated version of these witnesses. The Ld. Special Public Prosecutor has opposed the ground raised by the Ld. Defence Counsel and has argued that merely because the accused has been identified for the first time in the Court would not be a ground to discredit the testimony of these witnesses in the Court. I have considered the rival contentions and I may observe that the accused Jugal S/o Hawa Singh had been initially named as an assailant by only Aman S/o Surta who has not been examined by the prosecution. It is for the first time in the Court that the accused Jugal has been identified (dock identification) by the witnesses Dhoop Singh Dhoop Singh (PW29), Sanjay (PW36), Mahajan (PW38), Vijender
Page No. 790
(PW40), Vicky (PW42), Manoj (PW45) and Kamla (PW50) all of whom were previously known to the accused being residents of the same village. No Test Identification of this accused has ever been conducted previously nor this accused was arrested at the instance of any of these above witnesses. Even otherwise, both Sanjay (PW36) and Kamla (PW50) have already been held to be unreliable witnesses by this Court in so far as the identity of the assailants are concerned and their testimonies to that extent is unacceptable. Under the given circumstances it is not safe to rely upon the uncorroborated testimonies of Dhoop Singh (PW29), Mahajan (PW38), Vijender (PW40), Vicky (PW42) and Manoj (PW45) in so far as the identification (dock identification) of the accused Jugal S/o Hawa Singh for the first time in the Court is concerned and chances of his false implication on account of revenge cannot be ruled out since not even a single person out of the aforesaid witnesses has ever named or given the description of this accused Jogal to the Investigating Officer previously. Therefore under the given circumstances and applying the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Masalti Vs. State of UP (Supra) and State of UP Vs. Dan Singh (Supra), I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Jugal S/o Hawa Singh and establish his presence at the spot at the time of incident beyond reasonable doubt.
Allegations against the accused Deepak @ Sonu S/o Kishan:

Coming now to the allegations against the accused Deepak @ Sonu S/o Kishan who has been identified by the witnesses Mahajan (PW38), Vicky (PW42), Manoj (PW42) and Kamla (PW50). For the
sake of clarity and convenience the ocular evidence against the above accused is briefly culled out as under:
Sr. Name of No. the accused
Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Name of the witness Allegations Rioting, damage to property by fire, causing death and injuries
Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the court Name of the Relevant witness testimony (1) Mahajan S/o Satpal As the person who was indulging into burning of houses belonging to the members of 'B' community. Who was having a oil container in his hand and setting the houses on fire
1.
Deepak @ (1) Karambir S/o Sonu S/o Balbir Kishan (not examined by the prosecution) (2) Dharambir S/o Chatar Singh (not examined by the prosecution) (3) Mahajan S/o Satpal (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 23.4.2010)
(2) Vicky S/o Dhoop Singh (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court)) (3) Manoj S/o Mahender (not named in his statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 & 27.6.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time
As a part of the crowd indulging into stone pelting, arson and burning of other houses in the 'B' Basti
Page No. 792
in the Court) (4) Kamla (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) General allegations of rioting and arson
Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that Deepak @ Sonu S/o Kishan has not been named by Vicky (PW42), Manoj (PW45) and Kamla (PW50) and it is for the first time in the Court that he has been identified by Vicky, Manoj and Kamla despite the fact that he was known to them even prior to the incident being a resident of the same village. The Ld. Special Public Prosecutor on the other hand has opposed the ground raised by the Ld. Defence Counsel and has submitted that there is no reason to discard the testimonies of the above witnesses which find independent corroboration from the testimony of Mahajan (PW38) who had specifically named this accused. I have considered the rival contentions and at the very outset I may observe that it is for the first time in the Court that the accused Deepak @ Sonu has been identified (dock identification) by the witnesses Vicky (PW42), Manoj (PW45) and Kamla (PW50) which is despite the fact that Deepak was known to the witnesses being a resident of the same village even prior to the incident dated 21.4.2010. There has never been a Test Identification of the accused by these witnesses nor he was arrested at the instance or pointing out of any of these above
witnesses and hence the testimonies of Vicky (PW42), Manoj (PW45) and Kamla (PW50 whose testimony has already been rejected by the Court to the extent of identification of the assailants being unreliable) are unacceptable. I may further observe that the witnesses Karambir S/o Balbir and Dharambir S/o Chatar Singh who had previously named the accused Deepak in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have not been examined by the prosecution. The only witness who has named Deepak in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and has also identified him in the Court is Mahajan (PW38) who has not been held to be a totally reliable witness and whose testimony would require independent reliable corroboration which is not forthcoming. Therefore under the given circumstances and applying the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Masalti Vs. State of UP (Supra) and State of UP Vs. Dan Singh (Supra), I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Deepak @ Sonu S/o Kishan and establish his present at the spot at the time of the incident beyond reasonable doubt.
Allegations against the accused Pradeep S/o Satbir:

In so far as the accused Pradeep S/o Satbir is concerned he has been identified in the Court by Santra (PW30), Sanjay (PW36), Vicky (PW42), Sanjay (PW44), Manoj (PW45), Gulaba (PW48) and Kamla (PW50). For the sake of clarity and convenience the ocular evidence against the above accused is briefly culled out as under:
Page No. 794
Sr. Name of Name of the witness who has No. the named/ identified the accused accused in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Name of the witness 1. Allegations
Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the court Name of the Relevant witness testimony (1) Santra W/o Satyawan (not named in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 30.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) As the person who was in the front and was entering the houses of the persons belonging to the 'B' community by jumping the walls and exhorting persons to pick up the girls of the 'B' and also entering their houses and pulling the girls out As the person who was having a lathi in his hand and was indulging into stone pelting
Pradeep (1) Krishna W/o Caused S/o Satbir Raghbir injuries by (not examined pelting stones by the prosecution)
(2) Sanjay S/o Raja Ram (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 30.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) (3) Vicky S/o Dhoop Singh (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
General allegations of being a part of the unlawful assembly indulging into

Page No. 795
dated rioting 27.6.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) (4) Sanjay S/o Sube Singh (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) (5) Manoj S/o Mahender (not named in his statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 & 27.6.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) (6) Gulaba S/o Jai Lal (not named in his statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 23.4.2010 & 27.6.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time
As the person who was having a gandases and damaged the container of anaj/ grains
Being a part of the crowd indulging into stone pelting, arson and burning of houses belonging to the members of 'B' community.
Arson, burning of houses, stone pelting and rioting
Page No. 796
in the Court) (7) Kamla (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) General allegations of rioting and arson
Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that in so far as the accused Pradeep S/o Satbir is concerned he has been identified for the first time in the Court by the witnesses Santra (PW30), Sanjay (PW36), Vicky (PW42), Sanjay (PW44), Manoj (PW45), Gulaba (PW48) and Kamla (PW50) and therefore it is not safe to rely upon the unsubstantiated version of these witnesses. The Ld. Special Public Prosecutor has opposed the ground raised by the Ld. Defence Counsel and has argued that merely because the accused has been identified for the first time in the Court would not be a ground to discredit the testimony of these witnesses in the Court. I have considered the rival contentions and I may observe that the accused Pradeep S/o Satbir had been initially named as an assailant by only Krishna W/o Raghubir who has not been examined by the prosecution. It is for the first time In the Court that the accused Pradeep has been identified (dock identification) by the witnesses Santra (PW30), Sanjay (PW36), Vicky (PW42), Sanjay (PW44), Manoj (PW45), Gulaba (PW48) and Kamla (PW50) all of whom were previously known to the accused being resident of the same village. No
Test Identification of this accused has ever been conducted nor was the accused Pradeep arrested at the instance of any of these above witnesses and chances of his false implication cannot be ruled out since not even a single person out of the aforesaid witnesses had ever named or given his description to the Investigating Officer previously on account of which their testimonies are unacceptable. Even otherwise, both Sanjay (PW36) and Kamla (PW50) have been held to be unreliable witnesses by this Court in so far as the identity of the assailants are concerned. Therefore under the given circumstances and applying the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Masalti Vs. State of UP (Supra) and State of UP Vs. Dan Singh (Supra), it is not safe to rely upon the uncorroborated testimonies of Santra (PW30), Vicky (PW42), Sanjay (PW44), Manoj (PW45) and Gulaba (PW48) in so far as the identification (dock identification) of the accused Pradeep S/o Satbir is concerned and I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Pradeep S/o Satbir and establish his presence at the spot at the time of the incident beyond reasonable doubt.
Allegations against the accused Amit S/o Satyawan:

In so far as the accused Amit S/o Satyawan is concerned he has been identified in the Court by Manoj (PW45), Pradeep (PW49) and Kamla (PW50). For the sake of clarity and convenience the ocular evidence against the above accused is briefly culled out as under:
Page No. 798
Sr. Name of Name of the witness who has No. the named/ identified the accused accused in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Name of the witness 1. Amit S/o (1) Dilbagh S/o Satyawan Sube Singh (does not identify the accused Amit) (2) Rampal S/o Rajmal (not examined by the prosecution) (3) Dharambir S/o Chatar Singh (not examined by the prosecution) (4) Karan Singh S/o Tek Ram (not examined by the prosecution) (5) Baniya S/o Surta (not examined by the prosecution) (6) Gulab Singh S/o Jailal (does not identify the accused Amit) (7) Rajesh S/o Shambhu (8) Bindra S/o Raj Kumar (does not identify the accused Amit) (9) Rajmal S/o Pokar (not examined Allegations Rioting and caused damage to the property
Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the court Name of the Allegations witness (1) Manoj (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 & 27.6.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) (2) Pradeep As the person who was indulging into arson and burning of houses
As one of the assailants General allegations of rioting and arson
Page No. 799
by the prosecution) (10) Satyawan S/o Roshan (does not identify the accused Amit) (11) Pradeep (named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010)
Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that it is not safe to rely upon the uncorroborated testimony of Manoj (PW45), Pradeep (PW49) and Kamla (PW50) being unreliable and inconsistent in their testimonies. The Ld. Special Public Prosecutor has opposed the argument of the Ld. Defence Counsel and has pointed out that Pradeep has named Amit S/o Satyawan in his statement to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. I have considered the rival contentions. At the very outset I may observe that it is for the first time in the Court that the accused Amit has been identified (dock identification) by the witnesses Manoj (PW45) and Kamla (PW50) which is despite the fact that they were known to the accused prior to the incident being residents of the same village. No Test Identification of the accused had ever been conducted nor was he arrested at their instance. Kamla (PW50) for the reasons already discussed and not being repeated for the sake of brevity has been held to be unreliable witness whose testimony is unacceptable. In so far Manoj (PW45) is concerned, since no explanation is forthcoming with regard to the dock identification of the accused Amit by him, his testimony in this
regard is also rejected. Coming now to the witness Pradeep (PW49) who has already been held by this Court to be not totally reliable and whose testimony would require independent reliable corroboration which in the present case is not forthcoming thereby applying the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Masalti Vs. State of UP (Supra) and State of UP Vs. Dan Singh (Supra), I hereby hold that the prosecution has failed to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Amit S/o Satyawan and establish his presence at the spot at the time of incident beyond reasonable doubt.
Allegations against the accused Pawan S/o Ram Mehar:

Coming now to the accused Pawan S/o Ram Mehar who has been identified in the Court by Vicky (PW42), Manoj (PW45), Pradeep (PW49) and Kamla (PW50). For the sake of clarity and convenience the ocular evidence against the above accused is briefly culled out as under:
Sr. Name of Name of the witness who has No. the named/ identified the accused accused in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Name of the witness 1. Pawan S/o (1) Satyawan S/o Ram Bhaleram Mehar (not examined by the prosecution) (2) Baniya S/o Surta (not examined by the prosecution) (3) Pradeep S/o TaraChand (named in his Allegations Rioting, damage to property by fire, causing death and injuries Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the court Name of the Relevant witness testimony (1) Vicky S/o As one of the Dhoop Singh assailants (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court)
Page No. 801
statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010 (4) Jaswant S/o Jagbir (not examined by the prosecution) (5) Kamla W/o Tara Chand (named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court)
(2) Manoj S/o Mahender (not named in his statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 & 27.6.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) (3) Pradeep S/o Tara Chand
As the person who broke the door of his house and entered the same and damaged his property and conducted robbery (loot mar)
As one of the assailants
(4) Kamla W/o General Tara Chand allegations of rioting and arson
Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has vehemently argued that Pawan S/o Ram Mehar has been falsely implicated which is evident from the fact that Vicky (PW42) and Manoj (PW45) have identified him for the first time in the Court whereas Pradeep (PW49) has named him in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. after two months of the incident and therefore no reliance can be placed on their testimonies. Ld. Defence Counsel has further submitted that the accused Pawan was not present in the village and was in fact working in his fields from 4:00 4:15 AM till 3:003:15 PM an aspect which has been proved by one Virender (DW6) who himself belonging to the 'B' community. The Ld. Special Public Prosecutor has opposed the ground raised by the Ld. Defence Counsel and has argued that merely because there has been a delay in recording the statement under Section
161 Cr.P.C. would be not ground to discredit the testimony of the witness in the Court. I have considered the rival contentions and at the very outset I may observe that it is for the first time in the Court that the accused Pawan has been identified (dock identification) by the witnesses Vicky (PW42) and Manoj (PW45) which is despite the fact that he was known to them much prior to the incident being a resident of the same village. No Test Identification of the accused Pawan has been conducted nor he has been arrested at the instance of either Vicky (PW42) or Manoj (PW45) or Pradeep (PW49) of Kamla (PW50). Earlier in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Satyawan S/o Bhaleram, Baniya S/o Surta Jaswant S/o Jagbir had specifically named the accused Pawan S/o Ram Mehar but I may observe that all these witnesses witnesses that is Satyawan, Baniya and Jaswant have not been examined by the prosecution. In so far Kamla (PW50) is concerned her testimony has been held by the Court to be unreliable and therefore rejected. In so far as the witness Pradeep (PW49) is concerned he has not been held to be a totally reliable witness and therefore it is necessary to look for an independent reliable corroboration to his testimony which is not forthcoming in the case of this accused Pawan S/o Ram Mehar. Therefore under the given circumstances and applying the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Masalti Vs. State of UP (Supra) and State of UP Vs. Dan Singh (Supra), I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Pawan S/o Ram Mehar nor his presence at the spot at the time of the incident stands establishes beyond reasonable doubt.
Page No. 803
Allegations against the accused Balwan S/o Inder Singh:

In so far as the accused Balwan S/o Inder Singh is concerned he has been identified by the witnesses Rani (PW33), Vicky (PW42), Gulaba (PW48) and Kamla (PW50). For the sake of clarity and convenience the ocular evidence against the above accused is briefly culled out as under:
Sr. Name of No. the accused Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Name of the witness 1. Balwan S/o Inder Singh (1) Sube Singh S/o Bhura Ram (does not identify the accused Balwan in the Court) (2) Chander S/o Laxman (not examined by the prosecution) (3) Gulaba S/o Jai Lal (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 23.4.2010) Allegations Mischief by fire. Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the court Name of the Relevant witness testimony (1) Rani W/o Sanjay (not named in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 30.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) (2) Vicky S/o Dhoop Singh (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) As one of the member of unlawful assembly.
As the person who was indulging into stone pelting and exhorting by using caste abuses
(3) Gulaba S/o Indulging into Jai Lal arson, burning

of houses, stone throwing and rioting (4) Kamla (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) General allegations of rioting and arson
Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that Balwan S/o Inder has not been named by Rani (PW33), Vicky (PW42) and Kamla (PW50) and it is for the first time in the Court that he has been identified by Rani, Vicky and Kamla despite the fact that he was known to them even prior to the incident being a resident of the same village. The Ld. Special Public Prosecutor on the other hand has opposed the ground raised by the Ld. Defence Counsel and has submitted that there is no reason to discard the testimonies of the above witnesses which find independent corroboration from the testimony of Gulab Singh (PW48) who had specifically named this accused. I have considered the rival contentions and at the very outset I may observe that it is for the first time in the Court that the accused Balwan S/o Inder has been identified (dock identification) by the witnesses Rani (PW33), Vicky (PW42) and Kamla (PW50) which is despite the fact that Balwan was known to the witnesses being a resident of the same village even prior to the incident dated 21.4.2010. No Test Identification of the accused has ever been done by these witnesses nor
he was arrested at the instance of any of these witnesses. Even otherwise, the testimonies of Rani (PW33) and Kamla (PW50) have already been held to be unreliable by the Court to the extent of identification of the assailants and is hence unacceptable. I may further observe that the witnesses Sube Singh S/o Bhura Ram and Chander S/o Laxman had previously named the accused Balwan S/o Inder in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. However Sube Singh (PW39) has turned hostile on the identity of the accused Balwan and has not identified him in the Court whereas Chander S/o Laxman has not been examined by the prosecution. The only witness who has named Balwan in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and has also identified him in the Court is Gulab Singh (PW48) who for the reasons already discussed herein above and not being repeated for the sake of brevity, has not been held to be a totally reliable witness qua the identification of the accused and no independent reliable corroboration is forthcoming to the testimony of Gulab Singh. Therefore under the given circumstances and applying the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Masalti Vs. State of UP (Supra) and State of UP Vs. Dan Singh (Supra), I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Balwan S/o Inder Singh and establish his presence at the spot at the time of the incident beyond reasonable doubt.
Allegations against the accused Pradeep S/o Balwan:

Coming now to the allegations against the accused Pradeep S/o Balwan. He has been identified in the Court by Vicky (PW42), Dilbagh (PW43), Sanjay (PW44) and Manoj (PW45). For the sake of clarity and convenience the ocular evidence against the above accused is
briefly culled out as under:

Sr. Name of No. the accused Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Name of the witness 1. Pradeep S/o Balwan (1) Satyawan S/o Bhaleram (not examined by the prosecution) (2) Ramphal S/o Rajmal (not examined by the prosecution) (3) Sanjay S/o Gulab Singh (named the accused in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010) Allegations Rioting, damage to property by fire Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the court Name of the Relevant witness testimony (1) Vicky S/o Dhoop Singh (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) (2) Dilbagh S/o Sube Singh (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) As one of the member of unlawful assembly.
Named in the Court as the person who had come to his house and sprinkled kerosene oil and set it on fire but when the accused was put to him, he has not identified him.
(3) Sanjay S/o As the person Sube Singh who was carrying a gandases and had damaged his container of anaj/grains with the same (4) Manoj S/o As the boy who Mahender was a part of
(not named in the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 & 27.6.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court)
the crowd indulging into stone pelting, arson and burning of other houses in the 'B' Basti.
Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that Pradeep S/o Balwan has not been named by Vicky (PW42), Dilbagh (PW43) and Manoj (PW45) and it is for the first time in the Court that he has been identified by Vicky, Dilbagh and Manoj despite the fact that he was known to them even prior to the incident being a resident of the same village. The Ld. Special Public Prosecutor on the other hand has opposed the ground raised by the Ld. Defence Counsel and has submitted that there is no reason to discard the testimonies of the above witnesses which find independent corroboration from the testimony of Dilbagh (PW43) who had specifically named this accused. I have considered the rival contentions and at the very outset I may observe that it is for the first time in the Court that the accused Pradeep S/o Balwan has been identified (dock identification) by the witnesses Vicky (PW42), Dilbagh (PW43) and Manoj (PW45) which is despite the fact that Pradeep S/o Balwan was known to the witnesses being a resident of the same village even prior to the incident dated 21.4.2010. No Test Identification of the accused has been done by these witnesses nor he was arrested at the instance of any of these witnesses and hence the testimonies of Vicky (PW42), Dilbagh (PW43) and Manoj
(PW45) is liable to be rejected. Here, I may observe that though Dilbagh (PW43) has named Pradeep S/o Balwan in his testimony but when the accused were put to him for identification he did not identify the accused Pradeep S/o Balwan. I may also observe that the witnesses Satyawan S/o Bhaleram and Ramphal S/o Rajmal who had previously named the accused Pradeep S/o Balwan in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have not been examined by the prosecution. The only witness who has named Pradeep in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and has also identified him in the Court is Sanjay (PW44) who for the reasons already discussed herein above and not being repeated for the sake of brevity, has been held to be an unreliable witness whose testimony to the extent of identification of the accused can only be considered after reliable corroboration which in the present case is not forthcoming from any source. Therefore under the given circumstances and applying the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Masalti Vs. State of UP (Supra) and State of UP Vs. Dan Singh (Supra), I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Pradeep S/o Balwan and establish his presence at the spot at the time of the incident beyond reasonable doubt.
Allegations against the accused Sanjay S/o Daya Nand

In so far as the accused Sanjay S/o Daya Nand is concerned he has been identified in the Court by the witnesses Dhoop Singh (PW29), Sanjay (PW36), Vicky (PW42) and Manoj (PW45). For the sake of clarity and convenience the ocular evidence against the above accused is briefly culled out as under:
Sr. Name of No. the accused
Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Name of the witness Allegations
Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the court Name of the Relevant witness testimony As the person who had given a danda blow on his left leg
1.
Sanjay S/o Daya Nand
(1) Vicky S/o Dhoop Singh (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010) (2) Praveen S/o Jagpal (not examined by the prosecution) (3) Shanti W/o Jugtiram (declared hostile by the prosecution and not identified the accused Sanjay)
Caused (1) Dhoop injuries by Singh (not pelting stones. named in both his statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 23.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) (2) Sanjay S/o Raja Ram (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 30.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) (2) Vicky S/o Dhoop Singh
Entered the house of Dhoop Singh and broken his arm and burnt his house.
Sprinkling oil and setting the houses belonging to the members of 'B' community on fire and hit his father with a lathi on his leg thereby causing fracture and injuries on the arm of his father .
Page No. 810
(3) Manoj S/o Mahender (not named in the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 & 27.6.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court)
As the person who was present along with the others who had set his house on fire
Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that Sanjay S/o Daya Nand has not been named by Dhoop Singh (PW29), Sanjay (PW36) and Manoj (PW45) and it is for the first time in the Court that he has been identified by Dhoop Singh, Sanjay and Manoj despite the fact that he was known to them even prior to the incident being a resident of the same village. The Ld. Special Public Prosecutor on the other hand has opposed the ground raised by the Ld. Defence Counsel and has submitted that there is no reason to discard the testimonies of the above witnesses which find independent corroboration from the testimony of Vicky (PW42) who had specifically named this accused. I have considered the rival contentions and at the very outset I may observe that it is for the first time in the Court that the accused Sanjay S/o Daya Nand has been identified (dock identification) by the witnesses Dhoop Singh (PW29), Sanjay (PW36) and Manoj (PW45) which is despite the fact that the accused Sanjay S/o Daya Nand was known to the witnesses being a resident of the same village even prior to the incident dated 21.4.2010. No Test Identification of the accused has been done by these witnesses nor he was arrested at the instance of any
of these witnesses and hence the testimonies of Dhoop Singh (PW29), Sanjay (PW36) and Manoj (PW45) are liable to be rejected. I may also observe that the witnesses Praveen S/o Jagpal and Shanti W/o Jugtiram who had previously named the accused Sanjay S/o Daya Nand in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have not been examined by the prosecution and Shanti W/o Jugtiram has been declared hostile by the prosecution who has not identified the accused Sanjay in the Court. The only witness who has named Sanjay S/o Daya Nand in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and has also identified him in the Court is Vicky (PW42) who for the reasons already discussed herein above and not being repeated for the sake of brevity, has not been held to be a totally reliable witness and whose testimony can be considered after due corroboration. I may observe that Dhoop Singh (PW29) has named and identified the accused Sunil S/o Daya Nand as the person who had given him a danda blow but it is evident that there has been a dock identification of the accused Sunil S/o Daya Nand by the witness Dhoop Singh. The two statements of Dhoop Singh S/o Rattnu recorded by SI Bani Singh are present on the judicial record and interestingly both statements are dated 23.4.2010 and no explanation is forthcoming as to how two absolutely similar statements could have been recorded by SI Bani Singh on the same day one containing the names of all the accused and the other without naming any accused. In the first statement no names of any accused have been given and only general caste based allegations have been made whereas in the second statement only the names of Rajender S/o Pale, Surender S/o Jagdev, Rupesh S/o Tek Ram, Rishi S/o Satbir and Karampal S/o Satbir have been mentioned. Under
these circumstances, there are two possibilities. First that SI Bani Singh had connived with the persons from the 'J' community and therefore no names were mentioned in the statement of Dhoop Singh recorded by him under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 23.4.2010 and the Second that it is equally possible that he connived with the members of the 'B' community and inserted the names of certain accused at their instance in the other statement of Dhoop Singh also recorded on 23.4.2010 which interestingly is not a supplementary statement. Here, I may hold that it is the first possibility which appears more probable since Dhoop Singh in his testimony before this Court has also identified the accused whom he had earlier named in his statement made to SI Bani Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 23.4.2010. Therefore, apparently the statement not containing any of the names of any accused appears to have been fabricated and it is the statement containing the names of the accused which is liable to be relied upon. However, without entering into any further discussion on this aspect, since the name of the accused Sanjay S/o Daya Nand does not figure in any of the statements made by Dhoop Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C and there being no independent reliable corroboration to the testimony of Vicky (PW42) it will not be safe to convict the accused on the basis of the same. Applying the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Masalti Vs. State of UP (Supra) and State of UP Vs. Dan Singh (Supra), I hereby hold that the prosecution has failed to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Sanjay S/o Daya Nand and establish his presence at the spot at the time of the incident beyond reasonable doubt.
Page No. 813
Allegations against the accused Satyawan @ Satta S/o Karan Singh

In so far as the accused Satyawan @ Satta S/o Karan Singh is concerned he has been identified in the Court by the witnesses Sushil (PW25), Sanjay (PW36), Meena (PW37), Manoj (PW45) and Kamla (PW50). For the sake of clarity and convenience the ocular evidence against the above accused is briefly culled out as under:
Sr. Name of No. the accused Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Name of the witness 1. Satyawan @ Satta S/o Karan Singh (1) Manoj S/o Mahender (named in the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010) (2) Shanti W/o Jugtiram (declared hostile by the prosecution and has not identified the accused in the Court) Allegations Mischief by fire and caused injuries by pelting stones Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the court Name of the Relevant witness testimony (1) Sushil S/o Surta (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) (2) Sanjay S/o Raja Ram (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 30.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) As the person who along with Rajender S/o Pale were responsible for the entire incident
Indulging into stone pelting and damaging household articles by entering the houses
Page No. 814
(3) Meena Kumar S/o Satpal (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 30.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court)
Burning of houses belonging to the members of 'B' community and indulging into stone pelting.
(4) Manoj S/o As the boy who Mahender was having a gandase in his hand and damaged his trunk (petti). (5) Kamla W/o Tara Chand (not named in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) General allegations of being a part of unlawful assembly
Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that Satyawan @ Satta S/o Karan Singh has not been named by Sushil (PW25), Sanjay (PW36), Meena (PW37) and Kamla (PW50) and it is for the first time in the Court that he has been identified by Sushil, Sanjay, Meena and Kamla despite the fact that he was known to them even prior to the incident being a resident of the same village. The Ld. Special Public Prosecutor on the other hand has opposed the ground raised by the Ld.
Defence Counsel and has submitted that there is no reason to discard the testimonies of the above witnesses which find independent corroboration from the testimony of Manoj (PW45) who had specifically named this accused. I have considered the rival contentions and at the very outset I may observe that it is for the first time in the Court that the accused Satyawan @ Satta has been identified (dock identification) by the witnesses Sushil (PW25), Sanjay (PW36), Meena (PW37) and Kamla (PW50) in the Court which is despite the fact that Satyawan S/o Karan Singh was known to the witnesses being a resident of the same village even prior to the incident dated 21.4.2010. No Test Identification of the accused has been done by these witnesses nor he was arrested at the instance of any of these witnesses and hence the testimonies of Sushil (PW25), Sanjay (PW36), Meena (PW37) and Kamla (PW50 whose testimony has already been held to be unreliable by the Court to the extent of identification of the assailants) are liable to be rejected. I may also observe that the witness Shanti W/o Jugtiram who had previously named the accused Satyawan @ Satta in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has been declared hostile by the prosecution and she has not identified the accused Satyawan in the Court. The only witness who has named Satyawan @ Satta S/o Karan Singh in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and has also identified him in the Court is Manoj (PW45) who for the reasons already discussed herein above and not being repeated for the sake of brevity, has not been held to be a totally reliable witness and whose testimony would require independent reliable corroboration which in the present case is not forthcoming. Therefore under the given circumstances and applying the
test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Masalti Vs. State of UP (Supra) and State of UP Vs. Dan Singh (Supra), I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Satyawan @ Satta S/o Karan Singh and establish his presence at the spot at the time of the incident beyond reasonable doubt.
Allegations against the accused Daya Singh S/o Ajeet Singh:

In so far as the accused Daya Singh S/o Ajeet Singh is concerned he has been identified in the Court by the witnesses Sanjay (PW36), Vijender (PW40), Vicky (PW42), Manoj (PW45), Gulaba (PW48) and Kamla (PW50). For the sake of clarity and convenience the ocular evidence against the above accused is briefly culled out as under:
Sr. Name of No. the accused Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Name of the witness 1. Daya Singh S/o Ajeet Singh (1) Ramniwas S/o Inder Singh (not examined by the prosecution) (2) Nawab S/o Laxman (not examined by the prosecution) (3) Sanjay S/o Bani Singh (not examined by the prosecution) (4) Manoj S/o Allegations Rioting, damage to property, pouring kerosene oil Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the court Name of the Relevant witness testimony (1) Sanjay S/o Raja Ram (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 30.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) Indulging into burning of houses belonging to the members of 'B' community
(2) Vijender As the person S/o Surta (not who was having named in his a jellie in his
Page No. 817
Mahender (named in the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010)
statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) (3) Vicky S/o Dhoop Singh (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court)
hand and was attacking the persons from the 'B' community.
General allegations being a part of the unlawful assembly
(4) Manoj S/o As the person Mahender who along with others had set his house on fire (5) Gulab Singh S/o Jai Lal (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 23.4.2010 and 27.6.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) Arson and burning of houses, stone pelting and rioting
(6) Kamla W/o General Tara Chand allegation of

(not named in being a part of her statement the unlawful under Section assembly 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court)
Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that Daya S/o Ajeet Singh has not been named by Sanjay (PW36), Vijender (PW40), Vicky (PW42), Gulaba (PW48) and Kamla (PW50) and it is for the first time in the Court that he has been identified by Sanjay (PW36), Vijender (PW40), Vicky (PW42), Gulaba (PW48) and Kamla (PW50) despite the fact that he was known to them even prior to the incident being a resident of the same village. The Ld. Special Public Prosecutor on the other hand has opposed the ground raised by the Ld. Defence Counsel and has submitted that there is no reason to discard the testimonies of the above witnesses which find independent corroboration from the testimony of Manoj (PW45) who had specifically named this accused. I have considered the rival contentions and at the very outset I may observe that is the for the first time in the Court that the accused Daya S/o Ajeet has been identified (dock identification) by the witnesses Sanjay (PW36), Vijender (PW40), Vicky (PW42), Gulaba (PW48) and Kamla (PW50) which is despite the fact that Daya was known to the witnesses being a resident of the same village even prior to the incident dated 21.4.2010. No Test Identification of the accused has been conducted by these witnesses nor he was arrested at the instance of any of these witnesses and hence the testimonies of Sanjay (PW36), Vijender
(PW40), Vicky (PW42), Gulaba (PW48) and Kamla (PW50 whose testimony has already been rejected by the Court to the extent of identification of the assailants being unreliable) are liable to be rejected. I may also observe that the witnesses Ramniwas S/o Inder Singh, Nawab S/o Laxman and Sanjay S/o Bani Singh who had previously named the accused Daya S/o Ajeet in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have not been examined by the prosecution. The only witness who has named Daya S/o Ajeet in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and has also identified him in the Court is Manoj (PW45) who for the reasons already discussed herein above and not being repeated for the sake of brevity, has not been held to be a totally reliable witness whose testimony to the extent of identification of the accused can only be considered after reliable corroboration which in the present case is not forthcoming from any source. Therefore under the given circumstances and applying the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Masalti Vs. State of UP (Supra) and State of UP Vs. Dan Singh (Supra), I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Daya Singh S/o Ajeet Singh and establish his presence at the spot at the time of the incident beyond reasonable doubt.
Allegations against the accused Rupesh S/o Tek Ram:

In so far as the accused Rupesh S/o Tek Ram is concerned, he has been identified in the Court by Sanjay (PW36), Mahajan (PW38), Vicky (PW42) and Sanjay (PW44). For the sake of clarity and convenience the ocular evidence against the above accused is briefly
Page No. 820
culled out as under:

Sr. Name of Name of the witness who has No. the named/ identified the accused accused in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Name of the witness 1. Rupesh S/o Tek Ram (1) Ramphal S/o Rajmal (not examined by the prosecution) (2) Dharambir S/o Chandgi (not examined by the prosecution) (3) Sanjay S/o Gulab Singh (named the accused in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010) (4) Jagpal S/o Bir Singh (not examined by the prosecution) (5) Dhoop Singh S/o Rattan (does not identify the accused Rupesh in the Court) (6) Pawan S/o Jagat Singh (not examined by the prosecution) (7) Mahajan S/o Satpal (named in his statement under Allegations Rioting, damage to property by fire Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the court Name of the Relevant witness testimony (1) Sanjay S/o Raja Ram (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 30.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) (2) Mahajan S/o Satpal Stone pelting and damging household properties by entering the houses
Arson and burning of houses belonging to the members of 'B' community General allegations of being a part of the unlawful assembly
(3) Vicky S/o Dhoop Singh (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court)
(4) Sanjay S/o Setting the Gulab Singh houses on fire
Page No. 821
Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 23.4.2010)
Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that it is not safe to rely upon the uncorroborated testimony of Sanjay (PW36), Mahajan (PW38), Vicky (PW42) and Sanjay (PW44) being unreliable and inconsistent. The Ld. Special Public Prosecutor has opposed the argument of the Ld. Defence Counsel and has pointed out that both Mahajan (PW38) and Sanjay (PW44) at the first instance have named Rupesh S/o Tek Ram in their statements to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and there is no reason to disbelieve their version. I have considered the rival contentions. At the very outset I may observe that it is for the first time in the Court that the accused Rupesh S/o Tek Chand has been identified (dock identification) by the witnesses Sanjay (PW36) and Vicky (PW42) despite the fact that he is a resident of the same village. I may observe that no Test Identification of the accused has been conducted nor was the accused apprehended at the instance of these witnesses who have now identified him in the Court. The accused Rupesh S/o Tek Ram has raised a plea of alibi claiming that being a regular employee (Clerk) at Rishikul Public School, Jind he was present in the school from morning till later afternoon and had nothing to do with the happening in the village. In this regard Manoj Kumar (DW12) has proved the attendance record of Rupesh dated 21.4.2010 vide Ex.DW12/A showing the presence of the accused Rupesh in Rishikul Public School since 7:30 AM to 3:00 PM. Manoj Kumar (DW12) has been subjected to a sustained crossSt. Vs. Dharambir Etc, FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaund (Haryana) Page No. 822
examination wherein he has explained that in case if any employee leaves the school premises during the day the attendance register would reflect this fact and the employee cannot leave the school without marking in the register. In this regard I may observe that there was no such marking in the register of the School showing that Rupesh had left the school premises during the day. This being the background it is not safe to rely upon the uncorroborated and unsubstantiated testimony of Mahajan (PW38) who had initially made general allegations against the accused Rupesh and now in his deposition before the Court has for the first time identified Rupesh as the person who was indulging into arson and burning of houses belonging to the members of 'B' community. Similarly Sanjay (PW44) for the reasons already discussed herein above in detail and not being repeated for the sake of brevity, has also not been held to be totally reliable thereby warranting an independent corroboration to his testimony which is not forthcoming to an extent so as to successfully demolish the defence of alibi put forward by the accused. The possibility of exaggerations and implication cannot be ruled out. Therefore under the given circumstances and applying the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Masalti Vs. State of UP (Supra) and State of UP Vs. Dan Singh (Supra), I hereby hold that there being no reliable corroboration forthcoming to the testimony of both Mahajan (PW38) and Sanjay (PW44) so as to discredit the attendance record of Rupesh S/o Tek Ram, the prosecution has failed to successfully establish the presence of Rupesh S/o Tek Ram at the spot at the time of incident beyond reasonable doubt.
Page No. 823
Allegations against the accused Rajbir S/o Mai Chand:

In so far as the accused Rajbir S/o MaiChand is concerned, he has been identified in the Court by Sushil (PW25), Sanjay (36), Meena (PW37), Vijender (PW40), Sanjay (PW44) and Kamla (PW50). For the sake of clarity and convenience the ocular evidence against the above accused is briefly culled out as under:
Sr. Name of Name of the witness who has No. the named/ identified the accused accused in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Name of the witness 1. Rajbir S/o (1) Sanjay S/o Mai Bani Singh Chand (not examined by the prosecution) (2) Vijender s/o Surta (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010) (3) Sanjay S/o Gulab (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010) (4) Vicky S/o Dhoop Singh (does not identify the accused Rajbir in the Court) (5) Mahajan S/o Satpal (does not Allegations Rioting, damage to property by fire, causing injuries Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the court Name of the Relevant witness testimony (1) Sushil S/o Surta (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) (2) Sanjay S/o Raja Ram (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 30.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) (3) Meena Kumar S/o As the person who was indulging into tor-phor and was dancing naked
Stone pelting, damage to household properties by entering the houses
As the person who was having

Page No. 824
identify the accused Rajbir in the Court)
Satpal (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 30.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) (4) Vijender S/o Surta
a lathi in his hand with which he was attacking the persons from the 'B' Basti and indulging into stone pelting
Named but not identified
(5) Sanjay S/o Sprinkled oil Gulab Singh and on his house (6) Kamla W/o Tara Chand (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) General allegations of rioting and arson
Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that it is not safe to rely upon the uncorroborated testimony of Sushil (PW25), Sanjay (36), Meena (PW37), Vijender (PW40), Sanjay (PW44) and Kamla (PW50) being unreliable and inconsistent. The Ld. Special Public Prosecutor has opposed the argument of the Ld. Defence Counsel and has pointed out that both Vijender and Sanjay at the first instance have named Rajbir S/o Mai Chand in their statements to the Investigating
Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and there is no reason to disbelieve their version. I have considered the rival contentions. At the very outset I may observe that it is for the first time in the Court that the accused Rajbir @ Nanha S/o Mai Chand has been identified (dock identification) by the witnesses Sushil (PW25), Sanjay (36), Meena (PW37) and Kamla (PW50) despite the fact that he is a resident of the same village. No Test Identification of the accused has been conducted by these witnesses nor the accused has been apprehended at the instance of the witnesses who have identified him in the Court. I may also add that despite the fact that Sanjay S/o Bani Singh, Vijender S/o Surta, Vicky S/o Dhoop Singh and Mahajan S/o Satpal had named the accused Rajbir in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but Vijender S/o Surta, Vicky S/o Dhoop Singh and Mahajan S/o Satpal have not identified him in the Court whereas Sanjay S/o Bani has not been examined by the prosecution. Here I may specifically observe that in so far as the witnesses Vijender (PW40) and Sanjay (PW44) are concerned they have at the first instance in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have named the accused Rajbir @ Nanha but Vijender (PW40) did not name or even identify Rajbir @ Nanha of his own at the first instance. It was only when the Special Public Prosecutor with the permission of the Court refreshed the memory of Vijender that he admitted having named Rajbir @ Nanha to the Investigating Officer as one of the assailants but again when the accused were specifically put to him for the purposes of identification he did not identify Rajbir @ Nanha as one of the assailants and therefore his testimony to the extent of identification of Rajbir @ Nanha is unreliable and liable to be rejected.
Coming now to the testimony of Sanjay (PW44) for the reasons already discussed herein above and not being repeated for the sake of brevity, has not been held to be reliable witness whose testimony would require a reliable corroboration on the aspect of identification of the accused Rajbir @ Nanha which in the present case is not forthcoming. Therefore under the given circumstances and applying the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Masalti Vs. State of UP (Supra) and State of UP Vs. Dan Singh (Supra), I hereby hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against the accused Rajbir @ Nanhe S/o Mai Chand and establish his present at the spot at the time of the incident beyond reasonable doubt.
Allegations against the accused Pradeep S/o Jaibir:

Now coming to the allegations against the accused Pradeep S/o Jaibir who has been identified in the Court by Sanjay (PW36), Vicky (PW42) and Pradeep (PW49). For the sake of clarity and convenience the ocular evidence against the above accused is briefly culled out as under:
Sr. Name of Name of the witness who has No. the named/ identified the accused accused in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Name of the witness 1. Pradeep (1) Vicky S/o S/o Jaibir Dhoop Singh (named in the statement dated 27.6.2010) Allegations Caused injuries by pelting stones and damaged the property. Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the court Name of the witness (1) Sanjay (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated Relevant Testimony As the person who was indulging into stone pelting and damaging household
Page No. 827
(2) Krishna w/o Raghbir (turned hostile and does not identify the accused Pradeep in the Court) (3) Pradeep S/o Tara Chand (named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010)
30.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) (2) Vicky
articles and properties by entering the houses As the person who along with many other boys were sprinkling oil on the walls of their shop and setting it on fire
(3) Pradeep
As one of the assailants
Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that it is not safe to rely upon the uncorroborated testimony of Sanjay (PW36), Vicky and Pradeep (PW49) being unreliable and inconsistent. The Ld. Special Public Prosecutor has opposed the argument of the Ld. Defence Counsel and has pointed out that both Vicky and Pradeep at the first instance have named Pradeep S/o Jaibir in their statements to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. I have considered the rival contentions. In so far as the witness Sanjay (PW36) is concerned, vide a detail discussion not being repeated for the sake of brevity, he has been held to be an unreliable witness qua the identity of the accused and therefore his testimony to the extent of identification of accused Pradeep S/o Jaibir is rejected more so because it is for the first time in the Court that the witness Sanjay has identified (dock identification) the accused Pradeep S/o Jaibir. In so far as the witnesses Vicky (PW42) and Pradeep (PW49) are concerned, they
have both been held to be not totally reliable and therefore their testimonies would require corroboration. In the present case both Vicky (PW42) and Pradeep (PW49) had earlier in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. specifically named the accused Pradeep S/o Jaibir as the person who was indulging into stone pelting and causing damage to the properties though in his testimony before the Court Vicky (PW49) has made an allegation regarding the accused being one of the persons who had sprinkled kerosene and set his house on fire. Dhoop Singh (PW29) the father of Vicky (PW42) who has been held by this Court to be a reliable witness does not identify or name Pradeep S/o Jaibir as one of the boys who had entered his house along with the assailants and set it on fire. Had that been so Dhoop Singh would have certainly identified him as one of the persons who had set his house on fire along with the other boys who have been so identified by Dhoop Singh. Under these circumstances the testimony of Vicky to the extent that Pradeep had set his house on fire does not find a corroboration from the testimony of his own father and is liable to disbelieved. However, I may observe that both Vicky (PW42) and Pradeep (PW49) corroborate each other on the aspect of Pradeep S/o Jaibir being present in the 'B' Basti at the time of the incident and indulging into stone pelting. No doubt, at the time of the incident the presence of Pradeep and Vicky in their respective houses has not been established but that in itself would be no reason to reject their entire testimony since the possibility of their presence in the village at another place in the 'B' Basti cannot be ruled out. Hence, under the given circumstances, I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to prove and establish beyond doubt the aspect of presence of the accused Pradeep
S/o Jaibir at the spot at the time of the incident along with the other persons constituting an unlawful assembly and indulging into stone pelting.
Allegations against the accused Sumit S/o Satyawan:

In so far as the accused Sumit S/o Satyawan is concerned he has been identified in the Court by Vicky (PW42), Manoj (PW45) and Kamla (PW50). For the sake of clarity and convenience the ocular evidence against the above accused is briefly culled out as under:
Sr. Name of Name of the witness who has No. the named/ identified the accused accused in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Name of the witness 1. Sumit S/o (1) Chander S/o Satyawan Laxman (not examined by the prosecution) (2) Ramniwas S/o Inder (not examined by the prosecution) (3) Pawan S/o Jagat (not examined by the prosecution) (4) Suresh S/o Chander (not examined by the
Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the court Name of the Allegations witness (1) Vicky As one of the assailants who burnt their houses and dancing naked on the streets As the person who had set his house on fire General allegations of rioting and arson
Allegations Rioting, damage to property by fire, causing death and injuries
(2) Manoj
(3) Kamla (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dt. 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court)
Page No. 830
prosecution) (5) Vicky S/o Dhoop Singh (named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010) (6) Manoj S/o Mahender (named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010)
Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that it is not safe to rely upon the uncorroborated testimony of Vicky (PW42), Manoj (PW45) and Kamla being unreliable and inconsistent in their testimonies. The Ld. Special Public Prosecutor has opposed the argument of the Ld. Defence Counsel and has pointed out that Vicky at the first instance named Sumit S/o Satyawan in his statement to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW42/PX1. I have considered the rival contentions. At the very outset I may observe that in so far as the witness Kamla (PW50) is concerned, vide a detail discussion not being repeated for the sake of brevity, she has not been held to be a reliable witness and her testimony qua the identity of the accused Sumit therefore stands rejected. The accused Sumit has also been identified in the Court by both Vicky (PW42) and Manoj (PW45) who had earlier named him in their statements to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Vicky has identified Sumit as the person who had burnt their houses and was dancing naked
on the streets whereas Manoj has identified him as the person who had set his house on fire. Here, I may observe that in so far as the testimony of Vicky (PW42) is concerned, Dhoop Singh (PW29) the father of Vicky who has been held by this Court a reliable witness, has not identified Sumit as one of the boy who had entered his house or caused damage to his property by setting it on fire. Hence under these circumstances the testimony of Vicky who has not been held by this Court to be a totally reliable witness, to the extent that Sumit was one of the rioters who had set fire to his house is not acceptable nor is the allegation made by him in the Court for the first time that Sumit was dancing naked on the street. In fact I may observe that it is for the first time now in the Court that this allegation has been made which was never made by any of the prosecution witnesses to the police previously and the chances of exaggeration and improvement on account of tutoring cannot be ruled out. Further, in so far as the testimony of Manoj (PW45) is concerned, according to him the accused Sumit had set his house on fire and dancing naked on the street. Here, I may however observe that this testimony of Manoj (PW45) that it was Sumit who had set his house on fire does not find corroboration from any other source. Also, the allegation with regard to Sumit dancing naked on the streets has now been made in the Court by him for the first time and the possibility of this being so on account of exaggeration and tutoring cannot be ruled out. I may however observe that Sumit had been earlier named by both Vicky (PW42) and Manoj (PW45) to the police and they have also now identified him in the Court as one of the persons who was indulging into
stone pelting and their testimonies corroborate each other on this aspect. Here, I may mention that the FSL report Ex.PX1 does not establish the presence of Hydrocarbons of Petroleum (kerosene, petrol or diesel) and hence the oral testimonies of both Vicky and Manoj to the extent that Sumit was sprinkling kerosene and setting the houses on fire does not stand substantiated. In view of the aforesaid I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to successfully establish and prove the presence of the accused Sumit S/o Satyawan at the spot at the time of the incident and as one of the persons who was indulging into stone pelting and causing damage thereof.
Allegations against the accused Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand:

In so far as the accused Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand is concerned he has been identified in the Court by Vicky (PW42), Dilbagh (PW43) and Kamla (PW50). For the sake of clarity and convenience the ocular evidence against the above accused is briefly culled out as under:
Sr. Name of Name of the witness who has No. the named/ identified the accused accused in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Name of the witness 1. Rajpal S/o (1) Sanjay S/o Sheo Satpal Chand (does not identify the accused) (2) Jagpal S/o Bir Singh (not examined by the Allegations Rioting, damage to property by fire, set on fire the motorcycle
Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the court Name of the Relevant witness testimony (1) Vicky As the person who along with many others were sprinkling oil on the walls of his shop and setting it on fire.
Page No. 833
prosecution) (3) Suresh S/o Chander (not examined by the prosecution) (3) Vicky S/o Dhoop Singh (named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010) (3) Manoj S/o Mahender (does not identify the accused) (4) Dilbagh S/o Gulab Singh (named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010)
(2) Dilbagh
As the boy who had broken the door of his house and set it on fire General allegations of rioting and arson
Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that Dilbagh (PW43) is the son of Gulab Singh (PW48) who is not a reliable witness since he has been changing his statement time and again. It is pointed out that his testimony before the Court is self contradictory and it is evident that he was not present near his house at the time of incident but was rather witnessing the incident and therefore it is not possible for him to have identified the assailants. It is argued that Dilbagh had also filed affidavit and given a statement before the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Iqbal Singh (Retd.) Commission of Inquiry Mirchpur, Haryana which is Ex.DW30/A and Ex.DW30/B wherein he did not name or identify any person as the assailant and therefore his testimony is liable to be rejected.
Page No. 834
He has further argued that both Vicky (PW42) and Kamla (PW50) are totally untrustworthy and unreliable and their testimonies cannot be used to corroborate the testimony of Dilbagh. Ld. Special Public Prosecutor has vehemently argued that the submissions made by the Ld. Defence Counsels are totally unacceptable in view of the provisions of Section 6 of Commission of Inquiry Act. I have considered the rival contentions and I may observe that in so far witness Kamla (PW50) is concerned, vide a detail discussion she has been held to be unreliable and hence her testimony qua the identity of the accused Rajpal is rejected. Further, in so far as the witnesses Vicky (PW42) and Dilbagh (PW44) are concerned, vide a detail discussion not being repeated for the sake of brevity, they have both been held to be not totally reliable and therefore, their testimonies are required to be read with care and would be reliable to the extent of corroboration. The accused Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand had been initially named by the witnesses Sanjay S/o Satpal, Jagpal S/o Bir Singh, Suresh S/o Chander and Manoj S/o Mahender out of whom Jagpal S/o Bir Singh and Suresh S/o Chander have not been examined by the prosecution whereas Sanjay S/o Satpal and Manoj S/o Mahender have turned hostile on the identity of the accused Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand and have not identified him in the Court as one of the assailants. Further, in so far as Vicky (PW42) is concerned initially in his statement made to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. he had named the accused Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand as one of the person who was indulging into rioting and causing damage to the property by setting it on fire whereas now being in the Court he has specifically identified him as the
person who along with others was sprinkling oil on the walls of his shop and setting it on fire. In this regard I may observe that Dhoop Singh (PW29) the father of Vicky who had sustained injuries in the incident dated 21.4.2010 and has been held to be a reliable witness, does not identify the accused Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand as one of the assailants who had come to his house and set it on fire. Therefore under these circumstances, the testimony of Vicky (PW42) does not find due corroboration from his own father Dhoop Singh on the aspect of Rajpal setting fire to his own house after sprinkling kerosene, is unreliable. However, this would not mean that his testimony to the extent that he had seen Rajpal indulging into rioting in the 'B' Basti can be out-rightly rejected. In fact to the extent of corroboration it can always be looked into. In so far as the witness Dilbagh (PW43) is concerned he was witnessing this incident from a distance of one killa and under these circumstances his vision has been held by the Court as obstructed and the possibility of his clearly identifying any of the assailants who had caused damage to his house is remote. Even otherwise the photograph Ex.PW3/A-108 shows no damage to his property either by fire or otherwise. However the testimony of Dilbagh to the extent of that Rajpal was indulging into rioting cannot be out-rightly rejected. It is evident that assailants had spread out all over the 'B' Basti and Dilbagh who was witnessing the incident from a distance could have certainly identified some of the assailants who were in the vicinity and causing damage to the properties of other 'B' and perhaps it is for this reason that he has mentioned the name of Rajpal as one of the rioters in his first statement made to the police on the same day which aspect finds a corroboration to
a limited extent from the testimony of Vicky (PW42). Here, I may mention that the FSL report Ex.PX1 does not establish the presence of Hydrocarbons of Petroleum (kerosene, petrol or diesel) and hence the oral testimonies of both Vicky and Dilbagh to the extent that Rajpal was sprinkling kerosene and setting the houses on fire does not stand substantiated. Therefore, under these circumstances I hereby hold that in so far as the allegations regarding Rajpal sprinkling kerosene on houses and setting them on fire is concerned, the same have not been proved and substantiated beyond reasonable doubt. However, the presence of accused Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand at the spot at the time of the incident as a part of the unlawful assembly and indulging into stone pelting and causing damage thereof stand substantiated and proved.
Allegations against the accused Pradeep S/o Suresh:

In so far as the accused Pradeep S/o Suresh is concerned, he has been identified in the Court by Vicky (PW42), Manoj (PW45), Pradeep (PW49) and Kamla (PW50). culled out as under:
Sr. Name of Name of the witness who has No. the named/ identified the accused accused in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Name of the witness 1. Pradeep S/o Suresh (1) Suresh S/o Chander (not examined by the prosecution) Allegations Rioting, damage to property by fire, causing death and injuries Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the court Name of the Relevant witness testimony (1) Vicky S/o Dhoop Singh As one of the assailants
For the sake of clarity and
convenience the ocular evidence against the above accused is briefly
(2) Manoj S/o As one of the Mahender boy who was a

Page No. 837
(2) Vicky S/o Dhoop Singh (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010) (3) Abhishek S/o Sanjay (turned hostile on the identity of accused Pradeep) (4) Pradeep S/o Tara Chand (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010)
(not named in his statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 & 27.6.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) (3) Pradeep S/o Tara Chand (4) Kamla (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court)
part of the crowd indulging into stone pelting, arson and burning of other houses in the 'B' Basti.
As one of the assailants General allegations of rioting and arson
Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that it is not safe to rely upon the uncorroborated testimony of Vicky (PW42), Manoj (PW45), Pradeep (PW49) and Kamla (PW50) being unreliable and inconsistent. The Ld. Special Public Prosecutor has opposed the argument of the Ld. Defence Counsel and has pointed out that both Vicky and Pradeep at the first instance have named Pradeep S/o Suresh in their statements to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. I have considered the rival contentions. In so far as the witness Kamla (PW50) is concerned this Court has already for the reasons discussed herein above in detail and not being repeated for the
Page No. 838
sake of brevity has been held to be an unreliable witness whose testimony qua the identification of the accused stands rejected. In so far as Manoj (PW45) is concerned he has for the first time in the Court identified (dock identification) the accused Pradeep S/o Suresh and therefore his testimony is unacceptable. However in so far as the witnesses Vicky (PW42) and Pradeep (PW49) are concerned, vide a detail discussion not being repeated for the sake of brevity, this Court has held both Vicky and Pradeep not totally reliable whose testimonies can be considered subject to reliable corroboration. In the present case both Vicky (PW42) and Pradeep (PW49) had at the first instance in their earlier statements made to the IO under Section 161 Cr.P.C. specifically named the accused Pradeep S/o Suresh as the person who was indulging into rioting, causing damage to property by fire and also of causing death and injuries and I, therefore, find no reason to disbelieve their testimonies on the aspects of identification of the accused and his presence at the spot at the time of the incident is concerned. However in their testimonies before the Court both Vicky (PW42) and Pradeep (PW49) have made general allegations regarding the accused Pradeep being one of the assailants who was a part of unlawful assembly and therefore the specific allegations regarding Pradeep S/o Suresh causing damage to property by fire and of causing death and injuries do not stand substantiate and proved. More so in view of the FSL report Ex.PX1 which does not establish the presence of Hydrocarbons of Petroleum (kerosene, petrol or diesel). Therefore the oral testimonies of both Vicky (PW42) and Pradeep (PW49) to the extent that accused Pradeep S/o Suresh was sprinkling kerosene and setting the houses on fire does not find corroboration from the forensic evidence.
Therefore, I hereby hold that the presence of the accused Pradeep S/o Suresh at the spot at the time of the incident along with the other persons constituting an unlawful assembly and indulging into stone pelting stand established and proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Allegations against the accused Sunil S/o Daya Nand:

In so far as the accused Sunil S/o Daya Nand is concerned, it is evident that he has been identified in the Court by Vicky (PW42), Gulaba (PW48), Pradeep (PW49) and Kamla (PW50). For the sake of clarity and convenience the ocular evidence against the above accused is briefly culled out as under:
Sr. Name of Name of the witness who has No. the named/ identified the accused accused in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Name of the witness 1. Sunil S/o Daya Nand (1) Suresh S/o Chander (not examined by the prosecution) (2) Vicky S/o Dhoop Singh (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 26.7.2010) (3) Aman S/o Surta (does not identify the accused) Allegations Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the court Name of the Relevant witness testimony As the person who had come to their shop and indulging into damage (tor-hor) to his property and arson As the person who was indulging into arson, burning of houses, stone pelting and rioting. As one of the assailant
Caused (1) Vicky S/o damage to the Dhoop Singh property and poured kerosene oil
(2) Gulab Singh S/o Jai Lal
(3) Pradeep S/o Tara Chand
Page No. 840
(4) Gulab Singh S/o Jai Lal (named in his statement under Section 23.4.2010)
(not named in his statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) General (4) Kamla allegations of (not named in rioting and the statement arson under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court)
Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that the only persons identifying Sunil S/o Daya Nand are Vicky (PW42), Gulaba (PW48), Pradeep (PW49) and Kamla (PW50) of whom Pradeep and Kamla have identified Sunil for the first time in the Court despite the fact that he was known to them previously being a resident of the same village. Ld. Special Public Prosecution has opposed the ground raised by the Ld. Defence Counsel and has argued that there is no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of Vicky (PW42) and Gulaba (PW48) who have been very consistent in their depositions having already named the accused previously in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. I have considered the rival contentions. At the very outset I may observe that initially it was Suresh S/o Chander, Vicky S/o Dhoop Singh and Gulab Singh S/o Jai Lal who had named the accused Sunil S/o
Daya Nand in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but Suresh S/o Chander has not been examined by the prosecution and Aman S/o Surta has been declared hostile and has not identified the accused Suresh. I may further observe that in so far as Kamla (PW50) is concerned for the reasons already discussed and not being repeated for the sake of brevity, she has been held to be an unreliable witness to the extent of the identification of the assailants and her testimony stands rejected. Even otherwise, it is for the first time in the Court that the accused Sunil S/o Daya Nand there has been identified (dock identification) by the witnesses Pradeep (PW49) and Kamla (PW50) which is despite the fact that he was known to the witnesses being a resident of the same village. No Test Identification has been conducted by these witnesses nor the accused Sunil was arrested at the instance and pointing out of Pradeep and Kamla. Therefore under these circumstances the testimonies of both Pradeep (PW49) and Kamla (PW50) qua the identification of accused Sunil are liable to be rejected. However, in so far as the witnesses Vicky (PW42) and Gulab Singh (PW48) are concerned, they have specifically named Sunil S/o Daya Nand in their statements to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. at the first instance and have also identified him in the Court as one of the assailants who was indulging into rioting, torphor, sprinkling of kerosene oil and burning of houses. In this regard I may observe that Dhoop Singh (PW29) the father of Vicky has been held to be a reliable witness who had sustained grievous injury in the incident dated 21.4.2010. He at the first instance had made a statement to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. where he does not name or identify the accused Sunil S/o Daya Nand as one of the assailants who had come to
his house and sprinkled kerosene and set it on fire and hence there is an apparent contradiction in the testimony of Vicky (PW42) and Dhoop Singh (PW29) in this regard. In so far as Gulab Singh is concerned his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was also recorded soon after the incident on 23.4.2010 and also on 27.6.2010 and Gulab Singh has named Sunil at the very first instance in his earlier statement dated 23.4.2010 and also identified him in the Court. However in so far as the allegations made by Gulab Singh against Sunil with regard to causing fire and damage to properties are concerned I may observe that Gulab Singh was the first person who had received injuries even before the actual incident of stone pelting and rioting had commenced on 21.4.2010 and soon after the incident he was brought back to his house by residents of the village where he was given home treatment and where he remained till the police shifted him to the hospital. Therefore, Gulab Singh has himself admitting that he was lying on his cot thereafter and therefore under the given circumstances though it is possible that he would have seen Sunil s/o Daya Nand along with the other boys of the assailant community yet it is not possible under the given circumstances and also keeping in view of the fact that he was shifted to the hospital for treatment on the same day that he would have gone to the main street/ gali to witness what transpired thereafter. Here, I may mention that the FSL report Ex.PX1 does not establish the presence of Hydrocarbons of Petroleum (kerosene, petrol or diesel) and hence the oral testimony of Vicky (PW42) to the extent that the accused Sunil S/o Daya Nand was sprinkling kerosene and had also set his house on fire also does not find a corroboration from the forensic evidence on record and is unreliable and cannot be believed.
Page No. 843
Therefore in this background, I hereby hold that the allegations against the accused Sunil S/o Daya Nand with regard to the setting of houses on fire have not been established and proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, his presence at the spot of the incident along with the other members of the unlawful assembly where he was indulging into stone pelting stands established.
Allegations against the accused Monu S/o Suresh:

In so far as the accused Monu S/o Suresh is concerned, he has been identified in the Court by Mahajan (PW38), Sanjay (PW44), Pradeep (PW49) and Kamla (PW50). culled out as under:
Sr. Name of Name of the witness who has No. the named/ identified the accused accused in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Name of the witness 1. Monu S/o (1) Rajender S/o Suresh Mahender (2) Dharambir S/o Chandgi (3) Sunita W/o Surta (4) Jagpal S/o Bir Singh (5) Amar S/o Tara Cahnd (6) Sanjay S/o Bani Singh (7) Suresh S/o Chander (8) Manan S/o Surta Allegations Rioting, pouring kerosene oil and damage to property Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the court Name of the Relevant witness testimony (1) Mahajan S/o Satpal As the boy who was burning the houses belonging to the members of 'B' community
For the sake of clarity and
convenience the ocular evidence against the above accused is briefly
(2) Sanjay S/o As the boy who Gulab Singh along with other had come to the 'B' Basti, pelting stones and set the houses on fire after damaging
Page No. 844
(9) Mahajan S/o Satpal (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010) (10) Sanjay S/o Sube Singh (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010)
the property and thereafter burnt the house of Tara Chand (3) Pradeep S/o Tara Chand (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) (4) Kamla W/o Tara Chand (not named in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the court) General allegations of being a part of the unlawful assembly
Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that it is not safe to rely upon the uncorroborated testimony of Mahajan (PW38), Sanjay (PW44), Pradeep (PW49) and Kamla (PW50) being unreliable and inconsistent. The Ld. Special Public Prosecutor has opposed the argument of the Ld. Defence Counsel and has pointed out that both Mahajan and Sanjay at the first instance have named Monu S/o Suresh in their statements to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and there is no reason to disbelieve their version.
I have considered the rival contentions. At the very outset I may observe that it is for the first time in the Court that the accused Monu S/o Suresh has been identified (dock identification) by the witnesses Pradeep (PW49) and Kamla (PW50) despite the fact that he is a resident of the same village. I may observe that no Test Identification of the accused has been conducted nor the accused has been apprehended at the instance of the witnesses who have identified him in the Court. Further, in so far as the witnesses Mahajan (PW38) and Sanjay (PW44) are concerned they have at the first instance in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have named the accused Monu. Both these witnesses Mahajan and Sanjay have not been held to be totally reliable and their testimonies would require corroboration. In the Court both Mahajan and Sanjay have corroborated each other not only on the identification of the accused Monu but have also corroborated each other on the role attributed to him that is of indulging into rioting, damaging and burning the houses of the persons belonging to the 'B' community and there is no reason to disbelieve their statements to this extent. However in so far as the statement of Sanjay (PW44) to the extent that the accused was also instrumental in setting the house of Tara Chand on fire is concerned, the same does not inspire confidence as it does not find any corroboration from the testimony of any other eye witness including Amar Lal (CW1) the son of the deceased Tara Chand and Sheela (PW32) the neighbour of deceased Tara Chand and therefore, I am not inclined to accept the same. In view of the above I hereby hold that the allegations against the accused Monu S/o Suresh with regard to the setting of house of Tara Chand on fire is concerned, the same has not been established and proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, his
presence at the spot of the incident along with the other members of the unlawful assembly where he was indulging into stone pelting stands established.
Allegations against the accused Baljeet S/o Inder:

In so far as the accused Baljeet S/o Inder Singh is concerned, he has been identified in the Court by Sanjay (PW36), Mahajan (PW38), Vicky (PW42), Sanjay (PW44), Manoj (PW45) and Gulaba (PW48). For the sake of clarity and convenience the ocular evidence against the above accused is briefly culled out as under:
Sr. Name of Name of the witness who has No. the named/ identified the accused accused in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Name of the witness 1. Baljeet S/o Inder (1) Pradeep S/o Tara (does not identify the accused in the Court) (2) Sanjay S/o Gulab (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010) (3) Rajkumar S/o Kapoora (not examined by the prosecution) Allegations Poured kerosene oil, caused injures and mischief by fire.
Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the court Name of the Relevant witness testimony (1) Sanjay S/o Raja Ram (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 30.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) (2) Mahajan S/o Satpal As the boy who was having a jellie in his hand and was running towards him and other persons from the 'B' Basti
Arson and burning of houses belonging to the members of 'B' community

Page No. 847
(4) Kamla S/o Tara Chand (not examined by the prosecution) (5) Mahajan S/o Satpal (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 23.4.2010) (6) Manoj S/o Mahender (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010)
(3) Vicky S/o Dhoop Singh (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court)
General allegations of being a part of unlawful assembly
(4) Sanjay S/o Sprinkled oil on Gulab Singh his house and set it on fire (5) Manoj S/o As the boy Mahender who along with others indulging into stone pelting, arson and burning of other houses in the 'B' Basti (6) Gulaba S/o Rattan (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 23.4.2010 & 27.6.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) Arson, burning of houses, stone throwing and rioting
Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that it is not safe to rely upon the uncorroborated testimony of Sanjay (PW36), Mahajan (PW38), Vicky (PW42), Sanjay (PW44), Manoj (PW45) and
Gulaba (PW48) being unreliable and inconsistent.
The Ld. Special
Public Prosecutor has opposed the argument of the Ld. Defence Counsel and has pointed out that both Mahajan (PW38), Manoj (PW45) and Gulab Singh (PW48) at the first instance have named Baljeet S/o Inder in their statements to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and there is no reason to disbelieve their version. I have considered the rival contentions. At the very outset I may observe that it is for the first time in the Court that the accused Baljeet S/o Inder has been identified (dock identification) by the witnesses Sanjay (PW36), Vicky (PW42) and Gulab Singh (PW48) despite the fact that he is a resident of the same village. I may observe that no Test Identification of the accused has been conducted nor the accused has been apprehended at the instance of the witnesses who have identified him in the Court. Further, in so far as the witnesses Mahajan (PW38), Sanjay (PW44) and Manoj (PW45) are concerned they have at the first instance in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have named the accused Baljeet. All these three witnesses Mahajan, Sanjay and Manoj have not been held to be totally reliable and their testimonies require corroboration. In their statements before the Court, the witnesses Mahajan, Sanjay and Manoj have corroborated each other not only on the identification of the accused Baljeet but have also on the role attributed to him that is of indulging into rioting and damaging the houses of persons belonging to the 'B' community by setting them on fire. Here, I may observe that the FSL report Ex.PX1 does not establish the presence of Hydrocarbons of Petroleum (kerosene, petrol or diesel) and therefore under these circumstances it does not stand conclusively
established that Baljeet had set the houses on fire. I may further observe that not even a single prosecution witness examined in the Court has identified his property in any of the photographs placed on record nor had they proved the damage caused by fire to their property. In fact Mahajan, Sanjay and Manoj have nowhere alleged that it was Baljeet who had set their property on fire. Rather, the evidence of the property of Mahajan, Sanjay and Manoj having been set on fire is totally lacking. The photographs placed on record only reflect damage to the property of Sanjay but here I may observe that the said photographs have not been proved by Sanjay but have been so identified by Amar Lal (CW1) at the final stage of the proceedings. Also, in so far as Manoj is concerned, the only photograph placed on record is reflecting the damage caused to the motorcycle of his brother in law which was parked outside the boundary wall in the Gher situated in front of the house of Sube Singh and Manoj does not identify Baljeet as the person who had set it on fire. This being the background, I hereby hold that the presence of the accused Baljeet S/o Inder at the spot at the time of the incident along with the other persons constituting an unlawful assembly and indulging into stone pelting and damaging the properties of persons of 'B' community stand established.
Allegations against the accused Karambir S/o Tara Chand:

In so far as the accused Karambir S/o Tara Chand is concerned, he has been identified in the Court by Rani (PW33), Sube Singh (PW39), Dilbagh (PW43), Sanjay (PW44), Manoj (PW45), Pradeep (PW49) and Kamla (PW50). For the sake of clarity and convenience the ocular evidence against the above accused is briefly
culled out as under:

Sr. Name of Name of the witness who has No. the named/ identified the accused accused in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Name of the witness 1. Karambir (1) Sube Singh S/o Tara S/o Bhura Ram Chand (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Dated 21.4.2010) (2) Dilbagh S/o Sube Singh (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Dated 21.4.2010) (3) Sanjay S/o Gulab Singh (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010) (4) Manoj S/o Mahender (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Dated 21.4.2010) (5) Pradeep S/o Tara Chand (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010)
Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the court Name of the Relevant witness testimony (1) Rani W/o Sanjay (not named in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 30.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) As the boy who was having a lathi in his hand and was running after the 'B'
(2) Sube Singh As the boy who S/o Bhura had come to his Ram house and set it on fire (3) Dilbagh S/o Sube Singh As the boy indulging into stone pelting
(4) Sanjay S/o As the boy who Gulab Singh had set his house on fire (5) Manoj S/o Part of the Mahender Crowd indulging into stone pelting (6) Pradeep S/o Tara Chand General allegations of being a part of unlawful assembly
Page No. 851
(6) Kamla W/o Tara Chand (named in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010) (7) Satyawan S/o Roshan (does not identity the accused Karambir in the Court)
(7) Kamla W/o General Tara Chand allegations of being a part of unlawful assembly
Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that it is not safe to rely upon the uncorroborated testimony of Rani (PW33), Sube Singh (PW39), Dilbagh (PW43), Sanjay (PW44), Manoj (PW45), Pradeep (PW49) and Kamla (PW50) being unreliable and inconsistent. The Ld. Special Public Prosecutor has opposed the argument of the Ld. Defence Counsel and has pointed out that Sube Singh (PW39), Dilbagh (PW43), Sanjay (PW44), Manoj (PW45), Pradeep (PW49) and Kamla (PW50), Mahajan (PW38), Manoj (PW45) and Gulab Singh (PW48) have all at the first instance named Karambir S/o Tara Chand in their statements to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and there is no reason to disbelieve their version. I have considered the rival contentions. At the very outset I may observe that the witness Satyawan S/o Roshan who had earlier named the accused Karambir in his statement made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has failed to identify him in the Court. I may further observe that it is for the first time in the Court that the accused Karambir
Page No. 852
S/o Tara Chand has been identified (dock identification) by the witness Rani (PW33) despite the fact that he is a resident of the same village and was known to her even prior to the incident. It is evident that no Test Identification of the accused has been conducted nor the accused has been apprehended at the instance of the witness Rani who has identified him in the Court and therefore under these circumstances and also for the reasons already discussed herein above since Rani has been held to be an unreliable witness her testimony qua the identification of accused Karambir is rejected. In so far as the witnesses Sube Singh (PW39), Dilbagh (PW43), Sanjay (PW44), Manoj (PW45), Pradeep (PW49) and Kamla (PW50) are concerned they have at the first instance in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. named the accused Karambir. Further, Kamla (PW50) for the reasons already discussed herein above and not being repeated for the sake of brevity has been held to be unreliable witness qua the identification of the accused and therefore her testimony qua the identification of accused Karambir is rejected. Sube Singh (PW39) has specifically named the accused Karambir S/o Tara Chand in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and has identified the accused Karambir in the Court as the boy who had come to his house and set it on fire. Dilbagh (PW43) has also at the first instance named the accused Karambir in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and similarly identified him in the Court as the boy who was indulging into stone pelting. Sanjay (PW44) who is the brother of Dilbagh (PW43) has also named the accused Karambir S/o Tara Chand and has specifically identified him in the Court as the person who had set his house on fire. Manoj (PW45) has specifically named the accused Karambir S/o Tara
Chand as the person who was indulging into stone pelting, arson and burning of houses. Pradeep (PW49) has named the accused Karambir S/o Tara Chand as the person who was a part of the crowd and was indulging into arson. Here, I may observe that none of the above witnesses that is Sube Singh (PW39), Dilbagh (PW43), Sanjay (PW44) or Manoj (PW45) have brought on record any evidence of their property being destroyed by fire. The photographs and video clippings placed on record do not reflect any damage by fire to the property of Sube Singh (PW39) or Dilbagh (PW43). Here, I may observe that photographs have been duly identified by Amal Lal (CW1) at the final stage and there are two photographs duly exhibited by ASI Miyan Singh one of which shows the presence of Sube Singh outside his house and one which shows the presence of Dilbagh outside his house, which houses do not show any traces of damage by fire. Further, the photographs identified by Amar Lal claiming to be of the property of Sanjay (PW44) also do not reflect any damage by fire but only reflect damage on account of rioting (tor-phor). In so far as Manoj (PW45) is concerned, there is no photograph, video clipping or other evidence on record to show the damage caused to his dwelling house by fire nor he has adduced any such evidence. In fact the only damage about which Manoj has deposed is with regard to the motorcycle of his brother in law which was set on fire by the rioters. This motorcycle is reflected in the photographs duly exhibited by ASI Miyan Singh which is shown to be parked outside the boundary wall adjoining the Gher of Sube Singh and Manoj in his testimony does not claim that it was the accused Karambir who had set it on fire.
Page No. 854
Further, I may observe that all these witnesses namely Sube Singh (PW39), Dilbagh (PW43), Sanjay (PW44), Manoj (PW45) and Pradeep (PW49) have vide a detail discussion not being repeated for the sake of brevity, not been held to be totally reliable whose testimonies would require corroboration. The said witnesses have corroborated each other on the aspect of presence of Karambir at the spot and indulging into stone pelting and causing damage to the properties and there is no reason to discredit or disbelieve the same. However, in so far as the aspect of setting the properties/ dwelling houses of the persons of 'B' community on fire is concerned, the same has not been conclusively established to the satisfaction of this Court for which benefit of doubt is being given to him. Therefore, I hereby hold that the presence of the accused Karambir S/o Tara Chand at the spot at the time of the incident along with the other persons constituting an unlawful assembly and indulging into stone pelting, causing damage to the properties of persons from 'B' community stand established.
Allegations against the accused Karampal S/o Satbir:

In so far as the accused Karampal S/o Satbir is concerned, he has been identified in the Court by Sanjay (PW36), Vicky (PW42), Sanjay (PW44), Manoj (PW45), Gulaba (PW48), Pradeep (PW49), Kamla (PW50) and Amar Lal (CW1). culled out as under: For the sake of clarity and convenience the ocular evidence against the above accused is briefly
Page No. 855
Sr. Name of Name of the witness who has No. the named/ identified the accused accused in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Name of the witness 1. Karampal (1)Sanjay S/o S/o Satbir Bani Singh (not examined by the prosecution) (2) Ramniwas S/o Inder (not examined by the prosecution) (3) Sanjay S/o Gulab (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010) (4) Vicky S/o Dhoop Singh (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010) (5) Dhup Singh S/o Rattan (does not identify accused in the Court) (6) Amar S/o Tara Chand (named in his statement under
Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the court Name of the Relevant witness testimony (1) Sanjay S/o Raja Ram (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 30.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) (2) Vicky S/o Dhoop Singh (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010) As the boy who was indulging into stone pelting
Indulging into stone pelting and exhorting by using caste abuses
(3) Sanjay S/o Sprinkled oil on Gulab Singh his house (4) Manoj S/o Part of the Mahender Crowd indulging into stone pelting (5) Gulaba S/o As the boy who Jai Lal had come to his house along with container of oil and set his house on fire
Page No. 856
Section 161 Cr.P.C.) (7) Manoj S/o Mahender (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Dated 21.4.2010) (8) Gulaba S/o Jai Lal (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 23.4.2010 & 27.6.2010) (9) Pradeep S/o Tara Chand (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010)
General allegations of being a part of unlawful assembly General allegations of being a part of unlawful assembly
(7) Kamla W/o Tara Chand (not named in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) (8) Amar Lal S/o Tara Chand
As the person who had removed his clothes and dancing naked in front of his house.
Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that it is not safe to rely upon the uncorroborated testimony of Sanjay (PW36), Vicky (PW42), Sanjay (PW44), Manoj (PW45), Gulaba (PW48), Pradeep (PW49), Kamla (PW50) and Amar Lal (CW1) being unreliable and inconsistent. The Ld. Special Public Prosecutor has opposed the argument of the Ld. Defence Counsel and has pointed out that Sanjay (PW44), Manoj (PW45), Gulaba (PW48), Pradeep (PW49) and Amar Lal (CW1) have all at the first instance named Karampal S/o Satbir in their statements to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and there is no reason to disbelieve their version.
I have considered the rival contentions. At the very outset I may observe that the witnesses Sanjay S/o Bani Singh, Ram Niwas S/o Inder and Dhoop Singh S/o Rattan Singh had earlier named the accused Karampal in their statements made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Sanjay S/o Bani Singh and Ram Niwas S/o Inder have not been examined by the prosecution. I may also observe that it is for the first time in the Court that the accused Karampal has been identified (dock identification) by the witnesses Sanjay (PW36), Vicky (PW42) and Kamla (PW50) despite the fact that he is a resident of the same village and was known to the witnesses even prior to the incident. It is evident that no Test Identification of the accused has been conducted nor the accused has been apprehended at the instance of these witnesses who had identified him in the Court and therefore under these circumstances and also for the reasons already discussed and not being repeated for the sake of brevity since Sanjay (PW36) and Kamla (PW50) have been held to be an unreliable witnesses qua the identity of the accused; the testimonies of Sanjay (PW36), Vicky (PW42) and Kamla (PW50) qua the identification of accused Karambir are unacceptable. In so far as the witnesses Sanjay (PW44), Manoj (PW45), Gulaba (PW48), Pradeep (PW49) and Amar Lal (CW1) are concerned they have at the first instance in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have named the accused Karambir. Sanjay (PW44) has specifically named the accused Karampal S/o Satbir in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and has identified the accused in the Court as the boy who had sprinkled oil on his house. Manoj (PW45) has named the accused Karampal in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and also identified him in the Court as the boy who was indulging into stone
pelting. Gulaba (PW48) has named the accused Karampal S/o Satbir and has specifically identified him in the Court as the person who had come to his house along with container of oil and set his house on fire. Here, I may observe that Gulab Singh has not brought any evidence on record to prove the damage caused to his property by fire. No photograph/ video clipping has been identified. Assuming that his house was set on fire and damaged, the probability of Gulab Singh identifying the assailant appears remote in view of the fact that he himself was injured as per his own version and was reportedly lying on a cot from where he was removed to the hospital later by the police. Even otherwise, the FSL report Ex.PX1 falsifies his claim as it does not establish the presence of Hydrocarbons of Petroleum (kerosene, petrol or diesel) as claimed by Gulab Singh and therefore, his testimony in this regard is required to be rejected. The witness Pradeep (PW49) has specifically named the accused Karampal S/o Satbir in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to the police and has also identified him in the Court as one of the assailants. Amar Lal (CW1) has named the accused Karampal S/o Satbir in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and has identified him in the Court as the person who had removed his clothes and was dancing naked in front of his house which allegations he has made in the Court for the first time and the possibility of exaggeration and tutoring in this regard cannot be ruled out more so as no other witness has corroborated the testimony of Amar Lal in this regard. Here I may observe that initially Dhoop Singh (PW29) had named Karampal as one of the persons who had entered his house and caused damage to his property but in his testimony before the Court he has neither named nor identified
Karampal. All these witnesses namely Sanjay (PW44), Manoj (PW45), Gulaba (PW48), Pradeep (PW49) and Amar Lal (CW1) vide a detail discussion not being repeated for the sake of brevity, have not been held be totally reliable warranting corroboration. In their testimonies before this Court the witnesses Sanjay (PW44), Manoj (PW45), Gulaba (PW48), Pradeep (PW49) and Amar Lal (CW1) have corroborated each other on the identity of the accused Karampal S/o Satbir as one of the persons who was a part of the unlawful assembly and have also identified him as one of the persons who was indulging into stone pelting and causing damages to the properties of persons belonging to 'B' community and there is no reason to discredit or disbelieve the same. However, in so far as the allegations regarding Karampal removing his clothes and dancing naked in front of the house of Tara Chand and of pouring kerosene over the house of Gulab Singh and setting it on fire are concerned, they are total improvements over the earlier statement made by witness Amar Lal for the first time in the Court which finds no independent corroboration on account of which they are liable to be rejected and benefit of doubt is being granted to the accused Karampal in respect of the same. I hereby hold that the prosecution has successfully proved the presence of the accused Karampal S/o Satbir at the spot at the time of the incident as one of the persons constituting an unlawful assembly and indulging into stone pelting, causing damage to the properties of persons from the 'B' community.
Page No. 860
Allegations against the accused Dharambir @ Chand:
Illa S/o Mai
In so far as the accused Dharambir S/o Mai Chand is concerned, he has been identified in the Court by Sanjay (PW36), Meena Kumar (PW37), Mahajan (PW38), Vijender (PW40), Vicky (PW42), Sanjay (PW44), Gulaba (PW48) and Kamla (PW50). For the sake of clarity and convenience the ocular evidence against the above accused is briefly culled out as under:
Sr. Name of Name of the witness who has Name of the witness who has No. the named/ identified the accused named/ identified the accused accused in the statement under Section in the court 161 Cr.P.C. Name of the witness 1. Dharambir (1) Pawan S/o S/o Mai Jagat Singh Chand (not examined by the prosecution) (2) Sanjay S/o Satpal (not examined by the prosecution) (3) Dilbagh S/o Gulab Singh (does not identify the accused Dharambir) (4) Dharambir S/o Chandgi (not examined by the prosecution)
Name of the Relevant witness testimony (1) Sanjay S/o Raja Ram (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 30.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) (2) Meena Kumar S/o Satpal (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dt. 30.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) As the boy who was indulging into stone pelting and damaging household properties by entering the houses.
As the boy who was having a lathi in his hand and was attacking the 'B' and also indulging into stone pelting
Page No. 861
(5) Dharambir S/o Chatar Singh (not examined by the prosecution) (6) Vicky S/o Dhoop Singh (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010) (7) Mahajan S/o Satpal (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 23.4.2010) (8) Vijender S/o Surta (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010) (9) Sanjay S/o Gulab Singh (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010)
(3) Mahajan S/o Satpal
Indulging into stone pelting and damage to property As the boy who was having an oil container in his hand and sprinkled oil on his house As one of the assailants
(4) Vijender S/o Surta
(5) Vicky S/o Dhoop Singh
(6) Sanjay S/o Indulging into Gulab Singh stone pelting and beating 'B' by dandas (7) Gulaba S/o As one of the Jai Lal assailants (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 23.4.2010 & 27.6.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) (8) Kamla W/o Tara Chand (not named in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) General allegations of being a part of unlawful assembly
Page No. 862
Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that it is not safe to rely upon the uncorroborated testimony of Sanjay (PW36), Meena Kumar (PW37), Mahajan (PW38), Vijender (PW40), Vicky (PW42), Sanjay (PW44), Gulaba (PW48) and Kamla (PW50) being unreliable and inconsistent. The Ld. Special Public Prosecutor has opposed the argument of the Ld. Defence Counsel and has pointed out that Mahajan (PW38), Vijender (PW40), Vicky (PW42), Sanjay (PW44) and Kamla (PW50) have all at the first instance named Dharambir S/o Mai Chand in their statements to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and there is no reason to disbelieve their version. I have considered the rival contentions. At the very outset I may observe that the witnesses Pawan S/o Jagat Singh, Sanjay S/o Satpal, Dilbagh S/o Gulab Singh, Dharambir S/o Chandgi and Dharambir S/o Chattar Singh had earlier named the accused Dharambir S/o Tara Chand in their statements made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but I may observe that the witnesses Pawan S/o Jagat Singh, Sanjay S/o Satpal, Dharambir S/o Chandgi and Dharambir S/o Chattar Singh have not been examined by the prosecution whereas Dilbagh S/o Gulab Singh has not been able to identify the accused Dharambir @ Illa S/o Mai Chand in the Court. I may observe that it is for the first time in the Court that the accused Dharambir @ Illa has been identified (dock identification) by the witnesses Sanjay (PW36), Meena Kumar (PW37), Gulaba (PW48) and Kamla (PW50) despite the fact that he is a resident of the same village and was known to the witnesses even prior to the incident. It is evident that no Test Identification of the accused has been conducted nor the accused has been apprehended at the instance of these witnesses who
had identified him in the Court and therefore under these circumstances and also for the reasons already discussed herein above since Sanjay (PW36) and Kamla (PW50) have been held to be unreliable witnesses and therefore their testimonies of Sanjay (PW36) Meena Kumar (PW37), Gulab Singh (PW48) and Kamla (PW50) qua the identification of accused Dharambir are unacceptable. In so far as the witnesses Mahajan (PW38), Vijender (PW40), Vicky (PW42) and Sanjay (PW44) are concerned they have at the first instance in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have named the accused Dharambir @ Illa. Witness Mahajan (PW38) has specifically named the accused Dharambir @ Illa in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and has identified him in the Court as the person who was indulging into stone pelting and causing damage to the properties of the persons from the 'B' community. Vijender (PW40) has named the accused Dharambir @ Illa in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and identified him in the Court as the person who was having an oil container in his hand and sprinkled oil on his house. Vicky (PW42) has named the accused Dharambir @ Illa and has identified him in the Court as the one of the assailant. Sanjay (PW44) has named the accused Dharambir @ Illa S/o Mai Chand in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and has identified the accused as the person who was indulging into stone pelting and beating 'B' by dandas. The testimonies of all these witnesses namely Mahajan (PW38), Vijender (PW40), Vicky (PW42) and Sanjay (PW44) vide a detailed discussion not being repeated for the sake of brevity, have not been held to be totally reliable warranting corroboration. In the present case the testimonies of Mahajan (PW38), Vijender (PW40), Vicky
(PW42) and Sanjay (PW44) find due corroboration from each other and they have not only identified the accused Dharambir @ Illa as a part of the unlawful assembly but have also identified him specifically as one of the persons who was indulging into stone pelting and causing damages to the properties of persons from the 'B' community and there is no reason to discredit or disbelieve the same. However, the allegations of Dharambir @ Illa carrying a danda and hitting persons from the 'B' community with the same have been made by Meena Kumar (PW37) and Sanjay (PW44) for the first time in the Court and is a total improvement over their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which do not find corroboration from any other source. Here I may observe that no weapons including dandas have been recovered and even the medical evidence on record in the form of MLRs of the injured do not substantiate these allegations. Further the allegations regarding Dharmbir @ Illa carrying a can of kerosene oil and sprinkling oil on the houses of persons belonging to the 'B' community have also been made by Vijender (PW40) for the first time in the Court which is an improvement over his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and also find no corroboration from any other source including the FSL Report Ex.PX1 which does not show the presence of hydrocarbons of Petroleum including Kerosene, Petrol or Diesel in the exhibits lifted from the spot on the same day that is 21.4.2010 and sent to the laboratory for examination and hence under these circumstances, his testimony to this extent is unreliable. I may also observe that Vijender has not brought on record any evidence of damage caused to his property on account of fire. No photograph/ video clipping has been identified reflecting his property nor Vijender has provided the Court with any such details and hence all
the more reason why the allegations made by him against Dharambir @ Illa regarding pouring of kerosene oil cannot be believed. In view of the above I hereby hold that in so far as the allegations with regard to the accused Dharambir @ Illa S/o Mai Chand setting the house of persons from the 'B' community on fire are concerned, they have not been conclusively established to the satisfaction of the Court and benefit of doubt is liable to be given to the accused for the same. However, the prosecution has successfully proved and established the presence of the accused Dharambir @ Illa S/o Mai Chand at the spot at the time of the incident as one of the persons constituting the unlawful assembly and indulging into stone pelting, causing damage to the properties of persons from the 'B' community.
Allegations against the accused Rishi S/o Satbir:

Coming now to the allegations against the accused Rishi S/o Satbir is concerned, he has been identified in the Court by Santra (PW30), Sanjay (PW36), Vicky (PW42), Dilbagh (PW43), Sanjay (PW44), Manoj (PW45), Pradeep (PW49), Kamla (PW50) and Amar Lal (CW1). For the sake of clarity and convenience the ocular evidence against the above accused is briefly culled out as under:
Sr. Name of Name of the witness who has No. the named/ identified the accused accused in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Name of the witness 1. Rishi S/o Satbir (1) Dilbagh S/o Gulab (named in his statement under Allegations Rioting, damage to property by fire, causing Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the court Name of the Relevant witness testimony (1) Santra W/o Satyawan (not named in her statement As the boy who was having lathi and jelli in his hand and
Page No. 866
Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010) (2) Rajender S/o Mahender (not examined by the prosecution) (3) Sunita S/o Surta (does not identify the accused in the Court) (4) Sanjay S/o Satpal (not examined by the prosecution) (5) Binder S/o Ram Kumar (not examined by the prosecution) (6) Satyawan S/o Bhaleram (not examined by the prosecution) (7) Chander S/o Laxman (not examined by the prosecution) (8) Ramphal S/o Rajmal (not examined by the prosecution)
death and injuries
under Section was throwing 161 Cr.P.C. stones dated 30.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) (2) Sanjay S/o Raja Ram (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 30.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) (3) Vicky S/o Dhoop Singh (4) Dilbagh S/o Gulab Singh As the boy who had set the houses belonging to the members of 'B' community on fire
As one of the assailants As the person who had beaten his father Gulaba with a lathi
(5) Sanjay S/o As the who was Gulab Singh indulging into stone pelting and beating the members of 'B' community with a danada (6) Manoj S/o Mahender Sanjay S/o Raja Ram (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Part of the crowd indulging into stone pelting, arson and burning of houses belonging to the
Page No. 867
(9) Vicky S/o Dhoop Singh (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010) (10) Sanjay S/o Gulab (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010) (11) Pradeep S/o Tara Chand (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010) (12) Dhoop Singh S/o Rattan Singh (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 23.4.2010) (13) Gulab Singh S/o Jai Lal (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 23.4.2010 & 27.6.2010)
dated members of 'B' 21.4.2010 & community 27.6.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) (7) Gulab Singh S/o Jai Lal As the person who was indulging into arson, burning of houses, stone pelting and rioting. General allegations of being a part of unlawful assembly General allegations of being a part of unlawful assembly
(9) Kamla W/o Tara Chand (not named in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court)
(10) Amar Lal As the person who had S/o Tara removed his Chand clothes and dancing naked in front of his house.
Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that it is not safe to rely upon the uncorroborated testimony of Santra (PW30), Sanjay (PW36), Vicky (PW42), Dilbagh (PW43), Sanjay (PW44), Manoj
(PW45), Gulab Singh (PW48), Pradeep (PW49), Kamla (PW50) and Amar Lal (CW1) being unreliable and inconsistent. The Ld. Special Public Prosecutor has opposed the argument of the Ld. Defence Counsel and has pointed out that Santra Vicky (PW42), Dilbagh (PW43), Sanjay (PW44), Gulab Singh (PW48), Pradeep (PW49), and Amar Lal (CW1) have all at the first instance named Rishi S/o Satbir in their statements to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and there is no reason to disbelieve their version. I have considered the rival contentions. At the very outset I may observe that the witnesses Rajender S/o Mahender, Sunita W/o Surta, Sanjay S/o Satpal, Satyawan S/o Bhaleram, Chander S/o Laxman and Ramphal S/o Rajmal had earlier named the accused Rishi in their statements made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Rajender S/o Mahender, Sanjay S/o Satpal, Satyawan S/o Bhaleram, Chander S/o Laxman and Ramphal S/o Rajmal have not been examined by the prosecution whereas Sunita W/o Surta has not been able to identify the accused Rishi in the Court. I may further observe that it is for the first time in the Court that the accused Rishi S/o Satbir has been identified (dock identification) by the witnesses Santra (PW30), Sanjay (PW36), Manoj (PW45) and Kamla (PW50) despite the fact that he is a resident of the same village and was known to the witnesses even prior to the incident. It is evident that no Test Identification of the accused has been conducted nor the accused has been apprehended at the instance of these witnesses who had identified him in the Court and therefore under these circumstances and also for the reasons already discussed herein above since Sanjay (PW36) and Kamla (PW50) have been held to be unreliable witnesses and
therefore the testimonies of Santra (PW30), Sanjay (PW36), Manoj (PW45) and Kamla (PW50) qua the identification of accused Karambir are unacceptable. In so far as the witness Vicky (PW42), Dilbagh (PW43), Sanjay (PW44), Gulab Singh (PW48) and Pradeep (PW49) have at the first instance in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have named the accused Rishi S/o Satbir. Vicky (PW42) has named the accused Rishi S/o Satbir in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and has identified the accused in the Court as one of the assailants. Dilbagh (PW43) has named the accused Rishi in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and also identified him in the Court as the boy who had beaten his father Gulaba with a lathi. Here I may add that Dilbagh is not a witness to the incident which took place in the morning when his father Gulab Singh was allegedly beaten. In fact Gulab Singh (PW48) has neither named nor identified Rishi as one of the accused and according to him it was Karampal who snatched his lathi and gave a blow on his back and Ramphal hit him on his head and therefore the allegations made by Dilbagh in this regard are factually incorrect and not being corroborated and substantiated by his father Gulab Singh (PW48). The witness Sanjay (PW44) has named the accused Rishi S/o Satbir and has identified him in the Court as the person who was indulging into stone pelting and causing beatings with danda. Pradeep (PW49) has named the accused Rishi S/o Satbir in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to the police and has identified him in the Court as one of the assailants. In so far as the witness Amar Lal (CW1) is concerned he has named the accused Rishi in his third statement made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 27.6.2010 Ex.CW1/C and has now identified him in the Court as the
person who had removed his clothes and was dancing naked in front of his house. The testimonies of all these witnesses namely Vicky (PW42), Dilbagh (PW43), Sanjay (PW44), Pradeep (PW49) and Amar Lal (CW1) have, vide a detail discussion not being repeated for the sake of brevity, not been held to be totally reliable. In the present case the testimonies of Vicky (PW42), Dilbagh (PW43), Sanjay (PW44), Pradeep (PW49) and Amar Lal (CW1) find due corroboration from each other and they have not only identified the accused Rishi S/o Satbir as a part of the unlawful assembly but have also identified him specifically as one of the persons who was indulging into stone pelting and causing damages to the properties of persons from the 'B' community and there is no reason to discredit or disbelieve the same. Here I may observe that in so far as the allegations made by Manoj (PW45) regarding the accused Rishi setting the houses belonging to the members of 'B' community on fire, it is for the first time that he has made this allegation while testifying in the Court and is a total improvement over his earlier statement which allegation does not find any independent reliable corroboration. Similarly the allegations of Rishi S/o Satbir carrying a lathi/danda and hitting persons from the 'B' community with the same have been made by Sanjay (PW44) for the first time in the Court and is a total improvement over his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which does not find corroboration from any other source since no weapons including lathi/ dandas have been recovered and even the medical evidence on record in the form of MLRs of the injured do not substantiate these allegations. Also, the allegations made by Amar Lal
(who was later on examined by the Court as its witness CW1) regarding Rishi removing his clothes and dancing naked in front of his house are total improvements over the earlier statement made by him and it is for the first time that he has made this allegations against Rishi in the Court. This is despite the fact that Amar Lal had made two statements to the Investigating Officer earlier to the one implicating Rishi and another statement thereafter but in none of these statements the above allegation find a mention. Even otherwise the above allegations find no independent corroboration and are liable to be disbelieved. In view of the above, I hereby hold that in so far as the allegations with regard to the accused Rishi S/o Satbir setting the house of persons from the 'B' community on fire are concerned, they have not been conclusively established to the satisfaction of the Court and benefit of doubt is liable to be given to the accused for the same. However, the prosecution has successfully proved and established the presence of the accused Rishi S/o Satbir at the spot at the time of the incident as one of the persons constituting the unlawful assembly and indulging into stone pelting, causing damage to the properties of persons from the 'B' community.
Allegations against the accused Bobal S/o Tek Ram:

In so far as the allegations against the accused Bobdal S/o Tek Ram is concerned, he has been identified in the Court by Sushil (PW25), Dhoop Singh (PW29), Sanjay (PW36), Mahajan (PW38), Vijender (PW40), Vicky (PW42), Dilbagh (PW43), Sanjay (PW44), Manoj (PW45), Satyawan (PW47), Gulaba (PW48) and Kamla (PW50).
Page No. 872
For the sake of clarity and convenience the ocular evidence against the above accused is briefly culled out as under:
Sr. Name of Name of the witness who has No. the named/ identified the accused accused in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Name of the witness 1. Bobal @ Langra S/o Tek Chand (1) Aman S/o Surta (does not identify the accused Bobal and has been declared hostile ) (2) Sanjay S/o Bani Singh (not examined by the prosecution) (3) Mahajan S/o Satpal (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 23.4.2010) (4) Vicky s/o Dhup Singh (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010) (5) Dilbagh S/o Gulab (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010)
Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the court Name of the Relevant witness testimony (1) Sushil S/o Surta (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) (2) Dhoop Singh S/o Ratan Singh (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 23.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) (3) Sanjay S/o Raja Ram (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 30.4.2010 and has identified As the person who was bringing out of the household articles and damaging the properties
Allegations Rioting, damage to property by fire
As the person who had entered his house by breaking the gate/ door of the compound
As the person who was under the influence of alcohol and was roaming around along with other boys of 'J' community who were
Page No. 873
(6) Manoj S/o Mahender (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010) (7) Satyawan S/o Roshan Lal (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010) (8) Gulaba S/o Jai Lal (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010)
the accused for indulging into the first time stone pelting , in the Court) arson and burning of houses (4) Mahajan S/o Satpal Named but not identified nor made any allegations
(5) Vijender Indulging into S/o Surta stone pelting (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) (6) Vicky S/o Dhoop Singh Sprinkled oil on the walls of their shops and set it on fire Admits having named (on refreshing of memory by Special Public Prosecutor) but does not identify the accused nor made any allegations As the person who had damaged the property by entering the
Page No. 874
(7) Dilbagh S/o Gulab Singh
(8) Sanjay S/o Gulab Singh (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
dated house and set 21.4.2010 and his house on has identified fire the accused for the first time in the Court) (9) Manoj S/o As the person Mahender who was present along with other boys who had set his house on fire (10) Satyawan As the person S/o Roshan who had set the Lal houses of Sanjay and Tara Chand on fire (11) Gulaba S/o Jai Lal As the person who was indulging into arson, damaging the household articles, stone throwing and rioting. General allegations of being a part of unlawful assembly
Page No. 875
Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that it is not safe to rely upon the uncorroborated testimony of Sushil (PW25), Dhoop Singh (PW29), Sanjay (PW36), Mahajan (PW38), Vijender (PW40), Vicky (PW42), Dilbagh (PW43), Sanjay (PW44), Manoj (PW45), Satyawan (PW47), Gulaba (PW48) and Kamla (PW50) being unreliable and inconsistent. The Ld. Special Public Prosecutor has opposed the argument of the Ld. Defence Counsel and has pointed out that Sushil (PW25), Dhoop Singh (PW29), Sanjay (PW36), Vijender (PW40), Sanjay (PW44) and Kamla (PW50) have all at the first instance named Bobal @ Langra S/o Ram Mehar in their statements to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and there is no reason to disbelieve their version. I have considered the rival contentions. At the very outset I may observe that the witnesses Aman S/o Surta and Sanjay S/o Bani Singh had earlier named the accused Bobal @ Langra in their statements made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but Aman S/o Surta has not identified the accused Bobal @ Langra whereas Sanjay S/o Bani Singh has not been examined by the prosecution. I may also observe that it is for the first time in the Court that the accused Bobal @ Langra has been identified (dock identification) by the witnesses Sushil (PW25), Dhoop Singh (PW29), Sanjay (PW36), Vijender (PW40), Sanjay (PW44) and Kamla (PW50) despite the fact that he is a resident of the same village and was known to the witnesses even prior to the incident. It is evident that no Test Identification of the accused has been conducted nor the accused has been apprehended at the instance of these witnesses who had identified him in the Court and therefore under these circumstances and also for the reasons already discussed herein above not being repeated
for the sake of brevity, Sanjay (PW36) and Kamla (PW50) have been held to be unreliable witnesses and hence the testimonies of the witnesses Sushil (PW25), Dhoop Singh (PW29), Sanjay (PW36), Vijender (PW40), Sanjay (PW44) and Kamla (PW50) qua the identification of accused Bobal @ Tek Ram are unacceptable. In so far as the witnesses Mahajan (PW38), Vicky (PW42), Dilbagh (PW43), Manoj (PW45), Satyawan (PW47) and Gulaba (PW48) are concerned they have at the first instance have named the accused Bobal @ Langra S/o Tek Ram in their statements made to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Here I may mention that Mahajan (PW38) had initially named Bobal S/o Unknown in his examination in chief and later on when his memory was refreshed by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor he admitted having told the Investigating Officer the name of Bobal @ Langra S/o Tek Ram in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as one of the assailant but when the accused were specifically put to him for identification, he could not identify Bobal @ Langra S/o Tek Ram the accused before this Court nor he made any allegations against him. The position with Dilbagh (PW43) is also similar. Initially he did not Bobal @ Langra S/o Tek Ram but later when the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor refreshed his memory he admitted having Bobal @ Langra S/o Tek Ram as the boy who was present in the incident dated 19.4.2010 (on the basis of hearsay) but when the accused were specifically put to him for identification he could not identify the accused Bobal @ Langra nor he made any allegations against him. Therefore under these circumstances the testimonies of both Mahajan (PW38) and Dilbagh (PW43) qua the identification of the accused Bobal are rejected.
Now coming to the witness Vicky (PW42), he has named the accused Bobal @ Langra in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and has identified him in the Court as the person who was indulging into stone pelting. Manoj (PW45) has named the accused Bobal @ Langra in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and identified him in the Court as one of the boys who was present at the spot while the other boys set his house on fire. Satyawan (PW47) has named the accused Bobal @ Langra and has identified him in the Court as the person who had set the houses of Sanjay and Tara Chand on fire. Gulaba (PW48) has named the accused Bobal @ Langra in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to the police and has identified him in the Court as the person who was indulging into arson, causing damage to the properties, stone throwing and rioting. The testimonies of all these witnesses namely Vicky (PW42), Manoj (PW45), Satyawan (PW47) and Gulaba (PW48) have, vide a detail discussion not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity, not been held to be totally reliable warranting corroboration. The witnesses Vicky (PW42), Manoj (PW45), Satyawan (PW47) and Gulaba (PW48) have in their testimonies corroborated each other on the aspect of the accused Bobal @ Langra S/o Tek Ram being a part of the unlawful assembly and have also specifically identified him as one of the persons who was indulging into stone pelting and causing damages to the properties of persons of the 'B' community and there is no reason to discredit or disbelieve the same. Here I may observe that in so far as the witness Manoj (PW45) is concerned he does not identify Bobal @ Langra S/o Tek Chand as one of the boy who had set his house on fire and only alleges that he was one of the boys who was present at the spot
while other boys were setting his house on fire. Here I may observe that Manoj (PW45) has not placed on record any evidence regarding his house being set on fire. None of the photographs/ video clippings present on record have been identified by him or by any other witness of the prosecution reflecting the damage to his house on account of fire. Rather, the only photographs which have been identified are those showing the burnt motorcycle belonging to the brother in law of Manoj which was parked outside the boundary wall of the Gher belonging to Sube Singh and therefore, no reliance can be placed on his uncorroborated testimony in this regard. Further, in so far as the witness Satyawan (PW47) is concerned he is the only one who has identified Bobal @ Langra as the person who had set the house of Tara Chand on fire which allegations he has made in the Court for the first time and is a total improvement over his earlier statement made to the Investigating officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which neither finds corroboration from the testimony of any other eye witness including Amar Lal (CW1) the son of the deceased Tara Chand nor from Dying Declaration of Tara Chand Ex.PW55/B. Hence the testimony of Satyawan (PW47) to this limited extent is unbelievable. I may also observe that the allegations made by Vicky (PW42) against Bobal @ Langra of sprinkling kerosene oil on the walls of his house, have also been made by him for the first time in the Court which is an improvement over his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010. The allegations regarding sprinkling of kerosene oil find no corroboration from any other source including the FSL Report Ex.PX1 which does not show the presence of Hydrocarbons of Petroleum including Kerosene, Petrol or Diesel in the exhibits lifted from
the spot on the same day that is 21.4.2010 and sent to the laboratory for examination. In view of the above I hereby hold that in so far as the allegations with regard to the accused Bobal @ Langra S/o Tek Ram setting the house of persons from the 'B' community on fire are concerned, they have not been conclusively established to the satisfaction of the Court and benefit of doubt is liable to be given to the accused for the same. However, the prosecution has successfully proved and established the presence of the accused Bobal @ Langra S/o Tek Ram at the spot at the time of the incident as one of the persons constituting the unlawful assembly and indulging into stone pelting, causing damage to the properties of persons from the 'B' community.
Allegations against the accused Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar:

Coming now to the allegations against the accused Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar is concerned, he has been identified in the Court by Sheela (PW32), Sanjay (PW36), Mahajan (PW38), Sube Singh (PW39), Vicky (PW42), Dilbagh (PW43), Sanjay (PW44), Manoj (PW45), Pradeep (PW49), Kamla (PW50) and Amar Lal (CW1). For the sake of clarity and convenience the ocular evidence against the above accused is briefly culled out as under:
Sr. Name of Name of the witness who has No. the named/ identified the accused accused in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Name of the witness 1. Kulwinder (1) Rajender S/o S/o Ram Mahender Mehar (not examined by the Allegations Poured kerosene oil and mischief by fire Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the court Name of the Relevant witness testimony (1) Sheela W/o Subhash (not named in her statement As the boy who had broken the door of her house and came
Page No. 880
prosecution) (2) Ramphal S/o Rajmal (not examined by the prosecution) (3) Dharambir S/o Chandgiram (not examined by the prosecution) (4) Ramniwas S/o Rajmal (not examined by the prosecution) (5) Suresh S/o Tara Chand (not examined by the prosecution) (6) Mahajan S/o Satpal (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 23.4.2010) (7) Dilbagh S/o Gulab Singh (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 23.4.2010) (8) Sanjay S/o Gulab Singh (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010)
under Section inside and 161 Cr.P.C. broken the dated water tank 30.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) (2) Sanjay S/o Indulging into Raja Ram stone pelting (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 30.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) (3) Mahajan S/o Satpal Indulging into arson and burning the houses belonging to the members of 'B' community Indulging into stone pelting and burning of the houses and damaging the properties
(4) Sube Singh S/o Bhura Ram (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court)
(5) Vicky S/o As the boy who Dhoop Singh has having a (not named in danda in his
Page No. 881
(9) Pradeep S/o Tara Chand (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010) (10) Kamla W/o Tara Chand (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010) (11) Amar Lal S/o Tara Chand
his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) (4) Dilbagh S/o Gulab Singh
hand and was hitting the 'B' and in indulging into tor phor
As the person who had set his house on fire
(5) Sanjay S/o As the who was Gulab Singh carrying oil container and sprinkled oil on his house (6) Manoj S/o Mahender (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 & 27.6.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) (7) Pradeep S/o Tara Chand As the boy who had broken the door of his house and damaged the property and conducted lootpat
General allegations of being a part of unlawful assembly
(8) Kamla W/o General Tara Chand allegations of being a part of unlawful assembly
Page No. 882
(9) Amar Lal S/o Tara Chand
Sprinkled oil on his house and removed clothes and dancing naked in front of his house.
Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that it is not safe to rely upon the uncorroborated testimony of Sheela (PW32), Sanjay (PW36), Mahajan (PW38), Sube Singh (PW39), Vicky (PW42), Dilbagh (PW43), Sanjay (PW44), Manoj (PW45), Pradeep (PW49), Kamla (PW50) and Amar Lal (CW1) being unreliable and inconsistent. Ld. Defence Counsel has also argued that the accused Kulwinder was not present in the village and was in fact working in his fields from 4:00 4:15 AM till 3:003:15 PM which fact has been proved by DW6 Virender who himself belongs to the 'B' community. The Ld. Special Public Prosecutor has opposed the argument of the Ld. Defence Counsel and has pointed out that Mahajan (PW38), Dilbagh (PW43), Sanjay (PW44), Pradeep (PW49) and Kamla (PW50) have all at the first instance named Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar in their statements to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and there is no reason to disbelieve their version. I have considered the rival contentions. At the very outset I may observe that the witnesses Rajender S/o Mahender, Ramphal S/o Rajmal, Dharambir S/o Chandgiram, Ramniwas S/o Rajmal and Suresh S/o Tara Chand who had earlier named the accused Kulwinder in their statements made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have not been examined by the prosecution. I may also observe that it is for the first
time in the Court that the accused Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar has been identified (dock identification) by the witnesses Sheela (PW32), Sanjay (PW36), Sube Singh (PW39), Vicky (PW42) and Manoj (PW45) despite the fact that he is a resident of the same village and was known to the witnesses even prior to the incident. It is evident that no Test Identification of the accused has been conducted nor the accused has been apprehended at the instance of these witnesses who had identified him in the Court and therefore under these circumstances and also for the reasons already discussed herein above since Sanjay (PW36) and Kamla (PW50) have been held to be unreliable witnesses qua the identification of the accused and therefore the testimonies of the witnesses Sheela (PW32), Sanjay (PW36), Sube Singh (PW39), Vicky (PW42), Manoj (PW45) and Kamla (PW50) qua the identification of accused Kulwinder are unacceptable. In so far as the witnesses Mahajan (PW38), Dilbagh (PW43), Sanjay (PW44) and Pradeep (PW49) are concerned they have at the first instance have named the accused Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar in their statements made to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In fact Mahajan (PW38) has named the accused Kulwinder in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and has identified him in the Court as the person who was indulging into stone pelting. Dilbagh (PW43) has named the accused Kulwinder in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and identified him in the Court as the boy who had set his house on fire. Here, I may observe that Dilbagh has not lead any evidence in the Court to either prove or reflect the damage caused to his house on account of fire. Rather, one of the photographs placed on record as already discussed in detail shows the presence of Dilabgh in front of his house
which does not reflect any damage by fire. Sanjay (PW44) has named the accused Kulwinder and has identified him in the Court as the person who was carrying an oil can and sprinkled oil on his house and here I may observe that even Sanjay has not placed any evidence on record to reflect damage to his property on account of fire. He has not identified any photograph/ video clipping placed on record reflecting his property. Rather, the photographs so identified by Amar Lal (CW1) as that of the property of Sanjay does not reflect any damage by fire though it does reflect damage on account of rioting (tor-phor). The FSL report Ex.PX1 showing the absence of Hydrocarbons of Petroleum (kerosene, petrol or diesel) also falsifies the claim of Sanjay. Further, the witness Pradeep (PW49) has named the accused Kulwinder in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to the police and has identified him in the Court as one of the assailants. Amar Lal (CW1) has identified the accused Kulwinder as one of the boys who had sprinkled oil on his house and removed clothes and was dancing naked in front of his house. All these witnesses namely Mahajan (PW38), Dilbagh (PW43), Sanjay (PW44), Pradeep (PW49) and Amar Lal (CW1) have been held by this Court to be partly reliable vide a detail discussion as aforesaid not being repeated for the sake of brevity. Once there is an independent corroboration forthcoming to their testimonies there is no reason to discredit or disbelieve the same. In the present case the testimonies of Mahajan (PW38), Dilbagh (PW43), Sanjay (PW44), Pradeep (PW49) and Amar Lal (CW1) find due corroboration from each other and they have not only identified the accused Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar as a part of the unlawful assembly but have also identified him specifically as one of the persons who was indulging into stone pelting,
causing damages to the properties of persons of the 'B' community and also setting them on fire. Here I may observe that the allegations made by Vicky (PW42) against Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar carrying a danda and hitting persons from the 'B' community with the same have been made by Vicky (PW42) for the first time in the Court and is a total improvement over his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which does not find corroboration from any other source since no weapons including dandas have been recovered and even the medical evidence on record in the form of MLRs of the injured do not substantiate these allegations. Further, the allegations made by Amar Lal (CW1) against Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar of sprinkling kerosene oil on his house and removing his clothes and dancing naked in front of his house, have been made by Amar Lal (CW1) for the first time in the Court which is an exaggeration and improvement over his earlier statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.CW1/C dated 27.6.2010 which is despite the fact that even after 27.6.2010 Amar Lal had made another statement to the Investigating Officer Ex.CW1/D and had sufficient opportunity to inform the Investigating Officer about any additional allegations against Kulwinder which he had earlier missed out, which he did not do. I may observe that as already discussed herein above the allegations regarding sprinkling of kerosene oil does not find any corroboration from any other source including the FSL Report Ex.PX1 which does not show the presence of hydrocarbons of Petroleum including Kerosene, Petrol or Diesel in the exhibits lifted from the spot on the same day that is 21.4.2010 and sent to the laboratory for examination. Hence though the allegations of sprinkling of kerosene oil cannot be believed yet I find the testimony of Amar Lal (CW1) to the extent that of presence of Kulwinder S/o Ram
Mehar at the time his house was set on fire, credible and trustworthy since it has been successfully proved from the photographs and video clippings placed on record that the house of Tara Chand and Kamla were completely burnt in which Tara Chand and Suman lost their lives. The testimony of Amar Lal (CW1) also finds independent corroboration with regard to the involvement of Kulwinder from the testimony of Mahajan (PW38). However, the allegations regarding Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar removing his clothes and dancing in front of his house, is also a total improvement over the earlier statement made by him and it is for the first time in the Court that he has come up with this new story to which there is no corroboration from any other source and cannot be believed. In view of the above I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to successfully establish the presence of the accused Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar at the spot at the time of the incident along with the other persons constituting unlawful assembly, indulging into stone pelting, causing damage to the properties of persons from the 'B' community and also setting fire to the house of Tara Chand.
Allegations against the accused Ramphal S/o Prithvi:

Coming now to the allegations against the accused Ramphal S/o Prithvi, he has been identified in the Court by Rajbir (PW10), Sushil (PW25), Dhoop Singh (PW29), Santra (PW30), Mahajan (PW38), Vijender (PW40), Vicky (PW42), Dilbagh (PW43), Sanjay (PW44), Manoj (PW45), Rajesh (PW46), Satyawan (PW47), Gulaba (PW48), Pardeep (PW49), Kamla (PW50) and Amar Lal (CW1). For the sake of clarity and convenience the ocular evidence against the above accused is
briefly culled out as under:

Sr. Name of Name of the witness who has No. the named/ identified the accused accused in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Name of the witness 1. Ramphal S/o Prithvi (1) Sanjay S/o Gulab (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010) (2) Vijender S/o Surta (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010) (3) Vicky S/o Dhup Singh (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010) (4) Mahajan s/o Satpal (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 23.4.2010) (5) Gulab Singh S/o Jailal (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated
Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the court Name of the Relevant witness testimony (1) Rajbir S/o Baje Singh (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 30.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) (2) Sushil S/o Surta (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) (3) Dhoop Singh S/o Ratan Singh Named but does not identify the accused nor made any allegations against him
Allegations Rioting, damage to property of Dhoop Singh by fire and caused injuries to Dhoop Singh
As the boy who had removed his clothes and started dancing naked
Though named but not identified the accused stating that Ramphal who had entered his house and given a lathi blow on his left arm is not this accused
Page No. 888
23.4.2010 & 27.6.2010) (6) Dilbagh S/o Gulab Singh (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010) (7) Manoj S/o Mahender (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010) (8) Pradeep S/o Tara Chand (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010) (9) Amarlal S/o Tara Chand
(4) Santra S/o Satyawan Ram (not named in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 30.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) (5) Mahajan S/o Satpal
As the person who was having an oil container and was setting the houses on fire
Named when Special Public Prosecutor refreshes his memory but does not identify the accused when put to him As the person who was indulging into burning of houses belonging to the members of 'B' community and had set the house of Tara Chand on fire As one of the assailants As the boy who was setting the houses belonging to the members of 'B' community and had followed him on the roof with a gandase.
Page No. 889
(7) Vicky S/o Dhoop Singh (8) Dilbagh S/o Gulab Singh
(9) Sanjay S/o As the person Gulab Singh who had set his house on fire and also broken the motorcycle of his brother in law and burnt the same (10) Manoj As one of the S/o Mahender assailant (11) Rajesh S/o Dalip (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) (12) Satyawan S/o Roshan (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) (13) Gulaba S/o Jai Lal As the person who had set the house of Sanjay and Tara Chand on fire
As the person who had come to his house with a container of oil
As the person who had come to his house along with a container of oil As one of the assailants
Page No. 890
(14) Pradeep S/o Tara

Chand (15) Kamla W/o Tara Chand (not named in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) General allegations of being a part of unlawful assembly
(16) Amar Lal He was leading S/o Tara the crowd and Chand sprinkled kerosene oil on his house
Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that it is not safe to rely upon the uncorroborated testimony of Rajbir (PW10), Sushil (PW25), Dhoop Singh (PW29), Santra (PW30), Mahajan (PW38), Vijender (PW40), Vicky (PW42), Dilbagh (PW43), Sanjay (PW44), Manoj (PW45), Rajesh (PW46), Satyawan (PW47), Gulaba (PW48), Pardeep (PW49), Kamla (PW50) and Amar Lal (CW1) being unreliable and inconsistent. The Ld. Special Public Prosecutor has opposed the argument of the Ld. Defence Counsel and has pointed out that Dhoop Singh (PW29), Mahajan (PW38), Vijender (PW40), Vicky (PW42), Dilbagh (PW43), Sanjay (PW44), Manoj (PW45), Gulaba (PW48), Pardeep (PW49) and Amar Lal (CW1) have all at the first instance named Ramphal S/o Prthvi Mehar in their statements to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and there is no reason to disbelieve
their version. I have considered the rival contentions. At the very outset I may observe that it is for the first time in the Court that the accused Ramphal S/o Prithvi has been identified (dock identification) by the witnesses Rajbir (PW10), Sushil (PW25), Santra (PW30), Rajesh (PW46), Satyawan (PW47) and Kamla (PW50) despite the fact that he is a resident of the same village and was known to the witnesses even prior to the incident. It is evident that no Test Identification of the accused has been conducted nor the accused has been apprehended at the instance of these witnesses who had identified him in the Court and therefore under these circumstances and also for the reasons already discussed herein above since Kamla (PW50) has been held to be an unreliable witness and therefore under these circumstances the testimonies of the witnesses Rajbir (PW10), Sushil (PW25), Santra (PW30), Rajesh (PW46), Satyawan (PW47) and Kamla (PW50) qua the identification of accused Ramphal are unacceptable. In so far as the witnesses Dhoop Singh (PW29), Mahajan (PW38), Vijender (PW40), Vicky (PW42), Dilbagh (PW43), Sanjay (PW44), Manoj (PW45), Gulaba (PW48), Pardeep (PW49) and Amar Lal (CW1) are concerned they have at the first instance have named the accused Ramphal S/o Prithvi in their statements made to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Here I may mention that though Dhoop Singh (PW29) has named the accused Ramphal S/o Prithvi in his examination in chief but when the accused Ramphal was specifically put to him for identification, he told the Court that this accused Ramphal was not the same Ramphal S/o Prithvi who is the
Page No. 892
assailant and had inflicted danda blows on him.
Further, Mahajan
(PW38) has named the accused Ramphal S/o Prithvi in his examination in chief as one of the assailants but when the accused was specifically put to him for identification he could not identify the accused Ramphal. It is also evident that the witness Vijender (PW40) has named the accused Ramphal in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and has identified him in the Court as the person who was indulging into burning of houses belonging to the members of 'B' community and had set the house of Tara Chand on fire. Vicky (PW42) has named the accused Ramphal in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and identified him in the Court as one of the assailants. Dilbagh (PW43) has named the accused Ramphal and has identified him in the Court as the person who was setting the houses belonging to the members of 'B' community on fire and had followed him on the roof with a gandasi. Sanjay (PW44) has named the accused Ramphal in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to the police and has identified him in the Court as the person who was sprinkling oil and was setting his house on fire. Manoj (PW45) has named the accused Ramphal in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to the police and has identified him in the Court as the person who had set his house on fire and also broken the motorcycle of his brother in law and burnt the same. Gulaba (PW48) has named the accused Ramphal in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to the police and has identified him in the Court as the person who had set the houses of Sanjay and Tara Chand on fire a fact which finds a corroboration from the testimony of Amar Lal (CW1). Pradeep (PW49) has named the accused Ramphal in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to the police and has identified him in the Court as the assailant.
The testimonies of all these witnesses namely Vijender (PW40), Vicky (PW42), Dilbagh (PW43), Sanjay (PW44), Manoj (PW45), Gulaba (PW48), Pardeep (PW49) and Amar Lal (CW1), vide a detailed discussion not being repeated for the sake of brevity, have not been held by this Court to be totally reliable warranting corroboration. The witnesses Vijender (PW40), Vicky (PW42), Dilbagh (PW43), Sanjay (PW44), Manoj (PW45), Gulaba (PW48), Pardeep (PW49) and Amar Lal (CW1) have corroborated each other and they have not only identified the accused Ramphal S/o Prithvi as a part of the unlawful assembly but have also identified him specifically as one of the persons who was indulging into stone pelting, causing damages to the properties of persons from the 'B' community and setting on fire to the house of Tara Chand. Here I may observe that the allegations made by Sanjay (PW44) against Ramphal S/o Prithvi of carrying a can of kerosene oil of sprinkling the same on houses, have been made by Sanjay (PW44) and Gulab Singh (PW48) for the first time in the Court which is an improvement over their earlier statements. The allegations regarding sprinkling of kerosene oil find no corroboration from any other source including the FSL Report Ex.PX1 which does not show the presence of Hydrocarbons of Petroleum including Kerosene, Petrol or Diesel in the exhibits lifted from the spot on the same day that is 21.4.2010 and sent to the laboratory for examination. Hence though the allegations of sprinkling of kerosene oil cannot be believed yet I find the testimony of Sanjay (PW44) and Gulab Singh (PW48) to the extent of presence of Ramphal S/o Prithvi and setting the house of Tara Chand on fire credible and trustworthy which finds due corroboration from the testimonies of Vijender (PW40), Dilbagh (PW43) and Amar Lal (CW1).
In view of the above I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to successfully establish the presence of the accused Ramphal S/o Prithvi at the spot at the time of the incident along with the other persons constituting unlawful assembly, indulging into stone pelting, causing damage to the properties of persons from the 'B' community and also setting fire to the house of Tara Chand.
Allegations against the accused Rajender S/o Pale :

In so far as the accused Rajender S/o Pale is concerned, he has been identified in the Court by Rajbir (PW10), Sunita (PW13), Sushil (PW25), Santra (PW30), Sheela (PW32), Rani (PW33), Sanjay (PW36), Meena Kumar (PW37), Mahajan (PW38), Sube Singh (PW39), Vijender (PW40), Vicky (PW42), Dilbagh (PW43), Sanjay (PW44), Manoj (PW45), Rajesh (PW46), Satyawan (PW47), Gulaba (PW48), Pardeep (PW49), Kamla (PW50) and Amar Lal (CW1). For the sake of clarity and convenience the ocular evidence against the above accused is briefly culled out as under:
Sr. Name of Name of the witness who has No. the named/ identified the accused accused in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Name of the witness 1. Rajender S/o Pale (1) Satyawan S/o Bhaleram (not examined by the prosecution) Allegations Rioting, damage to property by fire, causing death and injuries
Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the court Name of the Relevant witness testimony (1) Rajbir S/o As one of the Baje Singh assailants (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated
Page No. 895
(2) Ramniwas S/o Rajmal (not examined by the prosecution) (3) Ramphal S/o Rajmal (not examined by the prosecution) (4) Kamla S/o Tara Chand (named in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010) (5) Pradeep S/o Tara Chand (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 & 27.6.2010) (6) Dhup Singh S/o Rattan (does not identify the accused in the Court) (7) Aman S/o Surta (does not identify the accused in the Court) (8) Gulab S/o Jailal (named in her statement under
30.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) (2) Sunita W/o False witness Ved and is in fact Kanta (3) Sushil S/o Surta As the person who was responsible for the incident Though named but does not identify the accused Rajender nor made allegations against him As the person who was carrying oil and had set the houses belonging to the members of 'B' community on fire
(4) Dhoop Singh S/o Ratan Singh
(5) Santra W/o Satyawan (not named in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 30.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) (6) Sheela W/o Subhash (not named in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 30.4.2010 and has identified the accused for
As the person who had set the houses belonging to the members of 'B' community on fire
Page No. 896
Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 23.4.2010 & 27.6.2010) (9) Mahender S/o Amar Singh (not examined by the prosecution) (10) Rajender S/o Mahender (not examined by the prosecution) (11) Dilbagh S/o Gulab (named in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 ) (12) Sunita W/o Surta (not examined by the prosecution) (13) Rajkumar S/o Kapoora (not examined by the prosecution) (14) Vicky S/o Dhup Singh (named in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 27.6.2010) (15) Sanjay S/o Gulab (named in his
the first time in the Court) (7) Rani W/o Was indulging Sanjay into brick (not named in batting her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) (8) Sanjay S/o Raja Ram (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) (9) Meena Kumar S/o Satpal (not named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 30.4.2010 and has identified the accused for the first time in the Court) (10) Mahajan S/o Satpal As the person who had set the houses belonging to the members of 'B' community on fire
Stone pelting, burnt the house of Tara Chand and the houses of other 'B'
Stone pelting, burnt the house of Tara Chand

Page No. 897
statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010) (16) Vijender S/o Surta (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010) (17) Mahajan S/o Satpal (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 23.4.2010) (18) Gulab Singh S/o Jailal (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 23.4.2010 & 27.6.2010) (19) Dilbagh S/o Gulab Singh (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010) (20) Manoj S/o Mahender (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010) (21) Sushil S/o
and the houses of other members of 'B' community (11) Sube Singh Bhura Ram Stone pelting, burnt the house of Tara Chand and the houses of other members of 'B' community Stone pelting, burnt the house of Tara Chand and the houses of other members of 'B' community
(13) Vicky S/o As the person Dhoop Singh who had beaten Gulab Singh with dandas and also as one of the assailants. (14) Dilbagh S/o Gulab Singh As the person who had hit his father Gulab Singh with a danda As the person who had hit his father Gulab Singh with danda and had set the houses belonging to the members of 'B' community on fire
(15) Sanjay S/o Gulab Singh
Page No. 898
Surta (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010) (22) Sube Singh S/o Bhura Ram (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010) (23) Rajesh S/o Dalip (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010) (24) Satyawan S/o Roshan Lal (named in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 21.4.2010) (25) Amarlal S/o Tara Chand
(16) Manoj Stone pelting, S/o Mahender burnt the house of Tara Chand and the houses of other members of 'B' community (17) Rajesh S/o Dalip Stone pelting, burnt the house of Tara Chand and the houses of other 'B'
(18) Satyawan As the person S/o Roshan who had set the houses of Sanjay and Tara Chand on fire (19) Gulaba S/o Jai Lal As the person who had caught hold of his collar while Karampal snatched his lathi and hit him on his back and set his house on fire. Stone pelting, burnt the house of Tara Chand after the ladies of the 'J' community sprinkled petrol on Tara Chand and Suman and locked them inside their house and also set houses belonging to other members of 'B'
Page No. 899
community on fire (21) Kamla W/o Tara Chand Caused beatings to her husband Tara Chand by dandas outside the house and poured kerosene on him and after setting her husband on fire he was pushed inside
(22) Amar Lal As the person S/o Tara who had set his Chand house on fire after kerosene oil was sprinkled on his father Tara and sister Suman who were pushed inside the house and oil was also sprinkled on his house
Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that it is not safe to rely upon the uncorroborated testimony of Rajbir (PW10), Sunita (PW13), Sushil (PW25), Santra (PW30), Sheela (PW32), Rani (PW33), Sanjay (PW36), Meena Kumar (PW37), Mahajan (PW38), Sube Singh (PW39), Vijender (PW40), Vicky (PW42), Dilbagh (PW43), Sanjay (PW44), Manoj (PW45), Rajesh (PW46), Satyawan (PW47), Gulaba (PW48), Pardeep (PW49), Kamla (PW50) and Amar Lal (CW1) being unreliable and inconsistent. Ld. Defence Counsel has further argued that
the accused Rajender was not even present in the village at the time of incident having sustained injuries in the morning incident after which he and Dinesh were rushed to the hospital at Jind. In this regard he seeks to place his reliance on the testimonies of Dr. Rajesh Gandhi (DW32) who has deposed about the admission and treatment of Dinesh in General Hospital Jind where he was brought by Rajender, Suman (DW18) who was a trainee nurse posted at General Hospital Jind as proved by Dipender (DW39). He has pointed out that Suman (DW18) in her testimony has proved the arrival of Rajender and Dinesh in the General Hospital Jind on 21.04.2010 with injuries and their subsequent treatment by Dr. Rajesh Gandhi (DW32). It is submitted that Rajender was having a mobile No. 9812628500 which is proved by Pawan (DW34) from IDEA from which he called up his cousin Dr. Kuldeep (DW33) on his (Dr. Kuldeep's) number 9416193328 and later Rajender from his phone got Dr. Gandhi connected to Dr. Kuldeep so that an early treatment could be provided to him and Dinesh. He has in this regard referred to the call detail record proved by Pawan (DW34) which would show the presence of Rajender at Jind and also prove the incident of aggression which took place in the morning. The Ld. Special Public Prosecutor has opposed the argument of the Ld. Defence Counsel and has pointed out that Sunita (PW13), Sushil (PW25), Meena Kumar (PW37), Mahajan (PW38), Sube Singh (PW39), Vijender (PW40), Vicky (PW42), Dilbagh (PW43), Sanjay (PW44), Manoj (PW45), Rajesh (PW46), Satyawan (PW47), Gulaba (PW48), Pardeep (PW49), Kamla (PW50) and Amar Lal (CW1) have all at the first instance named Rajender S/o Pale in their statements to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and there is no reason to
disbelieve their version. I have considered the rival contentions. At the very outset I may observe that the witnesses Satyawan S/o Bhaleram, Ramniwas S/o Rajmal and Ramphal S/o Rajmal who had earlier named the accused Ramphal S/o Prithvi in their statements made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have not been examined by the prosecution whereas the witness Aman S/o Surta has not identified the accused Rajender S/o Pale in the Court. I may also observe that it is for the first time in the Court that the accused Rajender S/o Pale has been identified (dock identification) by the witnesses Rajbir (PW10), Santra (PW30), Sheela (PW32), Rani (PW33), Sanjay (PW36) and Meena Kumar (PW37) despite the fact that he is a resident of the same village and was known to the witnesses even prior to the incident. It is evident that no Test Identification of the accused has been conducted nor the accused has been apprehended at the instance of these witnesses who had identified him in the Court and therefore under these circumstances and also for the reasons already discussed herein above since Sunita (PW13), Rani (PW33), Sanjay (PW36) and Kamla (PW50) have been held to be unreliable witnesses whose testimonies stand rejected. Therefore under these circumstances the testimonies of the Rajbir (PW10), Sunita (PW13), Santra (PW30), Sheela (PW32), Rani (PW33), Sanjay (PW36), Meena Kumar (PW37) and Kamla (PW50) qua the identification of accused Rajender S/o Pale are unacceptable. In so far as the witnesses Sushil (PW25) is concerned he has been held to be a reliable witness. He has specifically identified the accused Rajender S/o Pale as the person who was responsible for the entire incident. Further, Mahajan (PW38), Sube Singh (PW39), Vijender
(PW40), Vicky (PW42), Dilbagh (PW43), Sanjay (PW44), Manoj (PW45), Rajesh (PW46), Satyawan (PW47), Gulab Singh (PW48), Pradeep (PW49) and Amar Lal (CW1) are concerned they have at the first instance have named the accused Rajender S/o Pale in their statements made to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as the person who was indulging into stone pelting, setting the houses of the persons from the 'B' community on fire including the houses Tara Chand and Kamla. Here I may observe that it is only Pradeep (PW49) son of the deceased Tara Chand who alleges that petrol was sprinkled on his father and sister who were pushed inside the house and locked after which his house was burnt on sprinkling of petrol whereas Amar Lal (CW1) also the son of deceased Tara Chand alleges that it was kerosene oil which was sprinkled on his house as well as on his father and sister who were pushed inside the house. These allegations made by both Pradeep (PW49) and Amar Lal (CW1), find no corroboration from any other source including the FSL Report Ex.PX1 which does not show the presence of Hydrocarbons of Petroleum including Kerosene, Petrol or Diesel in the exhibits lifted from the spot on the same day that is 21.4.2010 and also in the clothes worn by the deceased Suman which were sent to the laboratory for examination and hence the testimony of Pradeep (PW49) and Amar Lal (CW1) to this extent cannot be believed. I may further observe that the call detail record Ex.DW34/C of the mobile phone of Rajender bearing no. 9812628500 no doubt reflects the presence of Rajender at Jind but I may observe that this is after 12:28 PM and also establishes the presence of Rajender in the village before 12:28 PM. The call details record Ex.DW34/C which has been duly explained by Deepak Kumar (DW42) proves that Rajender
had made a call to Dr. Kuldeep at 1:07 PM and both Dr. Rajesh Gandhi (DW32) and Dr. Kuldeep (DW33) who are both independent witnesses have corroborated the version given by Rajender regarding the injuries received by Dinesh which had to be treated at General Hospital Jind on which Dr. Kuldeep had made a request to Dr. Gandhi to attend to him on priority keeping in view the seriousness of the injuries. In fact the above evidence would not be of much assistance to Rajender except to prove that some incident had taken place in the morning at village Mirchpur in which Dinesh had received injuries for which he was rushed to General Hospital Jind and was provided treatment there. In view of the above I hereby hold that the prosecution has been able to successfully establish the presence of the accused Rajender S/o Pale at the spot at the time of the incident along with the other persons constituting unlawful assembly, indulging into stone pelting, causing damage to the properties of persons from the 'B' community and also setting fire to the house of Tara Chand.
Allegations against the accused Vinod Kajal S/o Ram Niwas:

On 21.4.2010 Vinod Kajal S/o Ram Niwas was the Station House Officer of Police Station Narnaund District Hissar and the allegations against him are of conspiring with the assailants/ accused belonging to the 'J' community. The case of the prosecution is that Vinod Kajal himself belongs to the same dominant community as that of the aggressors and despite receiving the information regarding the dispute between the persons of the 'J' community and the 'B' community in village Mirchpur, not only did he commit a default in taking appropriate
Page No. 904
action on time but rather conspired with the dominant community in inflicting atrocities upon the victims. Therefore despite being a public servant on duty he did not perform and rather willfully neglected to perform his duties under this Act. It is argued by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor for the victims that the presence of the accused Vinod Kajal at the scene of crime is not disputed and he has been specifically identified by Kamla (PW50) as telling the other accused persons clearly that they have one hour to do what they want. He has further pointed out that Vinod Kajal has also been identified by Pradeep (PW49) as being mixed up with the accused persons inspite of being a member of the police force. According to the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor in so far as the role of the accused Vinod Kajal (the then SHO Police Station Narnaund) goes, his presence at the site of violence is not in dispute and the conduct of the accused, to begin with, brings him within the purview of Section 4 of the SC/ST (POA) Act. It is alleged that the connivance of Vinod Kajal with the mob of 'J' community is clear from the fact that he asked the 'B' men to leave, while the mob was still present in the 'B' Basti after which he instructed the mob stating that deda ne ek ghante mein aag laga do in the presence of the remaining members of 'B' community in the village, mostly women and children. On the other hand Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that the accused Vinod Kajal (the then SHO Police Station Narnuand), has been rarely named by the witnesses and the witnesses who have done so are those who have totally improved upon and exaggerated their versions in the Court. It is argued that the evidence against him is totally inadmissible and unreliable and it was in fact the
accused Vinod Kajal who had come to save the persons from the 'B' community and stop the incident in the village and even as per some of the prosecution witnesses he himself was trying to save himself from the injuries that could have been caused. It is further argued that the evidence of 120B IPC is no where available against him and he was even found innocent by the Superintendent of Hissar. The Ld. Counsel has pointed out that Vinod was on a casual leave from 09.4.2010 to 19.04.2010 on the account of the death of his mother and had joined duties on 20.4.2010 after which come to the village only on 21.04.2010 and on return on 22.04.2010 he had made detailed entry in the Daily Diary Register. It is further pointed out by the Ld. Defence Counsel that the accused Vinod Kajal and Naib Tehsildar Jage Ram both were initially accused of Section 4 of the SC ST Act and it was Jage Ram who was the supervising officer who could direct the use of force and therefore it is not proper that charge sheet has been only filed against him. It is pointed out that even DSP Abhay Singh (PW66) has admitted that allegations against both of them were similar in nature and Jage Ram was discharged and also later on similar allegations no charge sheet was filed against him an aspect which was admitted by PW67 Tula Ram DSP who in his cross-examination has testified that the accused Vinod Kajal was only arrested under Section 4 of the SC ST Act and that Section 120B of the IPC was added against Vinod Kajal on 27.07.2010 after the recording of the supplementary statement of one Ashok son of Maha Singh, Pradeep son of Tara Chand, Amar son of Tara Chand, Veerbhan and Suresh. Ld. Defence Counsel has submitted that out of the above witnesses Ashok, Veerbhan and Suresh have not been produced and only
Pradeep and Amar sons of deceased Tara Chand have come to the Court to give evidence whose testimonies are inconsistent and contradictory to their earlier statements and hence not reliable. I have considered the rival contentions and the arguments placed before me. For the sake of clarity and convenience the ocular evidence against the accused Vinod Kajal is briefly culled out as under:
Sr. Name of Name of the witness who has No. the named/ identified the accused accused in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Name of the witness 1. Vinod Kajal S/o Ram Niwas (1) Virbhan S/o Maan Singh (not examined by the prosecution) Allegations Name of the witness who has named/ identified the accused in the court Name of the Relevant witness testimony (1) Satyawan S/o Roshan Lal (2) Pradeep S/o Tara Chand Non performance of duty (only named) Asked the persons from the 'B' community to collect at 'B' Chaupal for compromise First asked the persons from the 'B' community to collect at their Chaupal and thereafter did not save her family from the fury of the persons belonging to the 'J' community and along with the other boys
Page No. 907
Criminal conspiracy for the offences committed by the accused belonging to (2) Ashok S/o the dominant Maha Singh community (does not and willful identify the neglect of accused nor duties makes any required to be allegation against performed by Vinod Kajal and him is hostile qua him) (3) Suresh S/o Ramesh Kumar (not examined by the prosecution) (4) Karan Singh S/o Tekram (not examined by the prosecution but
examined by the defence and turned hostile on allegations against the accused Vinod) (5) Pradeep S/o Tara Chand (6) Amar S/o Tara Chand (4) Amar Lal S/o Tara Chand
of 'J' community gave danda blows to Tara Chand and poured kerosene oil on him and set him on fire after which he pushed him inside the house Asked the persons from the 'B' community to collect at the 'B' Chaupal and neglected to perform his duties.
At the very outset I may observe that for the first time allegations against Vinod Kajal (the then SHO Police Station Narnaund) with regard to non performance of duties were made by Karan Singh on 22.4.2010 that is on the next day of the incident when he allegedly gave another complaint to the Investigating Officer after which the provisions of Section 4 of the SC/ST (POA) Act were added. The evidence on record shows that it was only in the month of July that is 27.7.2010 that the supplementary statements of Ashok S/o Maha Singh, Pradeep S/o Tara Chand, Amar S/o Tara Chand, Veerbhan S/o Maan Singh and Suresh S/o Ramesh Kumar were recorded. Here I may observe that Veerbhan S/o Maan Singh, Karan Singh S/o Tek Ram and Suresh S/o Ramesh Kumar have not been examined by the prosecution to prove the above allegations made against the accused Vinod Kajal. Rather, Karan Singh
S/o Tek Ram has been examined as a defence witness as DW13 who has denied having made any allegations against Vinod and has not supported the prosecution case in this regard. Further, Ashok S/o Maha Singh has been examined as PW35 and has not supported the case of the prosecution qua the accused Vinod Kajal. Pradeep S/o Tara Chand (PW49) has also denied having made any statement to the police on 27.7.2010 which is Ex.PW49/PX2 and does not substantiate any allegations against the accused Vinod Kajal except to the extent that he (accused Vinod Kajal) had asked the persons from the 'B' community to gather at their Chaupal ('B' Chaupal) for getting a compromise effected. The only persons who have make some kind of allegations against Vinod Kajal are Satyawan (PW47), Kamla (PW50) and Amar Lal (CW1) which allegations are briefly stated as under: Allegations made by Satyawan (PW47): That after Karan Singh and Veer Bhan received injuries on 19.4.2010 they (injured) were first taken to Narnaund hospital but since the doctors refer him to a bigger hospital they were then taken to government hospital Hissar by Ramesh S/o Mange Ram, since Veer Bhan was more serious he was then shifted to Jindal hospital, Hissar. On 20.04.2010 the 'J' Panchayat met in the village and it was decided that the matter should be compromised in the village and on account of the above Veer Bhan was brought back from the hospital after getting him discharged and Karan Singh also came back with him. Thereafter on 21.04.2010 at about 7:00 AM the panchayat of the village
Page No. 909
came to the house of Veer Bhan and asked him to compromise the dispute to which Veer Bhan agreed and while the panchayat members were still sitting at the house of Veer Bhan, Gulab Singh the chowkidar of the village who had gone to collect milk and lassi from the village, was beaten by Rajender S/o Pale and other boys of the 'J' community who had started gathering in the village in large number. That Gulab Singh some how manage to come back to the 'B' Basti and told the persons residing in the 'B' Basti as to what had happened with him on which they ('B') also got together and made a call to the Narnaund police station and informed them and also requested the SHO (accused Vinod) to come to the spot as he was apprehending the matters could got aggravated. That the SHO (accused Vinod) first sent four to five police persons in the village but in the meanwhile at about 9 AM large number of persons from the 'J' community gathered and came towards the 'B' Basti and initially they were about 100-150 persons but later on the numbers swelled to about 300-400. That he (Satyawan) again called up the SHO (accused Vinod) from his mobile and told him that the matter would going out of hand and that a large number of boys from the 'J' community had gathered and had come to the 'B' Mohalla and requested the SHO to come to the village personally. That the SHO Inspector Vinod Kajal (accused) then came to the village along with one gypsy and then he along with the
officials went to boys belonging to 'J' community. That after some time he (Inspector Vinod Kajal) came back and told them that there would be no problem since he had already advised these boys and also asked them ('B') to collect at the 'B' Chaupal so that he could get a compromise effected between them. That on this they all i.e. males of the village belonging to the 'B' community went to the 'B' Chaupal but in the meanwhile these persons from the 'J' community who had collected in the village surrounded the 'B' Mohalla where they heard the cries of their ladies informing them that the mohalla had been surrounded by the persons from 'J' community. That they (members of the 'B' community) all ran from the Chaupal and found that the entire mohalla had been surrounded by these persons from the 'J' community who were throwing stones. That while he was coming out from the Chaupal he told the SHO (accused Vinod) SHO sahab ye kya kara diya on which the SHO (accused Vinod) told him mein kya karo bhai. That he further told the SHO (accused Vinod) apne to hame marva diya on which the SHO (accused Vinod) told him mein ke karo, jessi bhaga jata ho to bhag ley. That they (members of 'B' community) also pleaded with the SHO (accused Vinod) and the other police officials to save them but they all started running away from the village from
the kacha rasta going towards Rakhi village and the SHO said jab mera hi bachna muskil hai to tumhe kya bachau and he also ran away from the village. Allegations made by Kamla : That on 21.4.2010 when there was a dispute between the persons from the 'J' community and the 'B' community consequent to which there was stone pelting, some police officials cam from Police Station Narnaund to the village and the SHO (accused Vinod Kajal) also came and they pleaded with him to save them. That he (SHO Vinod Kajal) took their ('B') children to the Chaupal and all the ladies were left behind and she saw him and she pleaded with him to save her husband and children but he told the boys belonging to 'J' community dheda ne ek ghante mein aag laga do. That their men folk had been taken to the Chaupal by that time and the boys started setting their houses on fire and son of Sishu (a member of 'J' community) instigated the other boys to burn the houses belonging to the members of 'B' community on fire by saying na daro choorya sae aag laga do and he further said jo kar sansi neikale tha nu choorya ne neikal do. That the Narnaund police did not help them and her house was set on fire due to which her husband Tara Chand and her daughter Suman were burnt to death.
Page No. 912
That her husband was beaten with dandas outside the house and kerosene was poured on him and after setting him on fire he was pushed inside the house by Pawan, Kulwinder, Hoshiyara Rajender and SHO Kajal.
Allegations made by Amar Lal: That on 21.4.2010 after the stone pelting commenced the persons from the 'B' community defended themselves for about one hour and in the meanwhile the SHO of the area Inspector Vinod Kajal (accused before this court) came in the main gali and intervened due to which the fighting and stone pelting which was going on stopped. That they all came down from the roofs after which he (SHO - accused Vinod) requested all of them to assemble at the 'B' Chaupal and told them that the persons from the 'J' community would also be called there and he would intervene to get a compromise effected. Firstly it is an admitted case of the prosecution that the accused Vinod Kajal (the then SHO Police Station Narnaund) was on casual leaves from 09.04.2010 to 19.04.2010 and joined duties only on 20.4.2010 on account of the death of his mother. This aspect is proved by DW1 HC Ram Singh. It has been proved by DW5 HC Laxman Singh that Vinod Kajal made his departure on 9.4.2010 vide DD No. 39 and after joining duties on 20.4.2010 he left for the investigations of some other case and on 21.04.2010 he left the police station after making the DD entry and returned back only on 22.04.2010. The entries Ex.DW5/A to Ex.DW5/F duly proved by DW5 HC Laxman Singh prove the details
of the happenings of 20.4.2010 to 22.4.2010. Secondly I may observe that all these three witnesses namely Satyawan (PW47), Kamla (PW50) and Amar Lal (CW1) have come up with an altogether new story regarding the role of accused Vinod Kajal. In fact the version put forward by Satyawan (PW47) and Amar Lal (CW1) is contrary to the version given by them to the police in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and in so far as Kamla (PW50) is concerned she is the only witness who for the first time has alleged that it was Vinod Kajal along with other boys of 'B' community who set her husband Tara Chand on fire which allegations neither find a mention in her first statement made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. nor finds corroboration from any other source. Thirdly the testimony of Satyawan (PW47) is a total improvement with which he has been duly confronted. Even in that improved version the role attributed to the SHO (accused Vinod) is of trying to intervene with the intention of bringing about a settlement between the erring groups. Satyawan also explains that the SHO was trying to save his own life during the stone pelting from either side and infact ran away from the village which is an altogether new story and does not find corroboration from any other source because the presence of the accused Vinod in the village along with the other police officials is also substantiated from the record of the wireless which proves that during this period he was sending repeated messages to the Head Quarters and other places seeking more force and reinforcement. Here, I may observe that this act of the SHO in attempting to get the issues compromised between the two castes, may be a miscalculation on his part reflecting lack of experience or may be sensitivity in dealing with
such a situation but certainly no malafidie's can be attributed to him for the same. Fourthly it is evident from the testimony of Amar Lal that it was Vinod Kajal who by his intervention had got the stone pelting stopped and tried for a compromise. This does not substantiate the theory of conspiracy or abetment. Fifthly Kamla (PW50) has already been held to be an unreliable witness whose testimony has been rejected qua the identification of the accused. Even otherwise the story put forth by her for the first time in the Court by including the name of Vinod Kajal SHO in the actual sprinkling of the kerosene oil on Tara Chand and setting him on fire is not substantiate by the dying declaration of Tara Chand nor finds a support from the FSL report Ex.PX1 showing the absence of Hydrocarbons of Petroleum including kerosene, petrol and diesel. In fact Kamla had initially failed to identify Vinod Kajal in the Court and could only identified him later only after he was put to her. She also did not disclose to the Investigating Officer previously in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the SHO was approached by her to save them. Sixthly the version so put forward by Satyawan, Kamla and Amar Lal does not find any independent reliable corroboration. Rather, the assertion made by Pradeep (PW49) that the accused Vinod (the then SHO) was mixed up with the persons from 'J' community is only his assumption and not a conclusively established or a proven fact. Seventhly in so far as the invocation of the provisions of Section 4 of the SC/ST (POA) Act against the accused Vinod Kajal is concerned, I may observe that the allegations made against him were similar to that made against Naib Tehsildar Jage Ram who has been
discharged. Further, in the initial Daily Diary Register dated 22.04.2010 Vinod Kajal has explained that he did not resort to firing as the supervising authority did not pass any such order. DW2 Constable Ravinder has produced the record of the wireless communication calls made by Vinod Kajal from 7.45 AM to 12.45 noon summoning the police force with information to the senior police officials resulting into the arrival of force from the adjoining police stations as well as from Hissar and Hansi which proves that he had taken all necessary steps as were required of him under the given circumstances. Eighthly I may observe that the provisions of Section 4 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 provides for a punishment with imprisonment for a term not less than six months which may extend to one year if any public servant, who is not a member of Schedule Caste or Scheduled Tribes, willfully neglects his duties required to be performed under this Act. Here, I may observe that non performance/ willful neglect in performance of public duty is directly linked to an Office and can under no circumstances be linked to the Caste of such public servant. All public servants are under an obligation to perform their public duties and any non performance of duties required to be performed under the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 cannot under any circumstances be tolerated or overlooked which is imperative for one and all. The provisions of Section 4 of SC/ST (POA) Act when subjected to Judicial scrutiny and tested on the touch stone of Constitutional validity and objective/ purpose sought to be attained by the Special Legislation to my mind does not fulfill the constitutional test and object sought to be attained by this Special Legislation, there being no rational or logic in creating this exception. Be that as the case may be, I leave it open for the Higher
Constitutional Courts to exhaustively delve upon this aspect. In the present case it was Jage Ram Tehsildar who was the concerned public servant competent to direct the use of force on the assailants in order to disperse the crowd and minimize the loss and it is evident from the record that on account of his default Jage Ram was initially booked under Section 4 of the SC/ST (POA) Act along with Vinod Kajal but for the fact that he was a member of the Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe, that he was later got discharged on the same allegations, on which the accused Vinod Kajal has been booked. Any non performance by Vinod Kajal was a direct result of Jage Ram not issuing the necessary directions and therefore under these circumstances Jage Ram being discharged the accused Vinod Kajal certainly cannot be held liable. Ninethly Vinod Kajal had joined duties only on 20.4.2010 after availing of leaves on account of his mother's death and was under direct supervision of his senior officers including the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Superintendent of Police and Inspector General (Range). Is it not the obligation of senior officers to inspect and supervise the complaints so received and the action taken. If there was an incident which could have created a serious problem between two groups/ castes/ communities how was it that the senior officers were ignorant of the same. Is it not a serious lapse, or is it that they chose to look the other way. Even on 21.4.2010 the official records prove that Vinod Kajal had been repeatedly messaging for more force and reinforcements. If this be so then is it not that the senior officers right to the top should have been booked for negligence in performance of their duties. Why is it that only Vinod Kajal has been booked or is it that being an easy prey he has been made an scapegoat.
Tenthly it has come on record that initially the charge sheet had been prepared by DSP Tula Ram on 4.7.2010 as apparent from the charge sheet wherein there is a cutting on the date and the numerical '4' has been converted into '27'. DSP Tula Ram (PW67) has admitted that he had prepared the charge sheet against the accused Vinod Kajal on 4.7.2010 but it is evident from the record that the statements of Veer Bhan S/o Maan Singh, Suresh S/o Raj Kumar, Ashok S/o Maha Singh, Praveen and Amar Lal both sons of Tara Chand which were recorded on 27.7.2010 could not have been placed before the senior officers who had accorded the sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. to prosecute Vinod and after recording statements of such witnesses who have all now not supported the same in the Court, the charge sheet was prepared within a matter of hours. The manner in which the charge sheet against the accused Vinod Kajal has been hurriedly prepared by DSP Tula Ram reflects his predisposition and bias against the accused Vinod Kajal apart from the total non application of mind there being no reliable evidence under Section 120-B Indian Penal Code on the basis of which could have been charge sheeted. Lastly I may also observe that the charges regarding inaction or overt act of Vinod Kajal was added only on 22.04.2010 i.e after the intervention of the political and community leaders from outside and was then arrested under Section 4 of the SC/ST Act apparently for pacifying the situation and was included in 120B IPC by way of supplementary statements dated 27.07.2010 at the time of the filing of the challan but no admissible and reliable evidence has been led on the record to connect him with the crime.
Page No. 918
Second Version of the incident:

The case of prosecution is that on 19.04.2010 which was a Monday Rajender S/o Pale along with Sonu S/o Wakil and one Tinku all belonging to 'J' community and four-five other boys who were all in an intoxicated state were passing in front of the house of Karan Singh, a person from 'B' community situated in the main street at about 9-9:30 PM when the she-dog belonging to Jai Parkash, a person from 'B' community, the brother of Karan Singh started barking at them. On this the boys belonging to the 'J' community got irritated and threw a stone (dala), when a portion of the stone (dala) hit the she-dog and the other portion entered the house of Karan Singh on which Karan Singh protested. In response the above mentioned 'J' boys said abhi to kutiya ne mara hai dalla, tumko bhi marenge (at present we have hit the shedog, we will also hit you) and also threatened Karan Singh by saying that dubara bologe to thare bhi lagega (if you speak again, you will also be hit). On this Yogesh S/o Jai Parkash and nephew of Karan Singh came out and there was an verbal altercation between Rajender S/o Pale and Yogesh followed by physical altercation when other persons also came and separated them. Karan Singh had to apologize to Rajender S/o Pale with folded hands to prevent the matter from getting out of hand. After some time Ajeet a resident of the same village belonging to the 'J' community came and told Karan Singh that he has been called at the house of Rajender S/o Pale towards the houses of the 'J' community as there was a 'J' Panchayat on the incident stating that they would get the matters amicably resolved. There were about ten to fifteen boys present there who suddenly attacked Karan Singh and Veerbhan who sustained injuries. Later on there was a hue and cry and all the persons from the
'B' community went to the spot and saved Karan Singh and Veer Bhan and brought them back. Veer Bhan had sustained lot of injuries and was unconscious at that time but Karan Singh was still conscious though he had also sustained injuries. The said persons immediately shifted Karan Singh and Veerbhan to the hospital. First they were taken to Narnaud hospital by Ramesh S/o Mange Ram but since the doctors referred him to a bigger hospital they were then taken to General Hospital Hissar. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 20.04.2010 a Panchayat comprising of persons from 'J' community met in the village and it was decided that the matter should be compromised in the village. On the one hand some persons from the Panchayat comprising of persons from 'J' community went to the Hissar Hospital and requested Karan Singh and Veerbhan not to get the FIR registered and said that they would get the matters compromised but on the other hand persons from the 'J' community also held a meeting on 19.04.2010 in the village wherein they decided that they would teach a lesson to the persons from the 'B' community. On account of the above the injured Veerbhan was brought back from the hospital after getting him discharged and Karan Singh also came back with him. In the evening of 20.04.2010 there was an atmosphere of fear in the village since a large number of boys from the 'J' community had gathered and were going around in the village in groups of twenties and thirties armed with lathis, threatening that they would burn the houses of the members of 'B' community and would throw them out of the village by making utterances choora ne kada ge, choora ne ghara ne aag lageye gai (we will remove the chooras from the village and set their houses on fire). The members of the 'B' community of the village were afraid and apprehending that the persons
from the 'J' community might attack, they remained alert and awake during the night. It is alleged that the police was informed about the incident which had occurred on 19.04.2010 and hence around five to seven police personnel had been sent to the village who were present there on 20.4.2010. It is further alleged that on 21.04.2010 at about 7AM the Panchayat of the persons comprising of the 'J' community of the village came to the house of Veerbhan a member of the 'B' community who had returned from the hospital and asked him to compromise the dispute to which Veerbhan agreed. Meanwhile at about 8 AM Rajender S/o Pale a person belonging to the 'J' community, was passing through the main gali in his boogie while he was going to his house when he threatened some of the boys sitting in the gali/ street who were from the 'B' community saying that abhi dekhege tare ko, ektha ho kar angeye, aag lanageye (we will see you after we get together and come and put fire). Due to this he had some verbal altercation with some boys of the 'B' community and ran away from that place raising a false alarm of choorya ne mar diya, choorya ne mar diya (chooras have beaten, chooras have beaten). Around the same time Gulab Singh (PW48), the Chowkidar of the village belonging to the 'B' community who had gone to collect milk and lassi from the village, on his way back, on the main road saw that the wife of one Satbir a person from the 'J' community was having an oil can/ container in her hand and the wife of Kapoora also had oil container/ Peepi in her hand. On reaching the house of Rajender S/o Pale, Gulab Singh found Rajender S/o Pale, Karampal S/o Satbir, Ramphal S/o Prithvi along with ten to fifteen other boys standing there when Rajender S/o Pale caught hold of Gulab Singhs collar, Karampal
snatched his walking stick/ lathi and hit Gulab Singh on his back on which Gulab Singh fell down and Ramphal S/o Prithvi hit him on his head. Gulab Singh was lifted from there by persons from the 'B' Mohalla and was taken to his house and put on a cot/ charpai and on returning to the 'B' Basti Gulab Singh told the persons residing in the 'B' Basti as to what had happened with him. On hearing this Satyawan (PW47) and other persons of 'B' community got together and telephoned the Narnaund police station and informed the SHO (accused Vinod Kajal) about Gulab Singh and the preparation which he had seen in the 'J' Basti and also requested him (accused Vinod Kajal) to come to the spot as Satyawan and members of 'B' community were apprehending that the matters could get aggravated on which the SHO first sent four/ five police persons in the village. According to the prosecution at about 9 AM a large number of persons from the 'J' community gathered and came towards the 'B' Basti. Initially they were about 100-150 persons but later on the numbers swelled to about 300-400 and more duly armed with lathies, gandases, stones, oil cans, and petrol and also brought stones and containers of oil in a rehri after which the persons belonging to the 'J' community started pelting stones on the persons of 'B' community in the Basti. In response the members of the 'B' community also tried to throw stones, bricks and whatever else they could lay their hands on, but the persons belonging to the 'J' community were more in number and were well prepared. Thereafter Satyawan a member of the 'B' community again called up the SHO (accused Vinod Kajal) from his mobile and told him that the matters were going out of hand and that a large number of persons from the 'J' community had gathered and had come to the 'B' mohalla and also
requested the SHO to come to the village personally on which SHO Inspector Vinod Kajal (accused before this Court) then came to the village in a Police Gypsy when persons from the 'B' community including Kamla (PW50) pleaded with him to save them. Thereafter he along with the other police personnel who had come with him and other police officials who were already present in the village went towards the large mob consisting of persons from 'J' community and after talking to the persons belonging to the 'J' community, SHO Vinod Kajal (the present accused) came towards the persons from the 'B' community and told them to collect at the 'B' Chaupal stating that he would get a compromise effected in respect of the dispute between both the communities and also told the persons from 'B' community that he had asked the persons belonging to 'J' community to collect at the 'J' Chaupal. On hearing this assurance almost all the males of the village belonging to the 'B' community went to 'B' Chaupal while all the ladies, children and old persons were left behind. When the men and boys belonging to the 'B' community were walking towards the 'B' Chaupal from the 'B' Basti SHO Vinod Kajal told the boys of the 'J' community deda ne ek ghante mein aag laga do (burn the dedas within one hour) and along with SHO Vinod Kajal, son of Shishu (not an accused before the Court) instigated the 'J' boys to set the houses of persons from the 'B' community on fire by saying, na daro choorya sae, aag laga do (don't be afraid of chooras, set fire) and further instructed the 'J' boys that jo kar sansi nikale thae nu choorya ne nikal do (just like the sansis were removed from the village, similarly remove the chooras) on which Kamla pleaded with SHO Vinod Kajal once again to save her husband and children. It is further alleged that n hearing this persons from the 'J' community
surrounded the 'B' Basti from all the four sides and attacked the persons from 'B' community with jellies, gandases and lathies and also started burning the houses of the members of 'B' community while simultaneously indulging into stone pelting and the mob led by Rajender S/o Pale, started burning houses, stone pelting and beating the members of 'B' community with lathis, gandases and jellies. It is alleged that the above persons from the 'J' community were also shouting the following caste abuses and slogans: choore deda ne maro. chooreya nu jala do chooro ke aag laga do deda ne kad do bahar. phook do phook deda ne phook do jala do, aag lago do deda ne. choorya ne dedha ne phook do, mar do . Phook do dedhan ne, Chooraya ne phoonk do jala do deda ne. maro in dedya ne bhanjod ne kutya ne. maro, jala do, they were abusing using names of maa and bebe. It is further alleged that in the meanwhile the members of 'B' community who had collected in the 'B' Chaupal and who were going towards the 'B' Chaupal heard the cries of the women belonging to the 'B' community and the shor sharaba (hue and cry) informing them that the 'B' Mohalla had been surrounded by the persons from 'J' community. On this they all ran from the chaupal and found that the entire mohalla had been surrounded by the persons from the 'J' community. Thereafter, since the persons from the 'J' community had come with preparation to carry out arson and looting, they started setting the houses belonging to the members of 'B' community. Eye witnesses like Satyawan could clearly see the mob burn the house of Sanjay S/o Satpal situated on the main road as they had climbed on to the roof of Jaswant in order to save themselves from where all this was visible. Then they went to the house of Tara Chand where Tara Chand and his daughter Suman lost their lives
in the said fire. The Ld. Defence Counsel has on the other hand put forward a second version of the incident. He has vehemently argued that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence. It is submitted that the incident of 19.04.2010 is not the subject matter of this trial and on 20.04.2010 there was no incident and rather the police had visited the village and restrained the parties from doing any illegal act. According to the Ld. Defence Counsel a very material question which now arises is why suddenly on 21.04.2010 without any reason a crowd of 500-1000 collected and suddenly attacked 'B' Basti; especially in a village where both the communities were co-existing for more than a century and without any caste based incident for the last more than 55 years as admitted by the witnesses themselves. It is submitted by the Ld. Defence Counsel that the prosecution has deliberately suppressed the prelude to the incident of rioting that is the incident what had transpired in the early morning of 21.04.2010 which culminated into this incident of rioting an aspect which has been purposely held back by the prosecution. It is pointed out that initially the prosecution had come up with a different version of the incident but they later changed their version, alleging that Gulab Singh (PW48) Chowkidar was beaten by Rajender S/o Pale, Karam Pal and another person in the morning and then Gulab went to his basti and told these facts to the persons present at the house of Veerban and then the Jhagda/ quarrel started. Ld. Counsel has further pointed out that this version of the prosecution is not consistent with the testimonies of the various prosecution witnesses specially Gulab Singh (PW48) who in his testimony does not make any mention of this fact that he had gone to the house of Veerbhan where he
informed other persons of the incident but has rather deposed that after the incident he was taken to his house where he was laid on a cot and given home treatment for his injuries and later when the police came to the village, he was shifted by them to the hospital. It is submitted that this version of the prosecution does not find any corroboration from the testimonies of any other witness and appears to have been introduced later as an improvement. Ld. Counsel has further pointed out that the star witness of the prosecution Satyawan (PW47) who is stated to have witnessed the entire incident has turned hostile on the identity of many of the accused and has introduced a totally new case in the Court where he has identified only three accused. I have considered the rival contentions and also the evidence on record. Before considering the submissions made on merits, I may mention that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Brij Nandan Rai & Ors. -vs- State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1995 (I) CCR 769 (DB) where versions of the incident had emerged out of the evidence adduced before it had refused to accept the prosecution version and observed that: The prosecution has suppressed the origin of the occurrence. Evidence of the IO is that he found no breakfast material at the place of occurrence. Thus it has not presented true and correct picture of the occurrence. Undue delay in examination of PWs indicates lack of fairness on the part of the prosecution. All the witnesses are partisan. There is a defence version which explains the severe and serious injury on the chest of appellant Ram Pritam Singh. The defence version competes in probability with that of the prosecution. Omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the grievous injury on the chest of appellant Ram Pritam Singh assumed much greater importance in the above circumstances. The
evidence adduced by the prosecution is neither clear and cogent nor independent and disinterested nor probable consistent and creditworthy. Similarly in State of Maharashtra -vs- Ahmed Shaikh Babajan & Ors, Cri. Appeal No. 25-29 of 2002, decided on 24.10.2008 it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that: .... If two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record then one favourable to the accused ought not be disturbed.... Also in the case of State of U.P. -vs- Munni Ram & Ors. reported in 2010 (12) JT 180 it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the defence of the respondents was a cross version of the incident and it could not be discarded and it was further observed that: ...if two views are possible on the evidence adduced, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused is normally to be adopted...... Now coming to the facts of the present case I may Firstly observe that no doubt that the eye witnesses examined by the prosecution have by and large supported the case of the prosecution on the aspect of stone pelting and rioting including burning of houses but when it comes to the question of what was it that suddenly led to this flare up, these witnesses have either chosen to remain silent or their responses are inconsistent and unconvincing. In fact the perusal of the testimonies of many of these witnesses would reveal that in fact some incident of quarrel between the boys belonging to the 'B' and the 'J' community had
taken place in the morning on 21.4.2010 which aggravated into large scale rioting and violence. Secondly the witnesses examined by the prosecution who claim themselves to be the eye witnesses that is Santra (PW30), Sheela (PW32), Rani (PW33) and Meena Kumar (PW37) have in their testimonies admitted that the accused Rajender S/o Pale is involved in the business of sale and supply of milk in the village and his shop is situated in the main gali. In fact Sheela (PW32), Meena Kumar (PW37) and Vicky (PW42) have in their testimonies admitted that on 21.4.2010 there was an incident where Rajender along with another boy (accused Karampal) were coming to the village and passing through the main gali where the houses of persons belonging to the 'B' community are situated, were stopped by some boys belonging to 'B' community after which there was an altercation between them that is Rajender S/o Pale and the other boy on one side with a number of boys belonging to the 'B' community on the other side. Thirdly it is necessary to observe that the witnesses namely Sajna (DW7), Karan Singh (DW13), Ajmer (DW16), Ram Niwas (DW20), Dharambir (DW21) and Praveen (DW22) initially cited as prosecution witnesses had been dropped by the prosecution and not examined. These persons that is Sajna (DW7), Karan Singh (DW13), Ajmer (DW16), Ram Niwas (DW20), Dharambir (DW21) and Praveen (DW22) have later appeared and deposed in the Court as defence witnesses wherein they have supported the version put forward by the defence and has specifically testified that on 21.4.2010 in the morning Rajender and Karampal (both accused before this Court and belonging to
Page No. 928
'J' community) were stopped by the boys belonging to the 'B' community while they were passing through the main gali/ 'B' Basti and there was a verbal as well as physical altercation between them when Karampal managed to free himself and raised a hue and cry in the village to the extent that Rajender had been killed by the boys belonging to the 'B' community Rajinder Ko Balmikion Ne Mar Diya (Rajender has been assaulted by Balmikies) on which one Dinesh (another accused before this Court and also a person from the 'J' community) who was standing in the street on hearing the commotion, ran to save Rajender but was also brutally attacked with jellie (a pointed implement commonly used for agricultural purposes) as a result of which he sustained injuries around on his eye after which both Rajender and Dinesh were saved and rushed to the hospital by Prem Singh the father of Dinesh. Fourthly these above witnesses have also proved that on hearing this alarm so raised by Karampal, a large number of residents of the village gathered at the spot where the incident had taken place at the 'B' Basti after which there was a tension in the village and the stone pelting started from both the sides ('J' and 'B'). The matters thereafter got aggravated and resulted into damage to the properties of persons belonging to the 'B' community particularly around the area where the incident had taken place in the village. Fifthly I may observe that it is evident from the site plan, the photographs (Ex.PW3/A-1 to Ex.PW3/A-109) and the video recording/ clippings (Ex.PW5/B) placed on record that the damage to the houses of the persons belonging to the 'B' community was not general but selective and scattered. Therefore under these circumstances, the
Page No. 929
probability and possibility of the rioters having damaged specific properties particularly belonging to the boys/ persons involved in the assault upon Rajender in the morning, cannot be ruled out. Sixthly it is evident from the photographs and video clippings which were taken within a few hours of the incident on 21.4.2010 itself that a large number of brick bats were lying scattered but there is no evidence of any dandas, gandases or jellies lying at any place shown in the said photographs and video clippings, ruling out the use of these weapons or a pre-planning as alleged by the prosecution. Seventhly the medical evidence on record in the form of Postmortem report of Suman and Tara Chand do not reflect any injuries caused by any weapon including dandas (blunt weapon) and the death had been caused by burns. Similarly the MLRs of the injured only reflect Simple Blunt injuries which could have been caused by brick bats but certainly not by gandases or jellies or any other dangerous weapon, again ruling out the possibility of a pre-plan as alleged by the prosecution. Eighthly the only person who had received grievous injuries was Dhoop Singh (PW29) and according to him it was one boy by the name of Ramphal who is the son of Prithvi (not the accused Ramphal S/o Prithvi before the Court) who had given him a danda blow but I may observe that there is no recovery of any weapon including danda. I may further observe that in so far as Gulab Singh is concerned his medical record does not corroborate his oral testimony, all the injuries reflected are Simple/ Blunt and according to Gulab Singh the assailants had snatched his own walking stick with which he was beaten. The nature of
injuries do not reflect a violent assault but the presence of abrasion of size 2 x 1.5 cm posterior side b/w scapula, fresh swelling on tender area; abrasion of size .5 x 1.5 cm at left knee Reddish blue colour and pain at right wrist area thereby reflecting that he was perhaps poked/pushed with his own walking stick as a result of which he fell down and sustained superficial injuries on his head. Had there been a repeated assault as alleged by him, the injuries would have been grievous and the same would have certainly been reflected in his medical report which is not the case. Ninethly I may further observe that it is evident from the call detail record of Rajender S/o Pale Ex.DW34/C in respect of his mobile no. 9812628500 that he was at Jind after 12:28 PM. Further, the call made by him to Dr. Kuldeep at 1:07 PM is also evident from the call details record and both Dr. Rajesh Gandhi (DW32) and Dr. Kuldeep (DW33) who are both independent witnesses have corroborated the version given by Rajender regarding the injuries received by Dinesh which had to be treated at General Hospital Jind on which Dr. Kuldeep had made a request to Dr. Gandhi to attend to him on priority keeping in view the seriousness of the injuries. The above evidence proves that some incident had taken place in the morning at village Mirchpur in which Dinesh had received injuries for which he was rushed to General Hospital Jind and was provided treatment there vide Ex.DW32/A. Tenthly the Ld. Special Public Prosecution has also raised an argument that the fact that only the members of the 'B' Community had sustained injuries and only the properties of the persons from 'B' Community had been destroyed would reflect that it is the persons from
Page No. 931
the 'J' Community who were the first aggressors. I have considered the submissions made by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor. Here, I may observe that it is evident from the case diaries particularly the Case Diary dated 21.4.2010 that the initial incident of the morning when Rajender and Karampal who were coming back in the boogie were beaten by the boys belonging to 'B' community has been specifically mentioned in the same but it is surprising that when it came to investigations the said aspect was altogether suppressed and not investigated. This incident of assault on Rajender and Karampal on 21.4.2010 morning which is so mentioned in the case diaries also finds due corroboration from the testimonies of the various prosecution witnesses examined by the prosecution and also not examined by them but later on examined by the defence (Sajna, Karan Singh, Ajmer, Ram Niwas, Dharambir and Praveen) of whom Karan Singh (DW13) is in fact the complainant on whose complaint the present FIR was registered. Further, the reason why the persons from the 'B' community had suffered injuries and damage to property is because the incident which took place in the morning on 21.4.2010 with Rajender and Karampal was in the main gali in the 'B' Basti and not in the area where the persons of the 'J' community had their residential houses and therefore it is natural that after coming to know that Rajender had been injured, the crowd of persons collected at the spot of the incident which was at the 'B' Basti. I may further observe that it is evident from the testimonies of the witnesses that it was here from where the stone pelting started from both the sides and the residents of that area who were the members of the 'B' community were the ones who suffered the brunt of the assault. Another apparent reason forthcoming is that the rioters/ assailants who were members of the 'J'
community were much more aggressive and larger in number on account of which they were in a position to contain and suppress the persons from the 'B' community thereby causing damage to their properties and persons. Lastly it is evident from the site plans showing the extent of damage and the evidence on record to substantiate the same that many houses belonging to the members of 'B' community situated on the main street and particularly on the way to the Chaupal belonging to the 'J' community have not been touched. No answers are forthcoming on behalf of the prosecution as to how these properties belonging to the persons from the 'B' community falling on the main street where the incident had taken place could have been spared in an incident of assault which according to the prosecution was directed towards all the members of the 'B' community. This in my view supports the second version given by the accused that the assault was selective and not general as alleged by the prosecution. The sequence of events as they now unfold from the testimonies of both the prosecution and defence witnesses and the other evidence on record is as under: That on 19.4.2010 some incident of altercation between the persons from the 'J' community and 'B' community had taken place in respect of which a separate FIR has been registered at the instance of Veer Bhan which has not been proved beyond doubt in the present case as Veer Bhan the complainant in the said FIR had initially turned hostile and has now not been examined before this Court.
That though it is alleged by the prosecution that boys from the 'J' community were going around the village and threatening the persons from the 'B' community, this aspect has not been established and proved beyond reasonable doubt since many of the prosecution witnesses who have not been declared hostile have rather supported the defence version that everything was peaceful on 20.4.2010. That Rajender is doing the business of supply of milk in the village and could not supply milk on 20.04.2010 as a result of which many persons from the 'B' community were aggrieved. That on 21.4.2010 Rajender and Karampal were passing through the main gali for going to the house from the fields which is the normal route of the villagers. That both Rajender and Karampal were stopped at the 'B' Basti by the boys belonging to the 'B' community who first had a verbal altercation with him because he had not supplied milk on 20.4.2010 but later on the dispute aggravated and there was physical assault in which Karampal escaped and raised an alarm in the village shouting that Rajender was assaulted and beaten by persons from the 'B' community on which Dinesh (also related to Rajender being his nephew in relation) who was standing in the main gali rushed to rescue Rajender but was beaten and brutally assaulted by a jellie as a result of which he sustained injuries on his eye and had to be rushed to the hospital. That one of the star witness the prosecution witness namely Vicky (PW42) has admitted that some altercation did take place when Rajender son of Pale was going in street and was attacked by the
Page No. 934
boys belonging to 'B' community on failure to supply milk and also resulting into injuries to Dinesh who tried to save Rajender and that there was a rumor that Rajender son of Pale has been abducted or being killed and this witness Vicky has not been declared hostile by the prosecution on this aspect thereby conclusively establishing the fact that the incident as aforesaid did take place as alleged by the defence. That this incident of altercation between Rajender and number of boys belonging to the 'B' community is also reflected from the testimonies of many other eye witnesses including Amar Lal (CW1) the son of the deceased Tara Chand who has in his testimony tried to evade and brush aside the queries relating to this incident. According to Amar Lal, he was having a bath when the incident had happened in the morning but when he came out of the house, the injured boys (Dinesh and Rajender) had been taken away. That it stands established from the testimony of various eye witnesses (including the witnesses earlier cited by the prosecution but not examined by them who later appeared to depose as defence witnesses) that after Rajender and Dinesh had sustained injuries and were taken away for treatment, there was stone pelting from both the sides (both from the side of 'B' and 'J' community) which later got aggravated resulting into large scale damage to many properties belonging to the persons from the 'B' community including the house of Tara Chand when Tara Chand and Suman lost their lives and also resulting into injuries to many persons from the 'B' community.
That it stands established from the evidence on record that Rajender son of Pale and Dinesh had been taken to General Hospital Jind for treatment where Dinesh had to be hospitalized on account of the injury, the scars of which injury were still visible on the date of the examination of Dr. Rajesh Gandhi who had treated him for the same. That it also stands established that there is a temple of Mata Phoolan Devi in the village which is situated on the outskirts of the village on the side of the 'B' Basti, the management of which temple and the offering rights are with the members of the 'B' community for the last twenty years (on account of the auction of the offering rights by the Panchayat after every two years). It is also established that on every Wednesday there is a fare/ mela in the temple where a large number of persons from the neighbouring villages had come for a darshan of the deity. It is further evident that 21.4.2010 was a Wednesday on which day the number of the visitors and gathering at the temple is huge which to some extent explains the presence of a large number of persons in the village particularly the main gali at the side of the 'B' Basti.
I hereby conclude from the aforesaid that in the present case a part of the incident, rather the cause/ genesis of the incident which took place in the morning has been deliberately suppressed by the prosecution which incident of 21.4.2010 morning is reflected from the case diaries. The entire charge sheet and the material placed before this Court by the Investigating Officer who had prepared the charge sheet is silent on the same and appears to have been deliberately concealed.
Criminal Conspiracy:
The case of the prosecution is that there has been a prior meeting of mind of accused and they all have conspired with each other to damage the properties and to burn the houses belonging to the 'B' community. It is also alleged that it was the accused Vinod Kajal the then SHO Police Station Narnaund who also conspired with the persons belonging to 'J' community and it was he who told the persons from the 'B' community to gather at their ('B') Chaupal while he exhorted the persons belonging to the 'J' community to burn the houses of 'B' community within one hour. The Ld. Special Public Prosecutor has argued that after the altercation on 19.04.2010, the persons belonging to the 'J' community had made up their minds about taking revenge as to how even a dog owned by a member of 'B' community had the guts to bark on an upper caste person and in pursuance to that they got together on 20.04.2010 and were seen moving around in groups armed with lathis and threatening the persons from the 'B' community in their own basti. Thereafter, in the morning on 21.04.2010 they gathered in large numbers and proceeded towards 'B' Basti after making preparations for burning the houses of the persons from the 'B' community. In this regard the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor has placed his reliance on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses particularly Mahajan (PW38) who has in his testimony deposed that on 21.4.2010 Rajender S/o Pali had threatened about returning and setting the houses of persons from the 'B' community on fire. He has further argued that the unlawful assembly was armed with lathis, jellies and gandases, all of which are common agricultural
tools found in any village and had also come with preparation for pelting stones on the persons belonging to 'B' community and injuring them by these means thereby establishing the common illegal object of the assembly. He has also argued that the manner in which the 'B' Basti was surrounded from all sides and the persons belonging to the 'J' community who were similarly armed prove that the incident did not occur on a sudden fight but was premeditated and pre-planned and also reflect the intention of the unlawful assembly to burn down the entire basti by surrounding it from all sides which was the common object of this unlawful assembly comprising of 'J' community. reported in (2010)7SCC759. I may observe that under Section 120A Indian Penal Code offence of criminal conspiracy is committed when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or legal act by illegal means. When it is legal act by illegal means over act is necessary. Offence of criminal conspiracy is exception to the general law where intent alone does not constitute crime. It is intention to commit crime and joining hands with persons having the same intention. Not only the intention but there has to be agreement to carry out the object of intention, which is an offence. The question of consideration in a case is did all the accused had the intention and did they agree that the crime be committed. It would not be enough for the offence of conspiracy when some of the accused merely entertained a wish, howsoever, horrendous it may be, that offence is committed. Acts subsequent to the achieving of object of conspiracy may tent to prove that a particular accused was party to the conspiracy.
He has placed his
reliance on the authority of Dharnidhar -vs- State of U.P. and Ors.
Conspiracy is always hatched in private or in secrecy. It is rarely possible to establish a conspiracy by direct evidence. Usually, both the existence of the conspiracy and its objects have to be inferred from the circumstances and the conduct of the accused. Conspiracy may, for example, be enrolled in chain A enrolling B, B enrolling C and so on and all will be the members of the single conspiracy if they so intend and agree, even though each member knows only the person who enrolled him and the person whom he enrolls. Persons may be members of a single conspiracy even though each is ignorant of the identity of many others who may have diverse role to play. It is not a part of the crime of conspiracy that all the conspirators need to agree to play the same on an active role. When two or more persons agree to commit a crime of conspiracy then regardless of making or considering any plans for its commission, and despite the fact that no step is taken by any such person to carry out their common purpose, a crime is committed by each and every one who joins in the agreement. There has thus to be two conspirators and there may be more than that. To prove the charge of conspiracy it is not necessary that intended crime was committed or not. If committed it may further help prosecution to prove the charge of conspiracy. It is not necessary that all conspirators should agree to the common purpose at that same time. They may join with other conspirators at any time before the consummation of the intended objective, and all are equally responsible. What part each conspirator is to play may not be known to everyone or the fact as to when a conspirator joined the conspiracy and when he left.
Page No. 939
As stated above it is the unlawful agreement and not its accomplishment, which is gist or the essence of the crime of conspiracy. Offence of criminal conspiracy is complete even though there is no agreement as to the means by which the purpose is to be accomplished. It is the unlawful agreement, which is the gravamen of the crime of conspiracy. The unlawful agreement which amounts to a conspiracy need not be formal or express, but may be inherent in and inferred from the circumstances, especially declarations, acts and conduct of the conspirators. The agreement need not be extended into by all the parties to it at the same time, but may be reached by successive actions evidencing their joining of the conspiracy. It has been seen that a criminal conspiracy is a partnership in crime and that it is in each conspiracy a joint or mutual agency for the prosecution of a common plan. A man may join a conspiracy by word or by deed. If two or more person entered into conspiracy any act done by them pursuant to the agreement is under contemplated of law, an act of each of them and they are jointly responsible thereafter. A conspiracy thus is a continuing offence and continues to subsist and is committed wherever one of the conspirators does an act or series of acts. As long as its performance continues, it is a continuing offence till it is executed or rescinded or frustrated by choice or necessity. A crime is committed as soon as the agreement is made, but it is not a thing of the moment. It is not necessary that each member of a conspiracy must know all the details of the conspiracy. This means that everything said, written or done by any of the conspirator in execution or any part-with is deemed to have been said, done and written by each of them and thus joint responsibility existence not only to what is done by
any of the conspirator pursuant to the original agreement but also to collaterally cause incident and growing out of the original purpose. In a case reported as V. R. Nedunchezhian -vs- State reported in 2000 Cr.L.J. 976 Their Lordships observed in para 69 as under: .... It is true that the conspiracy may be a chain; where each party performs even without the knowledge of the other, a role that aids or abets succeeding parties in accomplishing the criminal objectives of the conspiracy. For example, in a case of smuggling, what is done in the process of procuring and distributing narcotics or smuggled goods for sale in different parts of the globe? In such case, these smugglers, middlemen, retailers are privies to a single conspiracy to smuggle and distribute narcotics. These smugglers know that the middlemen must sell to retailers; and the retailers know that the middlemen must buy from importers, Thus the conspirators at one end at the chain know that the unlawful business would not, and could not, stop with their buyers, and those at the other end know that it had not begun with their settlers. The action of each has to be considered as a spoke in the hub-there being a rim to bind all the spokes together in a single conspiracy...
While referring this example, the Apex Court in (1996) 2 Crimes 64: 1996 Cr. L. J. 2448 (SC) (supra) would observe as follows (at p.2453 of CrLJ): To establish a charge of conspiracy knowledge about indulgence in either an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is necessary. In some cases, intent of lawful use being made of the goods or services in question may be inferred from the knowledge itself.......... Finally, when the ultimate offence consists of a chain of actions, it would not be
necessary for the prosecution to establish, to bring home the charge of conspiracy, that each of the conspirators had the knowledge of what the collaborator would do, so long as it is known that the collaborator would put the goods or service to an unlawful use. In a case reported as Kehar Singh & Ors. -vs- the State (Delhi Admn.) reported in AIR 1988 SC 1883 Their Lordships observed as under: In some cases intention of unlawful use being made of the goods or services in question may be inferred from the knowledge itself. This apart the prosecution has not to establish that a particular unlawful use was intended, so long as the goods or service in question could not be put to any lawful use. Finally, when the ultimate offence consists of a chain of actions, it would not be necessary for the prosecution to establish, to bring home the charge of conspiracy, that each of the conspirators had the knowledge of what the collaborator would do , so long as it is known that the collaborator would put the goods or service to an unlawful use. In a case reported as Ajay Aggarwal -vs- Union of India & Ors. reported in JT 1993 (3) SC 203 it has been observed that it is not necessary that each conspirator must know all the details of the scheme nor be a participant at every stage. It is necessary that they should agree for design or object of the conspiracy. In the case of Abuthagir and Ors. -vs- State (Rep. by Inspector of Police, Madurai) reported in AIR 2009 SC 2797, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
Page No. 942
In the case of conspiracy there cannot be any direct evidence. The ingredients of the offence are that there should be an agreement between persons who are alleged to conspire and the said agreement should be for doing an illegal act or for doing by illegal means an act which itself may not be illegal. Therefore, the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both, and it is a matter of common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available. Therefore, the circumstances proved before, during and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused In the case of Ramesh & Anr. -vs- State of Uttar Pradesh etc. reported in 2009 (15) SCC 513 while appreciation of evidence the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the minor contradictions, inconsistencies, exaggerations and embellishments in the testimonies of the eye-witnesses were bound to be there, however, they, by themselves, did not decide the credibility of the witness which has to be tested by the Court. Applying the settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, it is evident from the record that despite there being allegations regarding the assailants hatching the criminal conspiracy there is no evidence to show prior meeting of mind or the common object sought to be achieved by the unlawful assembly. Rather, the witnesses of the prosecution who had earlier in their statements made to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. made allegations regarding the persons belonging to the 'J' community moving about in the village in large number on 20.4.2010 and having a meeting or asking
the persons from the 'B' community to come for a settlement, have not supported their earlier version so given to the police but have rather come up with altogether a new version. They are not only inconsistent but have also contradicted each other on material particulars on the aspect of conspiracy. Now coming to the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I may observe that it is only the witnesses Meena Kumar (PW37), Mahajan (PW38), Vijender (PW40), Vicky (PW42), Sanjay (PW44), Satyawan (PW47) and Pradeep (PW49) who have made casual reference to the incident dated 20.4.2010, which allegations are highly vague and no independent person belonging to any other community including the aggressor community has been examined. To prove that a 'J' Panchayat had been held in the village on 20.4.2010. No names of the persons who had attended the 'J' Panchayat/ meeting of the persons belonging to 'J' community, have been specified. The place where the said meeting had taken place has not been mentioned nor the time when it took place has been mentioned. I now proceed to individually examine the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses on the aspect of alleged meeting/ Panchayat of the 'J' community which took place on 20.4.2010. Rajbir (PW10) does not say anything about any happening dated 20.4.2010. Sushil (PW25) does not say anything about any happening dated 20.4.2010. Sandeep (PW28) does not say anything about any happening dated 20.4.2010.
Page No. 944
Dhoop Singh (PW29) does not say anything about any happening dated 20.4.2010 except that Karan Singh had made some complaint on 20.4.2010 with regard to the incident dated 19.4.2010. Santra (PW30) does not say anything about any happening dated 20.4.2010. 20.4.2010. Rather, she was not available in the village on
Abhishek (PW31) does not say anything about any happening dated 20.4.2010. Sheela (PW32) has testified that the dispute of 19.4.2010 almost died down on 20.4.2010. Meena Kumar (PW37) does not say anything about any happening dated 20.4.2010 except for casually stating that he came to know in the village that the boys from the 'J' community would again commit some problem due to which reason they called Karan Singh and Veer Bhan back to the village. Here I may observe that the allegations made by this witness Meena Kumar are general and vague. What sources from where he came to know about the aforesaid has not been specified nor he has given any details. Even otherwise Karan Singh the complainant does not support his version. Mahajan (PW38) has deposed that on 20.4.2010 there was a talk in the village by the boys belonging to the 'J' community who were going around the village threatening that they would burn the houses of the chooras and would throw them out of the village choora ne kada ge, choora ne ghara ne aag lageye gai and on hearing this Veer Bhan who was in the hospital came back to the
Page No. 945
village. Here I may observe that this is a totally new story and version given by Mahajan for the first time in the Court which is contrary to the version given by Meena Kumar (PW37) and other witnesses and is also a total improvement over his earlier statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Karan Singh (DW13) has not supported the case of the prosecution and Veer Bhan has not been examined by the prosecution. Sube Singh (PW39) does not say anything about any happening dated 20.4.2010 and has simply stated that on 20.4.2010 Karan Singh and Veer Bhan were brought back from the hospital. Vijender (PW40) does not say anything about any happening dated 20.4.2010 except that on 20.04.2010 there was a talk of compromise in the village between the two communities and therefore Karan Singh and Veer Bhan were called back from the hospital and on that day all these boys of the 'J' community were consuming alcohol while sitting at the water tank which aspect, I may observe, does not find any independent reliable corroboration. Vicky (PW42) I may observe is the only witness who has given a different version from the other prosecution witnesses. According to him, on 20.04.2010 some persons from the Panchyat comprising of 'J' community went to the Hissar hospital and requested Karan Singh and Veer Bhan not to get the FIR registered and told them that they would get the matters compromised and therefore in the evening Veer Bhan was also brought back from the hospital and Karan Singh had already come back to his house before that. He has testified that on 20.04.2010 there was an atmosphere of fear in the village since a large number of boys from the 'J' community
had gathered and the 'B' of the village were afraid, apprehending that they might attack and they all from the 'B' community remained alert and awake during the night which is a new story put forth by Vicky being a total improvement over his earlier statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which does not find any reliable corroboration. Dilbagh (PW43) does not say anything about any happening dated 20.4.2010. Sanjay (PW44) does not say anything about any happening dated 20.4.2010 except that on 20.04.2010 there was a meeting amongst the persons from the 'J' community in the village and they decided that they would do mar pitai with the 'B'. Here I may observe that this a total improvement over his previous statement and a new story has been put forward by him and there is no other witness who has corroborated the testimony of Sanjay in this regard. Even otherwise the allegations so made by him are vague and there are a number of unanswered questions like Where was the meeting held? Who participated in this meeting? How he came to know about this etc? Manoj (PW45) does not say anything about any happening dated 20.4.2010 except that there was a Panchayat in the village who tried to settle the matter. Rajesh (PW46) does not say anything about any happening dated 20.4.2010 except that he had heard from the villagers that there was a meeting of the persons belonging to the 'J' community and there was talks of compromise.
Page No. 947
Satyawan (PW47) has testified that on 20.04.2010 the 'J' Panchayat met in the village and it was decided that the matter should be compromised in the village and on account of the above Veer Bhan was brought back from the hospital after getting him discharged and Karan Singh also came back with him. The said aspect is a total improvement over his earlier statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Gulab Singh (PW48) does not say anything about any happening dated 20.4.2010. According to Pradeep (PW49) the dispute between the boys belonging to the 'J' community and the boys belonging to the 'B' community took place on 20.4.2010 (which is contrary to the prosecution case) and on the same day Karan Singh and Veer Bhan had gone to the persons from the 'J' community to settle and compromise the dispute but they were beaten and had to be taken to the hospital (which is again contrary to the prosecution case since the earlier incident took place on 19.4.2010). Further according to Pradeep the persons from the 'J' community got together and had a meeting and after the meeting collected at water tank where they consumed alcohol and thereafter passed through the main gali of the village while abusing the persons from 'B' community while they were in an intoxicated condition. Here I may observe that it is for the first time in the Court that he has made these allegations which do not find corroboration from any other source and are unreliable. The testimony of Pradeep on this aspect is not only factually incorrect as the date on which the earliest incident took place when Veer Bhan and Karan Singh were
Page No. 948
injured was 19.4.2010 and not 20.4.2010. In fact the story put forward by him in the Court for the first time is contrary to the prosecution case. Kamla (PW50) does not say anything about any happening dated 20.4.2010. Amar Lal (CW1) does not say anything about any happening dated 20.4.2010. I may observe that Karan Singh the complainant before this court has turned completely hostile. He does not support the case of the prosecution in so far as the incident dated 19.4.2010 is concerned nor has he supported the version of the prosecution in respect of the incident dated 20.4.2010 put forward by the prosecution witnesses and the testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution do not find corroboration from any other source. The other material witness namely Veer Bhan has not been examined by the prosecution on the ground that he had been won over and was therefore dropped having been turned hostile earlier during his deposition before the Hissar Court. The MLRs of the victims do not prove any injuries caused by the weapons such as jellies, gandases or dandas nor there is any recovery of these weapons from the spot of the incident. The FSL report Ex.PX1 rules out the presence of Hydrocarbons of Petroleum (kerosene, petrol or diesel). Further, a consolidated reading of the entire evidence does not support the theory of premeditation or prior meeting of mind as alleged by the prosecution. Rather, it is evident that the incident of rioting had happened in the village on 21.4.2010 was a result of the
incident which took place in the morning when two boys from the 'J' community were stopped and beaten by the boys belonging to 'B' community and were injured by them as a result of which they had to be rushed to the hospital when in the meanwhile a rumor spread in the village regarding the death/ killing of one of these boys (Rajender) as a result of which a large number of persons belonging to the 'J' community being highly agitated gathered in the main street/ gali where the incident had taken place after which previously there was stone pelting both from the side of 'B' and 'J' community in which the victims had received injuries. In so far as the incident dated 21.4.2010 is concerned, the case of the prosecution is that on 21.4.2010 in pursuance to their illegal designs the persons belonging to the 'J' community had gathered at 'J' Chaupal and thereafter the accused Vinod Kajal (the then SHO Police Station Narnaund) came and got mixed up with the persons belonging to the 'J' community. Thereafter as a matter of strategy the persons belonging to 'J' community came towards 'B' Basti duly armed with lathies, jellies, gandases and oil cans/ containers filled with the kerosene/ petrol. On the asking of Vinod Kajal the men folk belonging to 'B' community had gathered in their ('B') Chaupal but in the meanwhile Vinod Kajal asked the persons belonging to 'J' community to burn the houses of persons from 'B' community within one hour and thereafter the assailants started pelting stones on the persons belonging to 'B' community and started setting their houses on fire. I may observe that it is the prosecution witnesses Sanjay (PW36), Mahajan (PW38), Sube Singh (PW39), Vicky (PW42), Satyawan (PW47) and Pradeep (PW49) who have deposed in this regard.
The allegations made are as under: Sanjay (PW36) has deposed that on the 21.4.2010 there was rolla/ dispute in the village at about 9-10 AM resulting into stone pelting and the boys belonging to 'J' community first assembled in their Chaupal i.e. the 'J' Chaupal where they were scheming and thereafter they surrounded the 'B' Basti and thereafter started pelting stones and arson where they burnt houses of persons belonging to the 'B' community. Mahajan (PW38) has deposed that on 21.4.2010 at about 9-9:30 AM Rajender S/o Pale passed through the main gali in his boogie while he was coming back from his fields and threatened some of the boys sitting in the gali who were from the 'B' community saying that abhi dekhege tare ko, ektha ho kar angeye, aag lanageye. Sube Singh (PW39) has deposed that on 21.04.2010 at about 10-11 AM all the persons of the 'J' community residing in the village got together in their Chaupal i.e. 'J' Chaupal and from there they carried lathies, jellies, dandas, gandase and came to their ('B') Basti where they started shouting choorya ne dedha ne phook do, mar do . Vicky (PW42) has stated that in the morning of 21.04.2010 at about 8 AM Rajender S/o Pale was passing through the main gali in his boogie while he was going to his house when he had some verbal altercation with some boys of the 'B' community but he (Vicky) was not there and he (Rajender S/o Pale) ran from that place raising alarm choorya ne mar diya, choorya ne mar
diya. Rajender S/o Pale went to the main Chaupal of the 'J' community and collected a large number of boys from where all these boys came towards houses of persons belonging to 'B; community duly armed with dandas, gandases and stones and when they came to their houses there was a quarrel between them and 'B' (apas mein jhagra hua). After some time all these boys ran away back towards the houses belonging to the 'J' community and Gulab Singh, Chowkidar was coming from the gali and was crossing from the gali of Rajender S/o Pale when he (Gulab Singh) was stopped by Rajender S/o Pale and Rishi S/o Satbir and beaten with dandas after which Gulab Singh came towards houses of persons belonging to 'B' community and informed them that he was injured on his knees and legs and was beaten with dandas. Thereafter these boys from the 'J' community called more persons and boys belonging to the 'J' community from out side areas (out side the village) and about 1000-1500 persons from the 'J' community gathered at the 'J' Chaupal from where they came to the 'B' Basti and were armed with lathies, gandases, stones, oil cans and petrol. Satyawan (PW47) has deposed that on 21.04.2010 at about 7:00 AM the panchayat of the village came to the house of Veer Bhan and asked him to compromise the dispute to which Veer Bhan agreed and while the panchayat members were still sitting at the house of Veer Bhan, Gulab Singh the chowkidar of the village who had gone to collect milk and lassi from the village, was beaten by Rajender S/o Pale and other boys of the 'J' community who had started gathering in the village in large number. Gulab Singh some
how manage to come back to the 'B' basti and told the persons residing in the 'B' Basti as to what had happened with him on which they ('B') also got together and made a call to the Narnaund police station and informed them and also requested the SHO to come to the spot as he was apprehending the matters could got aggravated. The SHO (accused Vinod Kajal) first sent four to five police persons in the village but in the meanwhile at about 9 AM large number of persons from the 'J' community gathered and came towards the 'B' Basti who have initially about 100-150 in numbers but later on the numbers swelled to about 300-400. He (Satyawan) again called up the SHO from his mobile and told him that the matter would going out of hand and that a large number of boys from the 'J' community had gathered and had come to the 'B' mohalla and requested the SHO to come to the village personally. The SHO Inspector Vinod Kajal then came to the village along with one gypsy and then he along with the officials went to 'J' boys. After some time he (Inspector Vinod Kajal) came back and told them that there would be no problem as he has already advised these boys and and also asked them ('B') to collect at the 'B' Chaupal so that he could get a compromise affected between them. On this they all i.e. males of the village belonging to the 'B' community went to the 'B' Chaupal but in the meanwhile these persons belonging to the 'J' community who had gathered in the village surrounded the 'B' mohalla and they heard the cries of their ladies informing them that the mohalla had been surrounded by the persons belonging to 'J' community on which the persons from the 'B' community all ran from the Chaupal and found that the entire
mohalla had been surrounded by these persons from the 'J' community who were throwing stones. He has also stated that while he was coming out from the Chaupal he told the SHO (accused Vinod Kajal) SHO sahab ye kya kara diya on which the SHO told him mein kya karo bhai. He further told the SHO apne to hame marva diya on which the SHO told him mein ke karo, jessi bhaga jata ho to bhag ley. They ('B') also pleaded with the SHO and the other police officials to save them but they all started running away from the village from the kacha rasta going towards Rakhi village and the SHO said jab mera hi bachna muskil hai to tumhe kya bachau and he also ran away from the village. Pradeep (PW49) has deposed that SHO Vinod Kajal who had come with the police force was mixed up with the persons from 'J' community and he saw him going towards these boys from the 'J' community who had collected in the village and talking to them and thereafter came towards the persons belonging to 'B' community and told them to collect at the Chaupal stating that he would get a compromise effected in respect of the dispute between both the communities. Kamla (PW50) has deposed that on the date next to the day when the dispute on the she-dog had taken place Gulaba Chowkidar had gone to take lassi from the village in the morning when he was surrounded by these boys (persons from the 'J' community) and injured. On the next day thereafter Rajender S/o Pale called the other boys from the 'J' community and collected stones and bricks
and started pelting stones on the houses of the persons 'B' community and were shouting choore dheda ne maro. After some time police from Police Station Narnaund came to the village and the SHO Vinod Kajal also came and they pleaded with him to save them on which the SHO Vinod Kajal took their ('B') children to the Chaupal and all the ladies were left behind and she saw him and she pleaded with him to save her husband and children but he told the 'J' boys dheda ne ek ghante mein aag laga do. According to Kamla their men folk had been taken to the Chaupal by that time and the boys started setting their houses on fire and son of Sishu belonging to 'J' community instigated the other boys to burn the houses of 'B' community on fire by saying na daro choorya sae aag laga do and he further said jo kar sansi neikale tha nu choorya ne neikal do. The Narnaund police did not help them and her house was set on fire due to which her husband Tara Chand and her daughter Suman were burnt to death.
It is evident from the aforesaid testimonies that the fact that persons from the 'J' community had gathered at the 'B' Basti is not disputed and is an admitted case of both the parties. According to the prosecution these persons from the 'J' community had gathered in large numbers to set fire and damage the houses of the persons belonging to 'J' community whereas according to the defence they had gathered on account of an incident which took place in the morning in which two boys belonging to 'J' community (accused Rajender S/o Pale and Dinesh S/o Prem Singh) had sustained injuries as they were beaten by the boys
belonging to 'B' community and had to rushed to the hospital after which a rumor spread in the village that Rajender had been killed by the persons from the 'B' community. This incident which transpired in the morning was suppressed by the prosecution but finds a mention in the testimonies of the various prosecution and defence witnesses who are persons belonging to 'B' community and also finds a mention in the case diaries dated 21.4.2010. This being the position it is only natural for the residents to collect at the spot where the incident had taken place that is in the main gali at 'B' Basti and therefore when the stone pelting started from both the sides, it was the houses situated along the main gali of the place of the incident which first suffered damages. Further, in so far as the accused Vinod Kumar S/o Ram Niwas (the then SHO Police Station Narnaund) is concerned only the witnesses Sunita (PW13), Satyawan (PW47), Pradeep (PW49) and Kamla (PW50) have made allegations regarding his mixing up with the 'J' boys. However, in this regard I may observe that Sunita (PW13) is a false witness and even otherwise she has not been able to identify the accused Vinod Kumar S/o Ram Niwas. On the one hand Satyawan (PW47) has come up with an altogether new story with regard to the conduct of the accused Vinod Kajal (the then SHO Police Station Narnaund) which does not find corroboration from the other evidence on record whereas on the other hand Pradeep (PW49) has deposed in the court that SHO Vinod Kajal who had come with the police force was mixed up with the persons from 'J' community and he saw him going towards these boys from the 'J' community who had collected in the village and talking to them and thereafter came towards the 'B' and told them to collect at the Chaupal stating that he would get a compromise
effected in respect of the dispute between both the communities while Kamla (PW50) has deposed before this court that the SHO Vinod Kajal took their ('B') children to the Chaupal and all the ladies were left behind and she saw him and pleaded with him to save her husband and children but he told the 'J' boys dheda ne ek ghante mein aag laga do (burn the dhedas within one hour). The witnesses Satyawan (PW47), Pradeep (PW49) and Kamla (PW50) have contradicted each other and have come up with altogether a new version. They have not stated all these facts in their statements made to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and their testimony do not find corroboration from any other source. I may observe that the accused have examined Sajna (DW7), Karan Singh (DW13), Ajmer (DW16), Ram Niwas (DW20), Dharambir (DW21) and Praveen (DW22) who are persons from the 'B' community as their witnesses who were earlier cited by the prosecution but not examined, in their testimonies have fully supported the case of defence and the other version given by the defence which had taken place in the morning when Rajender and Karampal were stopped by the boys belonging to 'B' community and first there was a verbal and thereafter physical altercation on which Karampal raised an alarm in the village on which Dinesh came to the rescue of Rajender and was brutally assaulted with a pointed object as a result of which he sustained injuries on his eye and both Rajender and Dinesh were rushed to the hospital. They have also proved that thereafter a rumor was spread in the village that Rajender had been killed by the persons belonging to 'B' community on which a large number of persons collected in the 'B' Basti where the incident had taken place and the persons belonging to 'B' community
being apprehensive started pelting stones which was occurred in the morning and there was a retaliation followed by aggravated incident of rioting where a large number of houses belonging to 'B' community were damaged and burnt. In fact many of the witnesses examined by the prosecution also admitted that Rajender is involved in sale of milk in the village and there was some altercation in the morning when one of the boys belonging to the 'J' community namely Rajender was stopped by these boys and there was some altercation. Amar Lal (CW1) who is the son of the deceased Tara Chand has also in his testimony not denied the alleged incident but when confronted by the Court but was vague. According to him, he is not aware of the morning incident since at that time he had gone to take a bath but when he came out both the injured were taken to the hospital meaning thereby that there was some incident of aggression by the boys belonging to the 'B' community initiated in the morning wherein these boys of 'J' community received some injuries. Further, the fact regarding Rajender being beaten is also corroborated by the prosecution witnesses himself and I may mention that the call details record Ex.DW34/C further reflect that 10:04 AM and 10:25 AM Rajender was not in the village and returned thereafter since the details of the CDR show the presence of the user in the village till 12:28 noon after which his location is repeatedly changing till 1:07 PM (noon) when his location is shown at Jind from where he had made a call to Dr. Kuldeep and where he remained till 8:58 PM. This again corroborates the version put forward by the defence of the incident not being premeditated and absence of conspiracy. The circumstantial evidence does not support the charge of conspiracy put forward by the prosecution or of joint or mutual agency for prosecution of a common plan or an
agreement. This being the background the conspiracy theory so put forward by the prosecution does not stand established and I hereby hold that the prosecution has failed to bring on record evidence to establish the allegations of conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt.
Unlawful assembly in prosecution of common object causing rioting, murder, dacoity/ robbery, causing grievous/ simple hurt, mischief by fire with intention to cause death, criminal house trespass in order to commit the above offences and also the offence under the SC/ST (POA) Act:
The case of the prosecution that the accused before this Court all belonging to 'J' community constituted themselves into an unlawful assembly having a common object of committing the illegal acts of rioting, murder, dacoity/ robbery, grievous/ simple hurt, mischief by fire with intention to cause death, criminal house trespass in order to commit the above offences and also the offence under the SC/ST (POA) Act by illegal means. It is also alleged that the members of the unlawful assembly were armed with deadly weapons such as jellies, gandases, lathies, cans/ containers filled with kerosene oil and petrol etc. and in prosecution to the common object as aforesaid had also committed the murder of Tara Chand S/o Swaroop Singh and Suman D/o Tara Chand and caused grievous hurt to Dhoop Singh S/o Rattan Singh and Veer Bhan S/o Maya with blunt object and simple injuries to Gulab Ram S/o Jai Lal, Mahajan S/o Satpal, Raj Kumar S/o Kapoora, Sushil S/o Surta, Rajbir S/o Baje Singh, Sanjay S/o Raja Ram, Ravi S/o Mahender, Raju S/o Pasha, Monika D/o Ramesh Kumar, Bindu D/o Suresh Kumar,
Page No. 959
Rajmal S/o Poker, Priya D/o Jagdesh, Rani W/o Sanjay, Karambir S/o Balbir, Pali W/o Jagdish, Nawab S/o Laxman, Sheela W/o Subhash, Jai Prakash S/o Tek Ram, Karan Singh S/o Tek Ram, Naseeb S/o Karan Singh, Praveen S/o Surta, Santara W/o Satyawan, Yogesh S/o Jai Prakash, Poonam D/o Chandrabhan, Jagbir S/o Nawab Singh, Ashok S/o Jagdish, Ramphal S/o Risala, Kamlesh W/o Jai Prakash, Radha W/o Sandeep, Madho W/o Tekram, Murti W/o Karamvir, Shanti Devi W/o Jugti Ram, Sunita W/o Satbir, Asjmer S/o Balbir, Sunita W/o Surta, Satbir S/o Bhaleram, Chandrapati W/o Sajna, Sandeep S/o Satpal, Ashok S/o Maha Singh, Sanjay S/o Satpal, Abhishek S/o Sanjay, Angoori W/o Dalip Singh, Sunita W/o Ved, Suman D/o Raghbir, Ishro W/o Pasa, Pooja D/o Surta, Krishna W/o Rabhbir, Aman S/o Surta and Kalapati W/o Jai Singh. It has also been alleged that in prosecution of the aforesaid common object of such unlawful assembly the accused armed with deadly weapons, committed criminal house trespass by entering into and remaining in the houses of Dhup Singh S/o Ratnu, Jagpal S/o Bir Singh, Ramphal S/o Rajmal, Ramniwas S/o Raj Mal, Chandra Singh S/o Laxman, Dilbagh S/o Gulaba, Sanjay S/o Gulab, Gulab S/o Jai Lal, Sanjay S/o Bani Singh, Manoj S/o Mahendra, Rajendra S/o Mahendra, Satyawan S/o Bhale Ram, Sube S/o Bhura, Tara Chand S/o Saroopa, Pradeep S/o Tara Chand, Sunia W/o Surta Ram, Sanjay S/o Satpal and Dilbagh S/o Satpal Singh used as human dwelling in order to commit offences and also caused damage to property of more than Rs.100/- after committing criminal house trespass of the above persons and committed mischief by fire by setting the houses ablaze. Further, it is alleged that the accused in prosecution of the aforesaid common object of such
unlawful assembly caused damage and destruction to the properties of Bania S/o Surta, Sushil S/o Surta, Mahajan S/o Satpal, Raja S/o Pratap, Rajmal S/o Poker, Satyawan S/o Roshan, Jaswant S/o Jagbir, Jai Singh S/o Sudhan, Bijendra S/o Surta, Dharambir S/o Chatar Singh, Bindra S/o Raj Kumar, Bani S/o Bhale Ram, Nawab S/o Laxman, Rajesh S/o Bhamboo, Praveen S/o Surta, Satpal S/o Pratap, Ramniwas S/o Indra, Dharambir S/o Chandagi, Karambir S/o Balbir, Pawan S/o Jagat Singh worth more than Rs.50/- and also committed dacoity in the houses of Chander Singh S/o Laxman Ram, Satyawan S/o Bhale Ram, Kuldeep S/o Raja, Jagpal S/o Bir Singh, Rajender S/o Mahender Singh, Ramniwas S/o Rajmal, Manoj S/o Mahender Singh, Sanjay S/o Bani Singh, Gulaba S/o JaiLal, Sanjay S/o Bulaga, Sunita W/o Surta, Dilbagh S/o Gulaba Chowkidar, Dhup Singh S/o Rattan Singh and Ramphal S/o Raj Mal. The Ld. Special Public Prosecutor has vehemently argued that the prosecution has successfully been able to bring on record that the happenings of 20.04.2010 that is between the incident of 19.04.2010 and 21.04.2010 establishes the prior meeting of mind and common object and the motive for the offence which took on 21.04.2010. He has pointed out that the prosecution witnesses have specifically mentioned in their testimonies that the 'B' Basti was surrounded by the persons from 'J' community in a large number who were armed with deadly weapons like jellies, gandases, dandas etc. and had brought rehris loaded with stones/bricks and also had cans containing inflammatory material (petrol and kerosene) and sounded caste abuse slogans Deda ne mar do; choore deda ne maro; chooreya nu jala do; chooro ke aag laga do deda ne kad do bahar; Phook do phook deda ne phook do; Jala do, aag lago do deda ne; choorya ne dedha ne phook do,
mar do; Phook do dedhan ne; Chooraya ne phoonk do; Jala do deda ne; Maro in dedya ne bhanjod ne kutya ne; Maro, jala do etc. He has submitted that once a membership of an unlawful assembly is established, it is not incumbent on the prosecution to establish any specific overt act to any of the accused for fastening of liability with the aid of Section 149 IPC and commission of overt act by each member of the unlawful assembly is not necessary. He has placed his reliance on the case of Mahmood -vs- State of U.P. reported in (2007) 14 SCC 16 and has argued that the common object of the unlawful assembly of the accused in the present case is evident from the fact that some of them were armed with deadly weapons and none of them were curious onlookers or spectators to the incident on 21.4.2010 at Village Mirchpur. It has been vehemently argued that the meeting of minds of the accused persons has also been demonstrated by the prosecution as is the essential ingredient to prove a criminal conspiracy and in this regard has placed his reliance on the case of Abuthagir and Ors. -vs- State (Rep. by Inspector of Police, Madurai) reported in AIR 2009 SC 2797; Rabindra Mahto and Ors. -vs- State of Jharkhand reported in 2006 Cri.L.J. 957 and Dharnidhar -vs- State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 2010 (7) SCC 759. It is argued by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor that it is the case of the prosecution that the accused persons had, after the altercation on 19.04.2010, made up their minds about taking revenge as how even a dog owned by a member of 'B' community had the guts to bark on an upper caste person and hence on 20.04.2010 as is borne out by police records and the unchallenged testimony of the witnesses the accused persons were moving around in groups armed with lathis and threatening the persons from 'B' community
in their own basti. He has argued that the prosecution witnesses have also established that in the morning of 21.04.2010 the preparation for burning of houses was in way as the persons from the 'J' community were collecting inflammable substances and also the aspect that the accused Rajender S/o Pali had while passing through the main gali on 21.4.2010 threatened about returning and setting houses belonging to the members of 'B' community on fire. Ld. Special Public Prosecutor has further pointed out that the Basti was surrounded from all sides and the persons belonging to the unlawful assembly on all sides were armed in a similar manner which clearly does away with the notion that a sudden fight broke out. He has submitted that houses on all sides of the 'B' Basti were burnt which indicates that the intention of the unlawful assembly was to burn down the entire basti by surrounding it from all sides and that was the common object of the unlawful assembly. According to the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor the evidence on record shows that the unlawful assembly was also armed with lathis, jellies and gandases, all of which are common agricultural tools found in any village and had also come with preparation for pelting stones on the persons from 'B' community and injuring them through this means. Further, according to the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor in so far as the role of accused Vinod Kajal (the then SHO Police Station Narnaund) is concerned, his presence at the site of violence is not in dispute. The conduct of the accused person, to begin with, brings him within the purview of sec 4 of The SC/ST (POA) Act. Further, his connivance with the mob of persons belonging to 'J' community is clear from the fact that he asks the males belonging to 'B' community to leave, while the mob of persons from 'J' community was still present in the 'B'
Basti. Thereafter he clearly instructs the mob of that boys deda ne ek ghante mein aag laga do in the presence of the remaining persons from the 'b' community in the village, mostly women and children. The Ld. Special Public Prosecutor has, in so far as the aspect of committing murder is concerned, argued that it has clearly been borne out by the testimony of eye witnesses which has gone unchallenged that even after seeing that the deceased persons, Suman and Tara Chand were in the house, the assailants did not stop and did not hesitate to do whatever is necessary to kill both the persons. He has also pointed out that in the postmortem of the bodies of both Suman and Tara Chand it is revealed that the bones of both these persons in the limb area were fractured which was as a result of the beating that they both had received first and then they were pushed inside the house and the door was bolted from outside. On the other hand the Ld. Defence counsel has argued that no case of vicarious liability is made out since the incident even as per the prosecution clearly happened at different areas of the village and amply divided among the four corners of the village in which situation the Sections 148 and 149 IPC cannot be said to be attracted. He has pointed out that there is no recovery of any weapon from any of the accused and further the alleged use of brick bats by the accused is a clear sign that no weapons were used in the incident and that it was not a premeditated attack. He has placed his reliance on the testimony of Dhoop Singh (PW29) wherein he has deposed that he was caught by some erring boys in his house and was left by them unharmed which is a clear indicator that the incident was not aimed at causing death of any person and thus there cannot be said be have been a common object of
the assembly of causing death of any person. He has submitted that the prosecution witnesses are all from the different portions of the 'B' Basti whereas in the site plan it is clear that the places are quite far away from each other with intervening streets and rows of houses. It is argued that apart from the members of family of Kamla who have roped in all the accused, the other prosecution witnesses have also given names of the same accused who under the given circumstances cannot be present at all the places at the same times. Before analyzing the evidence on record the legal position as it exists is briefly discussed as under: In the case of Rabindra Mahto & Ors. -vs- State of Jharkhand reported in 2006 Cri.L.J. 957 the relationship between Section 149 and Section 120B IPC has been brought out clearly by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under: Under Section 149 IPC, if the accused is a member of an unlawful assembly, the common object of which is to commit a certain crime, and such a crime is committed by one or more of the members of that assembly, every person who happens to be a member of that assembly would be liable for the commission of the crime being a member of it irrespective of the fact whether he has actually committed the criminal act or not. There is a distinction between the common object and common intention. The common object need not require prior concert and a common meeting of minds before the attack, and an unlawful object can develop after the assembly gathered before the commission of the crime at the spot itself. There need not be prior meeting of the mind. It would be enough that the members of the assembly which constitutes five or more persons, have common object and that they acted as an assembly to achieve that object. In substance, Section 149 makes
every member of the common unlawful assembly responsible as a member for the act of each and all merely because he is a member of the unlawful assembly with common object to be achieved by such an unlawful assembly. At the same time, one has to keep in mind that mere presence in the unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable unless there was a common object and that is shared by that person. The common object has to be found and can be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case. In the case of Adalat Pandit & Anr. -vs- State of Bihar reported in (2010) 6 Supreme Court Cases 469, which was a case where witnesses had deposed that three accused having lathi but none referring to any over act by them, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that benefit of doubt can be granted to persons who were present as bystanders without committing any overt acts and cannot be roped in either on the basis of Section 34 or Section 149. There was no evidence that the accused was carrying a spear and witness was making a general statement that all accused persons were holding spears. In the case of Yunis @ Kariya -vs- State of M.P. reported in 2003 (1) SCC 425 eight accused persons armed with deadly weapons, attacked the deceased in broad daylight in a marketplace causing his death and the same was witnessed by several persons, three of whom were eye-witnesses and where the testimony of the eye-witnesses was tallying with each other, the oral testimony of the eye-witnesses as well as the medical and other evidence established the commission of crime. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held Section 149 IPC to have been established on the basis of evidence.
Page No. 966
In the case of Mukteshwar Rai & Ors. -vs- State of Bihar, and Bhola Rai Kurmi & Ors. -vs- State of Bihar, 1992 SCC (Cri) 349, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 727 where the houses of the victim burnt and two persons charred to death by a mob and two persons were found to be missing and charges under Sections 436 read with 149, 364 read with 149 and 302 read with 149 were framed against the accused who were members of the mob, it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that specific overt act of actively participating in setting fire and throwing the victims into the fire was disbelieved as there was no evidence adduced showing that the missing persons had been murdered. It was also evident that none of the accused shown to be armed. Therefore on the facts it was held that common object of the unlawful assembly of committing murder was not established. It was further observed that in the absence of any evidence missing persons also cannot also be held to be murdered. However the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the common object of setting fire punishable under Section 436 read with 149 was established beyond reasonable doubt and therefore the conviction under Section 302 read with 149 and sentence of life imprisonment was set aside and the sentence under Section 436 read with Section 149 and 364 read with 149 was reduced from 10 years to 5 years. In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh -vs- Rayaneedi Sitharamaiah & Ors. reported in 2010 (4) SCC (Crl.) which was a case where the provision of Section 148 IPC was invoked and there was identification of 45 accused by one solitary witness as the members of the unlawful assembly it was held not safe to place reliance on such a witness and their conviction under Section 148 unsustainable.
In the case of Maranadu & Anr. -vs- State by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu reported in 2008 (16) SCC 529 on the question of law under Section 149 IPC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has cautioned against the acceptance of the evidence of the partisan witnesses, particularly in case involving Section 149 IPC and while stating the principles of appreciation of evidence, relied on the case of Masalti -vsState of U.P. reported in AIR 1965 SC 202, it was observed by the Hon'ble Court that:....it would be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses. The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan, would invariably lead to failure of justice. We are quite convinced in this case that the evidence of the eye-witnesses, though they were somewhat partisan, was liable to be accepted, excepting against the three accused persons who were acquitted. We have given the reasons for acceptance of that evidence and also for the acquittal of three accused persons, who could not be held to be the part of the unlawful assembly.... In the case of Pandurang Chandrakant Mhatre -vs- State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 2010 SC (Supp) 204 the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case where the incident took place between two rival political parties and it was the evidence of witnesses that accused armed with sword while others were armed with iron bars and all of them started attacking the deceased with their respective weapons in their hands was truthful and found corroboration from medial evidence, the accused persons whose presence as members of party of assailants was consistently mentioned and their over acts in chasing and assaulting
deceased were clearly proved and were liable to be convicted under Section 302 r. w. S 149 whereas other accused persons entitled to benefit of doubt. However, all accused persons were held guilty of offences punishable under S 148 and S 326 read with S 149. In this case the Hon'ble Apex Court enunciated the principle that under Section 149, two ingredients are required to be satisfied. Firstly, there has to be the commission of an offence by any member of an unlawful assembly. Secondly, such offence must have been committed in prosecution of the common object of that assembly or must be such that the members of that assembly knew it to be likely that the offence would be committed. The Hon'ble Court has held as under: Section 149 IPC creates a specific and distinct offence. Its two essential ingredients are: (i) commission of an offence by any member of an unlawful assembly and; (ii) such offence must have been committed in prosecution of the common object of that assembly or must be such as the members of that assembly knew it be likely to be committed. Similarly in the said case the Hon'ble Apex Court again placed its reliance on the case of Masalti -vs- State of U.P. reported in AIR 1965 SC 202 wherein it had earlier observed that: .....What has to be proved against a person who is alleged to be a member of an unlawful assembly is that he was one of the persons constituting the assembly and he entertained along with the other members of the assembly the common object as defined by Section 141 IPC. Section 142 provides that whoever, being aware of facts which render any assembly an unlawful assembly, intentionally joins that assembly, or continues in it, is said to be a
member of an unlawful assembly. In other words, an assembly of five or more persons actuated by, and entertaining one or more of the common object specified by the five clauses of Section 141, is an unlawful assembly. The crucial question to determine in such a case is whether the assembly consisted of five or more persons and whether the said persons entertained one or more of the common objects as specified by Section 141. While determining this question, it becomes relevant to consider whether the assembly consisted of some persons who were merely passive witnesses and had joined the assembly as a matter of idle curiosity without intending to entertain the common object of the assembly.... Further in the case of Musa Khan & Others -vs- State of Maharashtra reported in 1977 SCC (Cri) 164 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that the presence in an assembly of persons does not make the accused a member of an unlawful assembly, unless it is shown by direct or circumstantial evidence that accused shared the common object of the assembly. It was held that: .....Culpable liability does not arise from mere presence in the assembly, nor does participation in one incident lead to liability for consequences of all the incidents that the unlawful assembly may consequently indulge in Liability of each individual accused adjudged on facts. .....Thus a court is not entitled to presume that any and every person who is proved to have been present near a riotous mob at any time or to have joined or left it at any stage during its activities is in law guilty of every act committed by it from the beginning to the end, or that each member of such a crowd must from the beginning have anticipated and contemplated the nature of the illegal activities in which the assembly would subsequently indulge. In other words, it must
be proved in each case that the person concerned was not only a member of the unlawful assembly at some stages, but at all the crucial stages and shared the common objects of the assembly at all these stages. It is not uncommon that an unruly crowd on the rampage may contain some miscreants who may go beyond the common object and commit ad-hoc crimes graver that the mob had as its objective... The Hon'ble Court while having regards to the facts of the case further observed that: ....On fact, having regard to the background against which the events took place all the four incidents were parts of the same transaction but they were separate incidents in which different members of the mob had participated....... ..... In these circumstances, therefore, the accused who were not present or who did not share the common object of the unlawful assembly at other stages cannot be convicted for the activities of the assembly at those stages. .... In the case of Ramappa Halappa Pujar & Ors. -vs- State of Karnataka reported in 2009 (1) SCC (Cri) 250 it was observed that: .... members of the unlawful assembly can be held liable under Section 149 IPC, if it is shown that they knew beforehand that the offence actually committed was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object.... In the case of Kanwarpal & another -vs- State of M. P. reported in AIR 2002 Supreme Court 3690 it was observed that in the case of a free fight, conviction by recourse to S.149 was not permissible unless it is shown that a particular accused caused injuries he could not be convicted.
Also, in the case of Dharnidhar -vs- State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 759 the Hon'ble Apex Court while placing its reliance on the case of Sheo Prasad Bhore -vs- State of Assam reported in (2007) 3 SCC 120, and while analyzing the findings of the Trial Court observed that: .......The learned Trial Court, besides recording the finding against the accused on motive and referring to the recovery of the sphere, has also, in great detail, dealt with the injuries caused by the accused upon the two deceased. In terms of the medical reports proved by PW 6, (being Ext. K3 and K4), there were four gun shots on the body of each of the deceased and in addition thereto one incised wound near the shoulder of Bahadur Singh and two incised wounds on the neck of Pyare Lal. The medical evidence is clear that these injuries could be caused by gun, sphere and kulhari. The attending circumstances fully support the case of the prosecution. PW1 and PW3, who were present at the different places of occurrence, have frankly stated that they were to intervene and save their brother and father but because of the fear of the gun they could not do so. Having found the above four accused guilty on the strength of Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, the Trial Court held all the 5 accused are guilty of Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC for the murder of Pyare Lal. It has been shown in the evidence that after committing the murder of Bahadur Singh, they moved to the fields where Pyare Lal was watching his bajra crop, after having clearly made up their minds and with a common object to kill Pyare Lal. Once they reached the spot, they were joined by Dharnidhar, who also participated in the commission of the crime and in fact, played an active role by snatching the kulhari of the deceased and causing injury on his neck. The said injury and the gun injuries proved to be fatal, which ultimately resulted in the death of Pyare Lal on the spot itself. In fact, it is not even expected of the prosecution to assign
particular or independent roles played by each accused once they are members of unlawful assembly and have assaulted the deceased persons, which resulted in their death. Every person of such an unlawful assembly, can be held to be liable..... In the case of Md. Ankoos -vs- Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. reported in AIR 2010 SC 566, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: ....Section 149 IPC creates constructive liability i.e. a person who is a member of the unlawful assembly is made guilty of the offence committed by another member of the same assembly in the circumstances mentioned in the Section, although he may have had no intention to commit that offence and had done no overt act except his presence in the assembly and sharing the common object of that assembly. The legal position is also fairly well settled that because of a mere defect in language or in the narration or in form of the charge, the conviction would not be rendered bad if accused has not been affected thereby In the case of State of U.P. -vs- Dan Singh & Ors. reported in (1997) 3 SCC 747 the Hon'ble Supreme Court while placing its reliance on the case of Lalji & Ors. -vs- State of U.P. reported in 1989(1) SCC 437 has observed as under: "...Common object of the unlawful assembly can be gathered form the nature of the assembly, arms used by them and the behaviour of the assembly at or before the scene of occurrence. It is an inference to be deduced from the facts and circumstances of each case". What has happened in the present case is precisely what has envisaged in the explanation to Section 141 I.P.C. With Khima Nand being injured, all hell broke loose. A cry was raised that the doms
should be burnt and killed, and this is precisely what happened. the marriage party was assaulted by the villagers. Six of the members of the marriage party were burnt, five of them having been locked inside the house of the only Dom resident of the village whose house was also burnt. Eight others were pursued and then mercilessly beaten and were killed elsewhere in the village. We fail to appreciate how anyone, under the circumstances, can possibly come to the conclusion that an unlawful assembly having the common object of killing the Doms did not exist when fourteen people have been killed without the use of any weapon more lethal than a stick or stone. Considering the number of injuries on the persons who had died, it is evident that a large number of persons must have taken part in the assualt. Even if the assembly of villagers was initially lawful, the same, undoubtedly, became unlawful when the riot started after Khima Nand was injured. All the eye witnesses have said that fifty or more villagers had taken part in the attack. Who were members of the assembly will be considered later but what is relevant to note is that a large number of villagers were present, duly armed with lathis and sticks, when the occurrence started and except six people who were burnt, eight others were beaten to death by blows from lathis, sticks an stones. It is difficult to appreciate the conclusion of the High Court that, under the circumstances, the attackers probably had a similar object but not a common object. This brings us to the next question as to who were the persons who were members of this unlawful assembly. it is no doubt true that some of the villagers may have been present at the time of the occurrence who were mere spectators and could not be regarded as being members of the unlawful assembly. It also happens, when people are killed during a riot, there may be a possibility of the incident being exaggerated or some innocent persons being named as being part of the assailants party. This may happen wittingly or
unwittingly. But just because there may be some inconsequential contradictions or exaggeration in the testimony of the eye witnesses that should not be a ground to reject their evidence in its entirety. In the cases of rioting, where there are a large number of assailants and a number of witnesses, it is but natural that the testimony of the witnesses may not be identical. What has to be seen is whether the basic features of the occurrences have been similarly viewed and/or described by the witnesses in a manner which tallies with the outcome of the riot, viz., the injuries sustained by the victims and the number of people who are attacked and killed. Before we deal with the testimony of these witnesses, it will be important to bear in mind that in the present case the conviction is being sought under Section 302 I.P.C. with the aid of Section 149 I.P.C.. The two essential ingredients of this Section are that there must be a commission of an offence by any member of unlawful assembly and that such offence must be committed in prosecution of common object of that assembly or must be such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed. It is also a well-settled law (see Masalti -vs- State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 202) that it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove which of the members of the unlawful assembly did which or what act. In fact as observed in Lalji's case (supra) "while overt act and active participation may indicate common intention of the person perpetrating the crime, the mere presence in the unlawful assembly may fasten vicariously criminal liability under Section 149". Mr. Lalit is right in submitting that the witnesses would be revengeful as a large scale violence had taken place where the party, to which the eye witnesses belonged, had suffered and it is, therefore, necessary to fix the identity and participation of each accused with reasonable certainty. Dealing with a
similar case of riot where a large number of assailants who were members of an unlawful assembly committed an offence of murder in pursuance of a common object, the manner in which the evidence should be appreciated was adverted upon by this court in Masalti's case (supra) at page 210 as follows: "Then it is urged that the evidence given by the witnesses conforms to the same uniform pattern and since no specific part is assigned to all the assailants, that evidence should not have been accepted. This criticism again is not well founded. where a crowd of assailants who are members of an unlawful assembly proceeds to commit an offence of murder in pursuance of the common object of the unlawful assembly, it is often not possible for witnesses to describe accurately the part played by each one of the assailants. Besides, if a large crowd of persons armed with weapons assaults the intended victims, it may not be necessary that all of them have to take part in the actual assault. In the present case, for instance, several weapons were carried by different members of the unlawful assembly, but it appears that the guns were used and that was enough to kill 5 persons. In such a case, it would be unreasonable to contend that because the other weapons carried by the members of the unlawful assembly were not used, the story in regard to the said weapons itself should be rejected. `Appreciation of evidence in such a complex case is not doubt a difficult task; but criminal courts have to do their best in dealing with such cases and it is their duty to sift the evidence carefully and decide which part of it is true and which is not." One more principle which was laid down in Masalti's case (supra), and which would be applicable here, is that where a "court has to deal with the evidence pertaining to the commission of an offence involving a large number of offenders and a large number of victims, it is usual to adopt the test that the conviction could be sustained only if it is supported by 2/3 or
more witnesses who give a consistent account of the incident. In a sense the test may be described as mechanical; but it cannot be treated as irrational or unreasonable". The principles of law which broadly emerge from a broad reading of the aforesaid are briefly culled out as under: Section 149 IPC creates a constructive liability i.e. a person who is a member of the unlawful assembly is made guilty of the offence committed by another member of the same assembly in the circumstances mentioned in the Section, although he may have had no intention to commit that offence and had done no overt act except his presence in the assembly and sharing the common object of that assembly. Two essential ingredients of this Section are that there must be a commission of an offence by any member of unlawful assembly and that such offence must be committed in prosecution of common object of that assembly or must be such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed. An assembly, which is lawful to begin with, subsequently becomes unlawful. In other words, unlawful intent can develop during the course of the incident at the spot co-instanti. For determination of the common object of an unlawful assembly the conduct of each of the member of the said assembly before the attack, at the time of attack and thereafter as well as the motive for the crime are some of the relevant facts for consideration. Common object of the unlawful assembly can be gathered form
Page No. 977
the nature of the assembly, arms used by them and the behaviour of the assembly at or before the scene of occurrence which inference has to be deduced from the facts and circumstances of each case Mere spectators who may be present at the time of the incident cannot be regarded as being members of the unlawful assembly. Possibility of exaggeration or implication of innocent persons being a part of the assailants party cannot be ruled out which may happen wittingly or unwittingly. That there are some inconsequential contradictions or exaggeration in the testimony of the eye witnesses cannot be a ground for rejection of their evidence in its entirety. In a case of rioting where there are a large number of assailants and a number of witnesses are involved it is only natural that the testimony of the witnesses may not be identical. The Court is required to ascertain whether the basic features of the occurrences have been similarly viewed or described by the witnesses in a manner which tallies with the outcome of the riot, that is the injuries sustained by the victims and the number of people who were attacked or killed. In a case where the Court has to deal with the evidence pertaining to the commission of an offence involving a large number of offenders and a large number of victims, it is usual to adopt the test that the conviction could be sustained only if it is supported by two to three or more number of witnesses who give a consistent account of the incident which may be described as mechanical but it cannot be treated as irrational or unreasonable.
It is the duty of the Court to sift the evidence carefully and decide which part of it is true and which is not. It is in the background of the aforesaid principles that I now
proceed to examine the testimony of the eye witnesses, in order to determine as to which of the accused could be stated to have been a part of the unlawful assembly whose common object was to commit the illegal acts of rioting, murder, dacoity/ robbery, grievous/ simple hurt, mischief by fire with intention to cause death, criminal house trespass in order to commit the above offences and also the offence under the SC/ST (POA) Act by illegal means. Firstly I may observe that as per the ocular evidence on record the presence of the accused Sumit S/o Satyawan, Pradeep S/o Jaibir, Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand, Pradeep S/o Suresh, Sunil S/o Daya Nand, Baljeet S/o Inder, Karambir S/o Tara Chand, Karampal S/o Satbir, Dharambir @ Illa S/o Mai Chand, Rishi S/o Satbir, Monu S/o Suresh, Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar, Bobal @ Langra S/o Tek Ram, Ramphal S/o Prithvi and Rajender S/o Pali has been established at the spot of the incident. It has further emerged from the evaluation of this evidence that the accused Sumit S/o Satyawan, Pradeep S/o Jaibir, Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand, Pradeep S/o Suresh, Sunil S/o Daya Nand, Rishi S/o Satbir and Monu S/o Suresh were present at the spot at the time of the incident as one of the persons being a part of the unlawful assembly where they were indulging into stone pelting. Further, the presence of the accused Baljeet S/o Inder, Karambir S/o Tara Chand, Karampal S/o Satbir, Dharambir @ Illa S/o Mai Chand, Bobal @ Langra S/o Tek Ram at the spot at the time of the incident along with the other persons
constituting an unlawful assembly and indulging into stone pelting, causing damage to the properties of persons from 'B' community stand established. It also stand established that the accused Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar, Ramphal S/o Prithvi and Rajender S/o Pale were present at the spot at the time of the incident along with the other persons constituting unlawful assembly and were indulging into stone pelting, causing damage to the properties of persons from the 'B' community and also setting fire to the house of Tara Chand in which Tara Chand and his daughter Suman had been burnt to death. Secondly it stands established that there was no recovery of any kind of weapon from the above accused or from the site thereby demolishing the case of the prosecution regarding use of weapons. Thirdly the photographs and the video clippings placed on record only prove the use brick bats by the accused and not dangerous weapons. Fourthly the medical evidence on record clearly established that most of the injured were only complaining of body pain with no marks of injuries due to which reason either no opinion was given by the doctor or the injuries were opined to be Simple and others were having injuries abrasions, swelling, bruises etc. which are compatible to the use of brick bats and stone pelting. Fifthly the FSL report Ex.PX1 show the absence of Hydrocarbons of petroleum (kerosene, petrol or diesel) in the exhibits sent to the FSL nor the clothes of the deceased Suman which she was wearing at the time of the incident showed any signs of Hydrocarbons of petroleum (kerosene, petrol or diesel) and hence the allegations in the oral testimonies of her family members of petrol/ kerosene oil being
poured on the deceased does not stand established and cannot be believed. Sixthly not even a single public witness/ eye witness whose property was damaged or destroyed has lead any evidence to prove the said damage. The photographs/ video clippings of the properties so placed on record and proved by the police witnesses does reflect the damage caused by fire and rioting but not the person to whom the property belongs. Here I may observe that the said photographs/ video clippings have not been specifically put to any of the eye witnesses nor they have been got identified from the said eye witnesses nor the extent of damage proved, except for the properties of Tara Chand and Kamla whose properties were completely destroyed and from where the dead body of Suman was removed. I may also observe that majority of the victims whose properties are shown to have been damaged have either not been examined by the prosecution on account of being won over by the accused or have appeared as witnesses of the defence and not supported the prosecution version. Further, the oral testimonies of the witnesses and the site plan also reveal that not all the houses and the properties belonging to the 'B' community had been damaged by the assailants. The damaged properties reflected in the site plans show that they are scattered in the 'B' Basti thereby establishing that not all the houses of persons belonging to 'B' community were targeted. The damage was in fact selective and it is this which lends support to the defence version that the incident was not premeditated nor was it aimed at entire 'B' community. Seventhly the video clippings and photographs placed on record wherein properties have been duly got identified with the
assistance of the representatives of the victims and complainant, indicate that five houses of the persons belonging to 'B' Community were totally bunt/ damaged whereas partial damage had been caused to nine number of houses. Here I may observe that out of the persons whose houses were allegedly burnt totally only Kamla (PW50) has been examined as a witness and out of the persons whose houses were damaged only Manoj S/o Mahender (PW45), Vicky S/o Dhoop Singh (PW42) and Sanjay S/o Gulab Singh (PW44) have appeared to depose in the Court whereas Ramphal & Ram Niwas both sons of Raj Mal; Dilbagh S/o Sube Singh; Dilbagh S/o Dhoop Singh; Sunil, Sanjay and Dilbagh all sons of Jai Lal; Suresh S/o Chander; Chander S/o Laxman; Sanjay & Vinod both sons of Bani Singh and Jagpal S/o Beer Singh have not appeared to prove the same. It has been emerged from the evidence on record that the incident had spread over a large part of the village. While at one place that is in the bye-lane near the main street where house of Tara Chand is situated there was damage to property by fire, whereas at other places where was stone pelting and at some other areas the rioters had even entered the houses and broke/ damaged the furniture/ household articles. Not all accused were found present everywhere and in fact they were scattered all over with different set of persons at different places, hence though at a particular point of time a person may have shared the common object of the assembly but what has to be proved is that he was a member of unlawful assembly at a crucial stage and shared common object at these stages. It is common that an unruly crowd on rampage may contain miscreants who may go beyond the common object and commit other offences.
Eighthly it is further evident from the photographs and video clippings which were taken after a few hours of the incident that fire had been set at various places where the domestic fuel in the form of uplas (cow dung cakes) and thansras (dried sticks) were stacked and there is indication of the spread of fire to the houses particularly adjoining those having kachcha/ wooden roofs. Ninethly it is reflected from the statements of many of the injured and eye witnesses including Dhoop Singh (PW29) and Sube Singh (PW39) that it was never the intention of the persons of unlawful assembly to commit murder. In fact the witness Sube Singh has specifically deposed that when the assailants came to him and he pleaded to them one of the assailant had told him to sit by saying Dada baith jao while the other assailants left the premises and in fact the photographs placed on record show Sube Singh standing in front of his house with no evidence of damage to his property. Hence it does not stand established that the common object of the assembly was causing death of any person rather it is evident that the assembly which was lawful initially turned unlawful when there was stone pelting from both the sides which got aggravated as a result of which damage was caused to the properties of persons belonging to 'B' community. Tenthly the postmortem examination reports of Tara Chand and Suman does not show any signs of injuries to prove the use of blunt force (use of lathi as alleged by Kamla and Amar Lal) prior to their death. The fractures observed on the body of Suman during the postmortem have been opined to be burn fractures and there is no ground to suspect the opinion of the doctor in this regard since the video clipping of the postmortem examination of Suman reflect that her body
was badly charred. Hence under these circumstances the extreme heat which reflects on the body causes fractures in the process of removing the body from the burnt house. (Ref: Medical jurisprudence and Toxicology, 23rd edition written by Modi) Eleventhly Dhoop Singh (PW29) is the only person who had received grievous injuries which according to him had been inflicted upon him by one Ramphal S/o Prithvi which is not the accused Ramphal S/o Prithvi before this Court and not by any of the accused before this Court. Therefore under these circumstances none of the accused can be held guilty for the offence under Section 326 Indian Penal Code. Twelfthly it has also been alleged that the members of the unlawful assembly in prosecution to their common object also committed looting/ robbery/ dacoity in the houses of persons of 'B' community. In this regard I may observe that most of the witnesses examined by the prosecution in this regard have only made oral and general allegations in this regard without specifying either the details of the articles being taken away or the names of the persons who had committed this act. None of the witnesses except Gulab Singh (PW48) and Kamla (PW50) have made any specific and definite allegations in this regard. The allegations regarding robbery/ dacoity have been made by these witnesses for the first time in the Court. I may further observe that Gulab Singh (PW48) is the Chowkidar of the village having no landed property living on the mercy of the dominant classes and he has not lead any evidence to prove that Rs.20,000/- and two gold rings which were kept in his house had been looted by the assailants nor he has made any specific allegations against any accused in this regard by name. This Court for the reasons already discussed in detail and not being repeated
for the sake of brevity has observed that Gulab Singh (PW48) is not a totally reliable witness and has made repeated improvements and exaggerations qua the incident and also qua the assailants and therefore under these circumstances it is not safe to rely upon his testimony without any independent reliable corroboration. I may observe that Gulab Singh (PW48) has made only bald allegations regarding looting without specifying either the name of the boys who had committed the dacoity despite having identified them in the Court in so far as the incident is concerned nor his testimony finds any corroboration from any other source in this regard. In so far as the testimony of Kamla (PW50) is concerned, it has already been held to be an unreliable and on most of the aspects she has come up with a version which is not in conformity with the prosecution case and the testimonies of other prosecution witnesses. Initially in her testimony Kamla (PW50) did not state anything on this aspect and it is only when the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor put leading questions to her for refreshing her memory that she admitted having told the Investigating Officer that Rs. Four lacs along with jewllery had been looted from her house. Here I may observe that Tara Chand was the only earning member of the family and it is for this reason that his sons Amar Lal, Ravinder and Pradeep have been given government jobs on compassionate grounds by way of a Cabinet decision dated 10.8.2010 of the Government of Haryana. It is impossible for Tara Chand in this background to have even afforded or kept Rs. Four lacs in his house he himself being a landless labour. Even otherwise the video clippings and the photographs placed on record do not substantiate and establish the allegations of robbery/ dacoity. I may mention that the video clippings show the trunk kept in the room of Suman in a burnt
condition but the clothes and the articles inside being untouched which prove that the trunk was in fact opened after the house was burnt and Suman was taken out and not at the time when assailants reportedly set the houses on fire or else all the articles lying inside would have also been burnt along with the other things in the room. The allegations of looting are false on the face of it and cannot be believed. Lastly it is proved that the accused being the member of the unlawful assembly have committed criminal house tress pass by the use of deadly weapons has not been proved by the prosecution. Now coming to the assessment of the role attributed to each of the accused vis-a-vis the injuries caused to the victims or the damage caused to their properties, it is necessary to revert back to the evidence adduced by the prosecution with regard to the above. I may observe that the case of the prosecution is that in the arson and rioting which took place the properties of Dhoop Singh S/o Rattnu, Jagpal S/o Bir Singh, Ramphal S/o Rajmal, Ram Niwas S/o Rajmal, Chander Singh S/o Laxman, Dilbagh S/o Gulaba, Gulaba S/o Jai Lal, Sanjay S/o Bani Singh, Manoj S/o Mahender, Rajender S/o Mahender, Satyawan S/o Bale Ram, Sube S/o Bura, Tara Chand S/o Swaroopa, Pradeep S/o Tara Chand, Sunita W/o Surta Ram, Sanjay S/o Satpal and Dilbagh S/o Satpal Singh were destroyed by fire and damage was caused to the properties of Bania S/o Surta, Sushil S/o Surta, Mahajan S/o Satpal, Raja S/o Pratap, Rajmal S/o Pokar, Satyawan S/o Roshan, Jaswant S/o Jagbir, Jai Singh S/o Sudhan, Bijender S/o Surta, Dharambir S/o Chattar Singh, Binder S/o Raj Kumar, Bani S/o Bale Ram, Nawab S/o Laxman, Rajesh S/o Bambu, Praveen S/o Surta, Satpal S/o Pratap, Ram Niwas S/o Inder,
Dharambir S/o Chandgi, Karambir S/o Balbir and Pawn S/o Jagat Singh. It is further the case of the prosecution that injuries had been caused to as many as fifty five persons of whom two have expired. I have gone through the evidence on record. First coming to the role of the accused who have been identified as a part of the unlawful assembly vis-a-vis the injuries caused to the various persons, the evidence on record in this regard is hereby put in a tabulated form for the sake of clarity:
Sr. No. Name of Injured Nature of injury Remark/detail of injury Name of the assailant/ accused identified as causing injury
1.
Ramphal S/o No Opinion No marks of fresh injury, Nil Rishala (PW8) no swelling and no tenderness Sunil S/o Ved Simple (not examined) Krishna W/o Raghubir (PW15) Simple Lacerated wounded on Nil left toe of left foot of size 0.5 x 1cm Pain on right knee and thigh Pain in right shoulder, pain on upper half of back in mid line Nil
2.
3.
4.
Ishro W/o Asha Simple Ram (PW16) Shanti W/o Jugti Ram (PW17) Chanderpati W/o Sajana (PW18)
Nil
5.
No Opinion Pain in right abdomen, Nil pain in right lower back, no sign of external injury Simple Pain in right chest and upper right back, pain in right foot toe Pain on right parietal region on skull Nil
6.
7. 8.
Pooja D/o Surta Simple (PW19) Kelapati W/o Jai Singh (PW20) Simple
Nil
Pain in right hip, pain in Nil right hand thumb, pain in center of chest
Page No. 987
9.
Sunita W/o Satbir (PW21)
No Opinion Pain in lower back
Nil
10. Aman S/o Surta Simple/ Ram (PW22) Blunt
Old lacerated wound on Nil left toe (1 x 0.5 cm), Pain in knee but not sign of external injury Pain in left hand finger and pain in lower back but not external injury seen Nil
11. Satbir S/o Bhalle Ram (PW23) 12. Susheel S/o Surta (PW25) 13. Raju S/o Pasha Ram (PW26)
Simple/ Blunt
No Opinion Pain on right solder no mark of external injury seen and no swelling Simple/ Blunt Pain on left hand ring finger, no swelling present, no redness, no tenderness
Nil
Nil
14. Ravi S/o Mahender (PW27)
Simple/ Blunt
(1) Partly Healed wound Nil on anterior aspect of left shoulder with scab intact 3.6 x 1.2 cm in size (2) Partly Healed wound on left patella 1.2 x 1.2 cm, 1.5 x 1.6 cm and 2.8 x 2.9 cms of size Whole body in pain but no mark of injury seen (1) Swelling and deformity on left arm (2) Pain & swelling below left knee (3) Abrasion of size 2 x 0.25 cms, swelling on left leg in the middle Nil Ramphal S/o Prithvi (not the accused before the Court)
15. Sandeep S/o Satpal (PW28) 16. Dhoop Singh S/o Rattan Singh (PW29)
Simple/ Blunt Grievous (fracture of left Humerous)
17. Santra W/o Satyawan (PW30)
No Opinion No External injury on body part
Nil
18. Sheela W/o No Opinion No mark of external Subash (PW32) injury and no swelling and tenderness seen 19. Rani W/o No Opinion No injury seen on body Sanjay (PW33) part
Nil
Nil
Page No. 988
20. Raj Kumar S/o Kapoora (PW34)
Simple
(1) Lacerated wound of size 0.5 x 0.5 cm on medial aspect of right arm (2) Pain on the base of left index finger, multiple abrasion on dorsal aspect of index finger of left hand (3) Reddish contusion of size 2 x 1 cm on right leg below knee (4) Pain on right foot and swelling over it (5) Lacerated wound of size 1 x 0.5 cm on left lower leg on medial aspect.
Nil
21. Ashok S/o Maha Singh (PW35)
Simple/ Blunt
(1) Pain on lower back Nil but no external injury seen (2) Old healed brownish scar on left lower chin of size 0.5 x 0.25 cm
22. Sanjay S/o Raja No Opinion (1) Pain in chest on right Nil Ram (PW36) side but no mark of external injury seen and no swelling (2) Pain on right shoulder but no mark of external injury seen. 23. Meena Kumar S/o Satpal (PW37) 24. Mahajan S/o Satpal (PW38) No Opinion No mark of fresh injury seen, no tenderness and no swelling Nil
No Opinion (1) Swelling over upper Nil eye lid. (2) Tenderness over right cheek (3) Bone deep lacerated injury over forehead frontal region 2.5 cm above root of nose (2 x 1.0 x 0.5 cm)
Page No. 989
25. Gulaba Ram S/o Sh. Jai Lal (PW48)
Simple/ blunt
(1) Abrasion of size 2 x 1.5 cm posterior side b/w scapula, fresh swelling on tender area (2) Abrasion of size .5 x 1.5 cm at left knee Reddish blue colour (3) Pain at right wrist area but no external injury seen.
Rajender S/o Pale, Karampal S/o Satbir and Ramphal S/o Prithvi
26. Angoori W/o Dalip (PW14)
Initially kept under observation but no opinion
(1) Pain on right scapular Nil region but no mark of injury seen (2) Pain and weakness on left wrist, no mark of external injury seen (3) Weakness on left lower limb (1) Pain on left side of back at middle 1/3rd but no mark of external injury seen (2) Pain on left foot Nil
27. Suman W/o Raghubir (not examined)
Simple/ Blunt
28. Sanjay S/o Satpal (not examined)
Simple
(1) Lacerated wound of Nil size 3 x 0.5 cm on left parietal region of head (2) Pain and swelling on right elbow but no mark of fresh injury seen (3) Pain in right leg below knee but no external injury seen Abrasion of size 1 x 0.5 cms on left side of forehead Nil
29. Abishek S/o Simple/ Sanjay (PW31) Blunt 30. Sanjeep S/o Raj Simple/ Kumar (not Blunt examined)
(1)Abrasion of size 4 x 1 Nil cm on medial aspect of left forearm (2) Pain on left side of chest but no external injury seen
Page No. 990
31. Ajmer Singh S/o Balbir (DW16)
Simple/ Blunt
(1) Pain on right ankle (2) Pain on left side of chest (3) Pain in left scrotum No marks of injury seen Old lacerated wound 1 cm in length on left foot little finger (1) Pain on right lower side of right leg (2) Pain on left side of back of right leg and hip (3) Pain in lower abdomen No marks of injury seen Partly Healed wound of 1.1 x 1.2 cm on right leg on anterior aspect
Nil
32. Satbir S/o Risala (not examined) 33. Sunita W/o Surta (PW41)
Simple/ Blunt Simple/ Blunt
Nil
Nil
34. Rajbir S/o Baje Simple/ Singh (PW10) Blunt 35. Monika D/o Ramesh (not examined) Simple/ Blunt
Nil
(1) Partly Healed wound Nil of 2.8 x 0.5 cm in size on right leg on lower part (2) Partly Healed wound on right leg 1.5 x 0.5 cm in size, scar on upper part of leg on anterior aspect Partly Healed wound on Nil left elbow dorsal part 2.1 x 1.5 cm in size, partly scab present (1) Partly Healed wound Nil on skull on parietal region 2.1 x 1.5 cm in size on left side, scab present (2) Partly Healed wound on orbital region on both sides including forehead and lower part below eye, partly scab present and partly hypo-pigment area present Partly Healed wound on right middle finger, with complete nail missing Nil
36. Bindu D/o Suresh (PW9)
Simple/ Blunt
37. Rajmal S/o Pokar (not examined)
Simple/ Blunt
38. Priya D/o Jagdish (not examined)
Simple/ Blunt
Page No. 991
39. Karambir S/o Balbir (not examined)
Simple/ Blunt
Partly Healed wound on left leg near ankle joint on anterior aspect 3.5 x 1.1 cm in size. partly scar present
Nil
40. Pali W/o Jagdish (not examined)
Simple/ Blunt
Pain on right elbow. No Nil swelling, no tenderness present. Abrasion of 0.5 x 0.5 cm size, scars present Abrasion on right ankle joint on anterior aspect 1.5 x 0.5 cm in size Partly Healed wound on skull near occipital region 2.8 x 1.5 cm in size with scab intact Nil
41. Nawab S/o Simple/ Lakshman Blunt (not examined) 42. Jai Parkash S/o Tek Ram (not examined) Simple/ Blunt
Nil
43. Karan Singh S/o Simple/ Tek Ram Blunt (DW13)
(1) Abrasion contusion Nil with swelling on left latent region of abdomen with partial scab present. (2) Abrasion contusion on right leg on mid part on anterior aspect 0.5 x 1.5 cm in size with scab. (1) Partly Healed with Nil scab wound present, a scar point present in wound, size of wound is 5.5. x 1.2 cm over right elbow (2) Pain on right leg joint with swelling (mild), abrasion contusion of size 5.8 x 3.5 cm with scab present. (1) Contusion on nose Nil present at root of nose, brownish in colour over skin 0.5 x 0.5 cm in size, no swelling present, mild tenderness on touching.
44. Naseeb S/o Simple/ Karan Singh Blunt (not examined)
45. Parveen S/o Surta (DW22)
Simple/ Blunt
Page No. 992
(2) Pain over left shoulder but no marks of injury seen 46. Yogesh S/o Jai No Opinion (1) No injury over body Nil Parkash (PW7) parts (2) Pain on right finger, no swelling and no tenderness present 47. Poonam D/o Simple/ Chander Pal Blunt (not examined) (1) Partly Healed wound on right leg in mid part 1.5 x 1.5 cm in size with abrasion and scab present. Nil
48. Jagbir S/o No Opinion Partly treated and Nawab Singh discolored nail of right (not examined) thumb with tenderness present 49. Ashok S/o Jagdish (not examined) No Opinion No mark of injury seen.
Nil
Nil
50. Kamlesh W/o No Opinion No mark of fresh injury Jai Parkash (not seen, no tenderness and examined) no swelling 51. Radha W/o Sandeep (not examined) No Opinion No mark of fresh injury seen, no tenderness and no swelling
Nil
Nil
52. Madho W/o Tek No Opinion No mark of fresh injury Ram (PW11) seen, no tenderness and no swelling 53. Murti W/o Karan Singh (PW12) No Opinion No mark of fresh injury seen, no tenderness and no swelling
Nil
Nil
54. Tara Chand S/o Expired/ Swaroopa Fatal
Superficial to deep burn Rajender S/o Pale, all over body, burn area - Kulwinder S/o ram 99% Mehar and Ramphal S/o Prithvi Superficial to deep burn all over body Rajender S/o Pale, Kulwinder S/o ram Mehar and Ramphal S/o Prithvi
55. Suman D/o Tara Brought Chand dead
Page No. 993
Coming now to the role of the accused who have been identified as a part of the unlawful assembly vis-a-vis the damage/ extent of damage caused to the various properties, the evidence on record in this regard is hereby discussed as under by putting the same in a tabulated form for the purpose of clarity: Damage on account of fire and rioting:
Sr. Name of the victim No. whose property has been damaged/ burnt 1. (a) Dhoop Singh S/o Rattnu (PW29) (b) Vicky S/o Dhoop Singh (PW42) Joint property Jagpal S/o Bir Singh Ramphal S/o Rajmal Ram Niwas S/o Rajmal (DW20) Chander Singh S/o Laxman Dilbagh S/o Gulaba (PW43) Remarks Name of the accused identified by the witness/ victim and proved to have caused damage (a) Ramphal S/o Prithvi, Bobal @ Langra S/o Tek Ram (b) Sunil S/o Daya Nand, Pradeep S/o Jaibir, Pradeep S/o Suresh Nil Nil
Witnesses examined but photograph and video clippings not put to them
2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Witness not examined Witness not examined
Examined as a defence Nil witness Witness not examined Witness examined Nil Karamvir S/o Tara Chand, Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand, Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar, Rajender S/o Pale, and Ramphal S/o Prithvi Dharambir @ Illa S/o Mai Chand, Baljeet S/o Inder, Rishi S/o Satbir, Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar, Bobal S/o Tek Ram, Rajender S/o Pale and Monu S/o Suresh
7.
Sanjay S/o Gulaba (PW44)
Witness examined
8.
Gulaba S/o Jai Lal (PW48)
Witness examined but Sunil S/o Daya Nand, photograph and video Karampal S/o Satbir, clippings not put to him Rishi S/o Satbir, Rajender
Page No. 994
S/o Pale, Dharambir @ Illa S/o Mai Chand, Ramphal S/o Prithvi and Bobal S/o Tek Ram 9. 10. Sanjay S/o Bani Singh Witness not examined Manoj S/o Mahender (PW45) Nil Witness examined but Bobal S/o Tek Ram, photograph and video Baljeet S/o Inder, clippings not put to him Ramphal S/o Prithvi, Rajender S/o Pale, Sumit S/o Satyawan and Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar Witness not examined Witness not examined Nil Nil
11. 12. 13.
Rajender S/o Mahender Satyawan S/o Bale Ram
Sube S/o Bura (PW39) Witness examined but Kulwinder S/o Ram photograph and video Mehar, Rajender S/o Pale clippings not put to him and Karamveer S/o Tara Chand Tara Chand S/o Swaroopa Witness examined (son Rajender S/o Pale, of the deceased) Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar and Ramphal S/o Prithvi Witness examined but Pradeep S/o Jaibir, photographs and video Pradeep S/o Suresh, clippings not put to him Rajender S/o Pale, Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar and Ramphal S/o Prithvi
14.
15.
Pradeep S/o Tara Chand (PW49)
16.
Sunita W/o Surta Ram Witness examined but Nil (PW41) photographs and video clippings not put to her Sanjay S/o Satpal Dilbagh S/o Satpal Singh Bania S/o Surta Sushil S/o Surta (PW25) Witness not examined Witness not examined Witness not examined Witness examined Nil Nil Nil Ramphal S/o Prithvi, Bobal @ Langra S/o Tek Ram, Rajender S/o Pale
17. 18. 19. 20.
Page No. 995
21. 22. 23. 24.
Mahajan S/o Satpal Raja S/o Pratap Rajmal S/o Pokar (PW47)
Witness not examined Witness not examined Witness not examined
Nil Nil Nil Rajender S/o Pale, Bobal S/o Tek Ram, Ramphal S/o Prithvi Nil Nil Bobal @ Langra S/o Tek Ram, Dharambir @ Illa S/o Mai Chand, Ramphal S/o Prithvi, Rajender S/o Pale Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil
Satyawan S/o Roshan Witness examined
25. 26. 27.
Jaswant S/o Jagbir Jai Singh S/o Sudhan Vijender (PW40) S/o
Witness not examined Witness not examined
Surta Witness examined
28. 29. 30. 31. 32.
Dharambir S/o Chattar Examined as defence Singh (DW21) witness Binder S/o Raj Kumar Witness not examined Bani S/o Bale Ram Nawab S/o Laxman Rajesh S/o Bambu Witness not examined Witness not examined Witness examined but does not support prosecution case in respect of damage
33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38.
Praveen (DW22)
S/o
Surta Examined as defence witness Witness not examined Witness not examined S/o Witness not examined Witness not examined
Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil
Satpal S/o Pratap Ram Niwas S/o Inder Dharambir Chandgi
Karambir S/o Balbir
Pawan S/o Jagat Singh Witness not examined
Hence in view of the aforesaid evidence as already discussed in detail while evaluating the evidence against the accused, I hereby hold that no doubt the presence of the accused Sumit S/o Satyawan, Pradeep S/o Jaibir, Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand, Pradeep S/o Suresh, Sunil S/o Daya Nand, Baljeet S/o Inder, Karambir S/o Tara
Chand, Karampal S/o Satbir, Dharambir @ Illa S/o Mai Chand, Rishi S/o Satbir, Monu S/o Suresh, Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar, Bobal @ Langra S/o Tek Ram, Ramphal S/o Prithvi and Rajender S/o Pali in the unlawful assembly stands established but the liability of each of the above accused is required to be adjudged on the facts and not merely on account of their presence in the assembly since participation in one incident cannot lead to liability in consequent of all the incidents in which the unlawful assembly consequently indulged. On the face of it, it is evident that the crowd assembly which was lawful at the time when the persons from the 'J' community started collecting at the spot after having come to know of the incident which took place in the morning but later, on account of the rumor which spread in the village regarding Rajender either being kidnapped or killed the crowd become unruly and they went on rampage after which there was stone pelting from both the sides. It is further evident from the record that it is not the same persons who indulged into the act of rioting at all places but the properties which were damaged at different places prove that different set of persons were involved into different activities at different places and hence all the more reason why the liability of each of the accused is liable to be adjudged differently on facts. It has been established that the common object of the unlawful assembly was only to cause simply injuries consequently resulted into damage to the properties of persons from the 'B' community but some of the unruly persons in the crowd went beyond the same and committed ad-hoc crimes graver than the mob had its objective which were of causing fire at some of the houses which ultimately resulted into death of two persons from the 'B' community.
Page No. 997
Therefore, in view of the aforesaid the accused Sumit S/o Satyawan, Pradeep S/o Jaibir, Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand, Pradeep S/o Suresh, Sunil S/o Daya Nand, Rishi S/o Satbir and Monu S/o Suresh can only be held liable for being a part of the unlawful assembly indulging into stone pelting thereby causing Simple Injuries to the various persons from the 'B' community and causing consequential damage stand established. Further, in so far as the accused Baljeet S/o Inder, Karambir S/o Tara Chand, Karampal S/o Satbir, Dharambir @ Illa S/o Mai Chand and Bobal @ Langra S/o Tek Ram are concerned, their presence at the spot at the time of the incident along with other persons constituting an unlawful assembly stands established and it also stands established that they were indulging into stone pelting resulting into Simple Injuries to the persons from the 'B' community and damage to their properties. Now coming to the accused Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar, Ramphal S/o Prithvi and Rajender S/o Pali, their presence at the spot at the time of the incident along with the other persons constituting an unlawful assembly indulging into stone pelting thereby causing simple injuries to the persons from the 'B' community and damage to the properties of persons from the 'B' community and also setting fire and causing damage to the properties of Tara Chand and Kamla wherein Tara Chand and Suman had expired on account of fire and burn injuries stand established for which they are liable to be held responsible.
Allegations under Section 302 Indian Penal Code:

As per allegations, the accused before this Court who were all members of unlawful assembly with a common object committed the murder of Tara Chand S/o Swaroop Singh and his daughter Suman and
intentionally caused their death by setting them ablaze. Before coming to the evaluation of evidence on record I may observe that as per the provisions of Section 299 Indian Penal Code who ever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide. Further, as per the provisions of Section 300 Indian Penal Code culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or if it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid and this is punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. There are five exceptions provided to the above. Firstly culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. I may observe that this exception is also subject to the proviso that the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person; the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the
law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant; the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence; the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact. Secondly Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence. Thirdly Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the person whose death is caused. Fourthly Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner and it is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault. Lastly Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent. The academic distinction between 'murder' and 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' has always vexed the Courts. Confusion is caused, if Courts losing sight of the true scope and meaning of the terms used by the legislature in these sections, allow themselves to
be drawn into minute abstractions. The safest way of approach to the interpretation and application of these provisions seems to be to keep in focus the keywords used in the various clauses of Sections 299 and 300 Indian Penal Code. (Ref.: Daya Nand -vs- State of Haryana reported in AIR 2008 SC 1823). Whenever a court is confronted with the question whether the offence is 'murder' or 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder' on the facts of a case, it will be convenient for it to approach the problem in three stages. The question to be considered at the first stage would be, whether the accused has done an act by doing which he has caused the death of another. Proof of such causal connection between the act of the accused and the death, leads to the second stage for considering whether that act of the accused amounts to "culpable homicide" as defined in Section 299. If the answer to this question is prima facie found in the affirmative, the stage for considering the operation of Section 300, Penal Code, is reached. This is the stage at which the Court should determine whether the facts proved by the prosecution bring the case within the ambit of any of the four Clauses of the definition of 'murder' contained in Section300. If the answer to this question is in the negative the offence would be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder', punishable under the first or the second part of Section 304, depending, respectively, on whether the second or the third Clause of Sec. 299 is applicable. If this question is found in the positive, but the case comes within any of the Exceptions enumerated is Section 300, the offence would still be 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder', punishable under the First Part of Section 304, Penal Code. Note: All murders are culpable homicide but not vice-a-versa. (Ref.: State of A.P. -vs- Rayavarapu
Punnayya reported in AIR 1977 SC 45). In our present case the allegations against the accused are of intentionally causing death of Tara Chand and Suman whereas the Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that the case falls within Exception 4 to Section 300 Indian Penal Code punishable under Section 304 Indian Penal Code and not under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. Here, I may observe that for bringing in operation of Exception 4 to Section 300 Indian Penal Code it has to be established that the act was committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel without the offender having taken undue advantage and not having acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The Fourth Exception of Section 300, IPC covers acts done in a sudden fight. The said exception deals with a case of prosecution not covered by the first exception, after which its place would have been more appropriate. The exception is founded upon the same principle, for in both there is absence of premeditation. But, while in the case of Exception 1 there is total deprivation of self-control, in case of Exception 4, there is only that heat of passion which clouds men's sober reasons and urges them to deeds which they would not otherwise do. There is provocation in Exception 4 as in Exception 1; but the injury done is not the direct consequence of that provocation. In fact Exception 4 deals with cases in which notwithstanding that a blow may have been struck, or some provocation given in the origin of the dispute or in whatever way the quarrel may have originated, yet the subsequent conduct of both parties puts them in respect of guilt upon equal footing. I may observe that a 'sudden fight' implies mutual provocation and blows on each side. The homicide committed is then clearly not traceable to unilateral
provocation, nor in such cases could the whole blame be placed on one side. For if it were so, the Exception more appropriately applicable would be Exception 1. There is no previous deliberation or determination to fight. A fight suddenly takes place, for which both parties are more or less to be blamed. It may be that one of them starts it, but if the other had not aggravated it by his own conduct it would not have taken the serious turn it did. There is then a mutual provocation and aggravation, and it is difficult to apportion the share of blame which attaches to each fighter. The help of Exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused (a) without premeditation, (b) in a sudden fight; (c) without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed. To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found. It is to be noted that the 'fight' occurring in Exception 4 to Section 300, IPC is not defined in the IPC. It takes two to make a fight. Heat of passion requires that there must be no time for the passions to cool down. A fight is a combat between two or more persons whether with or without weapons. It is not possible to enunciate any general rule as to what shall be deemed to be a sudden quarrel. It is a question of fact and whether a quarrel is sudden or not must necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each case. For the application of Exception 4, it is not sufficient to show that there was a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation. It must further be shown that the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in cruel or unusual manner. The expression 'undue advantage' as used in the provision means 'unfair advantage'. (Ref.: Sachchey Lal Tiwari -vs- State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 2004 SC 5039 and Suresh Chander -vs- State of UP reported in AIR 2005 SC 3120). In
this present case the aspect of premeditation, or that there was a combat/ fight between two groups has not been established. Merely because there was a fight in the morning between the boys of the 'B' and 'J' community will not bring the case within the Fourth Exception since the evidence on record reflects that there were sufficient cooling time, the provocation if any cannot be stated to be sudden and grave. Further, the intention and mens-rea for invoking Section 300 IPC has also not been established. The case of the prosecution is that the assailant came armed with oil cans and had beaten the deceased with dandas after which oil was sprinkled on them and they were pushed into fire. The relevant question which now arises is whether this act of the accused as alleged by the prosecution would bring the case within the ambit of Section 300 IPC. The answer to this is 'Yes'. However, if the evidence on record does not establish any premeditation or establish that oil was sprinkled on the victims or that they were beaten and pushed inside the house which was set on fire, then the conclusion would of course be different and the answer would be 'No'. The allegations made by Pradeep (PW49) are that petrol was sprinkled on Tara Chand and Suman who were pushed inside their house whereas according to Kamla (PW50) her husband Tara Chand and daughter Suman were beaten with dandas and thereafter kerosene oil was poured over them and they were thrown inside the house door of which was locked from outside by persons from the 'J' community and set on fire. Further, according to Amar Lal (CW1) kerosene oil was poured over his father Tara Chand and his sister Suman who were thereafter
Page No. 1004
pushed inside the house which was set on fire whose doors were locked outside. The other witnesses of the prosecution do not corroborate the testimonies of Pradeep (PW49), Kamla (PW50) and Amar Lal (CW1) on this aspect and have only testified that the house of Tara Chand was set on fire in which Tara Chand and Suman were burnt to death. Here I may Firstly observe that this allegation of Pradeep, Kamla and Amar Lal that Suman and Tara Chand were first beaten with dandas or that kerosene or petrol was poured over them does not find any corroboration from the statement/ Dying Declaration of Tara Chand made to the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class which is Ex.PW55/B wherein Tara Chand does not say that he had been beaten or that petrol/ kerosene oil was sprinkled on him or that he was pushed inside his house which was locked from outside which was set on fire but has rather told the Ld. Judicial Magistrate that it was his house which was set on fire an aspect which finds due corroboration from the testimonies of the other eye witnesses who have also similarly testified that house of Tara Chand was set on fire wherein Tara Chand and Suman were burnt. The testimonies of Pradeep, Kamla and Amar Lal being an exaggeration on this aspect does not find any corroboration to this extent from any other source. Secondly the FSL report Ex.PX1 also does not support the prosecution version as it show the absence of Hydrocarbons of petroleum (kerosene, petrol or diesel) in the ashes which were lifted soon after the incident and sent to the laboratory for examination. Thirdly the clothes which Suman was wearing at the time of incident and were sent to the FSL also do not show the presence of
Hydrocarbons of petroleum (kerosene, petrol or diesel) as evident from Ex.PX1. Fourthly the postmortem examination report of Tara Chand and Suman also do not show any signs of injuries to prove the use of blunt force (use of lathi as alleged by Kamla and Amar Lal) prior to their death and the only injuries present were on account of burns which included burn fractures. Here I may observe that the postmortem report of Suman Ex.PW52/D reveal the following injuries: Superficial to deep burns were present all over the body except pubic region right upper thigh region. Whole body was oedematious. Burn fractures were present in both hands over distal phalanges. Red line of demarcation was present between burnt and unburnt area. Trachea was congested and contained secretions with a mixture of black soot particles. Both lungs were congested. On cut sections soot particles oozed out. Further, the postmortem report of Tara Chand which is Ex.PW52/C show the following injuries: Superficial to deep burns were present all over the body except both axillary region and inguinopubic region. Red line of demarcation was present between healthy and burnt tissue. Membranes of brain were oedematous and congested. In thorax both lungs were congested and oedematous. On cut sections, both the lungs were containing soot
particles and were congested and were oedematous. Whole body organs were congested.
The cause of death of Suman was opined due to shock as a result of extensive burns and the cause of death of Tara Chand was was due to extensive burns and its complications. Even the presence of soot particles in the lungs which were congested is compatible to the findings of the doctor regarding death on account of extensive burns which does not establish use of physical force or sprinkling of kerosene or petrol on them. Fifthly the fact that the doors of the rooms where Tara Chand and Suman were present were locked from outside by persons from the 'J' community also does not stand established. It is apparent from the evidence on record that in so far as Tara Chand is concerned he had suffered 99% burns and expired after almost six hours of the incident. It is evident that after the assailants had gone away he himself, came out of his house after opening the door and went to the house of his neighbour Diwan Singh from where the police rushed him to the hospital. Had the door of the house where Tara Chand was present been locked from outside he could not have rushed out after opening the same or would have broken the same, of which there is no evidence. Similarly Suman who was handicapped had already expired in the fire when her body was taken out by the police after breaking the roof of the room. This aspect finds corroboration from the photographs and video clippings taken soon after the incident and also her postmortem report showing the presence of dust and mud on her body when it was brought to the
Page No. 1007
hospital. Had the door of her room been locked from outside either the photographs or the video clippings would have reflected the same or the police would have opened the door to enter the room which is again not the case. Rather, the police had to break the roof to enter the room showing that the door was perhaps locked from inside, which Suman might have locked to save herself from the rioters and it is for this reason that it could not open. Sixthly despite the allegations made by a large number of victims in their oral testimonies that the assailants from the 'J' community had come in large numbers duly armed with jellies, gandases and dandas yet the only injury present on the bodies of the victims were Simple blunt injuries. In fact not even one person suffered any kind of incised or sharp injuries which could have been caused by weapons such as gandases or jellies, on account of which the oral testimonies of the witnesses on this aspect is discarded. The aspect that the assault was premeditated and the assailants came armed with deadly weapons does not stand established. Seventhly there is no recovery of any weapon either from the spot of the incident or from any of the accused either on the date of the incident that is 21.4.2010 or later. Eighthly it is evident from the testimony of the various prosecution witnesses that not even dandas were recovered from the spot and when the police reached the spot they had found stone pelting going on and even the photographs placed on record which are Ex.PW3/A-1 to Ex.PW3/A-109 and the video clippings Ex.PW5/A taken on the same day of incident (21.4.2010) shows brick bats lying at the spot but no
other weapon including danda. Ninethly the evidence on record also suggest that it was never the intention of the persons of unlawful assembly to commit murder which fact is reflected from the statements of many of the injured and eye witnesses including Dhoop Singh (PW29) and Sube Singh (PW39). In fact the witness Sube Singh has specifically deposed that when the assailants came to him and he pleaded with them on which one of the boys told him to sit by saying Dada baith jao while the other assailants left the premises. In fact the photograph Ex.PW3/A-40 show Sube Singh standing in front of his house with no evidence of damage to his property and it is one motorcycle which was parked in the open area adjoining the house of Sube which is seen burnt. The photographs and video clippings also show that there were two stacks of domestic fuel in the form of cow dung cakes (uplas) and dried sticks (thansras) at the place where the motorcycle was parked (on both sides of motorcycle) which was set on fire, which fire also engulfed the motorcycle lying parked in the vicinity. Tenthly it also cannot be ruled out that the incident of stone pelting took place in a heat of passion. It has been established that when Rajender and Karampal who were coming in their boogie in the morning and passing through the main gali were waylaid by some of the boys belonging to the 'B' community and there was a verbal altercation between them followed by a physical altercation during which Karampal escaped and raised an alarm in the village. On hearing this alarm Dinesh came to the rescue of Rajender and sustained injuries on his eye and had to be rushed to the hospital along with Rajender after which a rumor was
Page No. 1009
spread in the village that Rajender had been killed by boys belonging to the other group on which a large number of persons gathered at the spot where the incident had taken place. What happened thereafter is known to all. There was brick batting/ stone pelting by both the groups with the persons of 'J' Community on one side and the persons of the 'B' Community on the other side. The use of dangerous weapons has not been established. The FSL report Ex.PX1 proves the absence of Hydrocarbons of petroleum (kerosene, petrol or diesel) and therefore the oral testimonies of the witnesses that kerosene or petrol was sprinkled on the walls is liable to be rejected. Rather, it is evident from the photographs and video clippings prepared on the date of incident itself that there were dumps of domestic fuel consisting of cow dung cakes (uplas) and dried sticks (thansras) stacked at various places in the 'B' Basti which were in fact set on fire. The possibility of the fire spreading faster in Kaccha houses consisting of roofs made of wooden rods (karis) which includes the house of Tara Chand (which was a kaccha house with roof made of wooden karis as evident from the photographs) cannot be ruled out. Both the deceased had sustained burns because they were inside the house when it was set on fire. Intention on the part of the accused to cause murder of the deceased does not stand established beyond doubt but it goes without saying that setting somebody's dwelling house on fire is an act which is done with a requisite knowledge that it is likely to cause death. Lastly I may observe that in the instant case the prosecution has not been able to establish any motive strong enough to induce the accused to kill any of the deceased that is Tara Chand and Suman. In fact neither the accused nor the deceased had any enmity with each other.
If the real intention was to kill, the accused would have come armed with dangerous weapons and the casualties and damage would have been much more. In fact the injuries on the person of the other victims only prove the use of brick bats. There is, therefore, nothing to demonstrate that the accused had the intention to cause death or at any rate to cause such bodily injury that would cause death. What lies in the mind of a person, none can tell and has to be gathered from the surrounding circumstances. In the present case the absence of knowledge is inferred from the following: The absence of evidence on record to show that the assailants had knowledge that Tara Chand and Suman were inside the house which was set on fire. Failure of the prosecution to prove the presence of petrol or kerosene oil and the FSL report establishing the absence of Hydrocarbons of Petroleum (Petrol, Diesel or Kerosene) on the clothes of the deceased Suman and the postmortem report showing that the deceased had expired on account of ordinary burns (not on account of oil burns). Absence of any injury on the body of Tara Chand and Suman to prove a physical assault particularly on account of beatings caused by dandas (fractures on Suman being burn fractures as per the postmortem report). Absence of any evidence to prove that Tara Chand and Suman were pushed inside the house and that the doors of their house were locked thereafter from outside.
Page No. 1011
Hence the medical, forensic and other evidence on record totally lacking on the aforesaid does not establish the necessary intent so attributed to the accused by the prosecution but here I may hold that setting one's dwelling house is an act that any reasonable person is deemed to be possessing the requisite knowledge that it is likely to cause death of the person so residing/ present in the house. Under these circumstances I hereby hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to conclusively establish that the accused had the intention to cause death or such bodily injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. However, it stands established that the act of the accused in setting the house of Tara Chand and Kamla on fire was such that the accused were deemed to have knowledge that it was likely to cause death and hence the case of the accused is covered under the provisions of Section 299 IPC and they are guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The accused being unaware of the presence of the deceased inside the house and the case of the accused would fall within the purview of Section 304 (Part-II) Indian Penal Code and not under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, the required mens-rea for murder not being present.
Applicability of the provisions of Section 3 of the SC/ ST (POA), 1989:

The case of the prosecution is that all the accused being members of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object of the assembly forced the members of a Scheduled Caste that is Gulab Singh, family of Tara Chand, Sanjay, Satyawan, Dilbagh, Manoj, Dhoop Singh and others to leave their houses with intent to humiliate them and
committed mischief by fire and caused damage to the houses used as a human dwelling belonging to Scheduled Caste. The Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that the incident is not a case where the two communities are against each other on account of the castes to which they belong but it is a case of two groups, one belonging to the dominant caste and the other being Scheduled Caste who had since many years been living in harmony, ended up in a group clash because of the stages which aggravated with the happening of certain events, which were in no manner related to the caste of either of the groups. It is argued that under such circumstances, the offences cannot be said to have been committed as an atrocity on the lower caste by the people of the upper caste and therefore no offences under the SC/ ST Act can be said to have been made out. It is also argued that the allegations of the lalkaras attributed to the crowd are improvements and also self contradictory since there is no specific evidence of lalkara against the set of individuals and its an exaggeration to incorporate the SC and ST Act. According to the Ld. Defence Counsel on the basis of the allegations on record the charges under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are under two separate heads. They are: Under Section 3(x) Under Section 3 (vx) Insulting and humiliating the Scheduled Castes in public view, and Making a Scheduled Caste to leave their houses. It is submitted that for this end the origin on the occurrence is relevant as for proving this fact the evidence of eye witnesses is to be
appreciated along with the statutory presumption under Section 8 of the SC/ST Act which lays down the presumption in two situations: (i) (ii) Aiding or abetting by financial assistance which is not the case of the prosecution, Presumption of common intention or common object in case the offences against SC is committed as a sequel to an already existing land dispute or other matter. It is argued by the Ld. Defence Counsel that in the present case the testimonies of the various witnesses examined by the prosecution who are residents of village Mirchpur read together with the testimonies of the various eye witnesses so examined by the defence who have been cited by the prosecution and not examined, show that the offence is not a sequel to any existing land dispute and there is no allegation of possession of any land or any way to street or water works. According to the Ld. Defence Counsel the second part that it was sequel to an already existing dispute is also not proved because the occurrence of 19.04.2010 is not a dispute of caste against the other, but a dispute between two groups of youngsters who quarreled over the barking of a dog and consequent stone throwing. The persons directly involved in this dispute i.e. Karan and Virbhan as well as Yogesh all of whom do not support the prosecution case in this regard. In fact Veer Bhan the complainant in the incident dated 19.4.2010 had turned hostile in the Courts at Hissar Court and was therefore dropped and not examined by the prosecution and being won over Yogesh the nephew of Karan Singh who was examined as PW10, is absolutely quiet on the incident dated 19.4.2010 and is hostile in so far as the identity of the accused is
concerned in respect of the incident dated 19.4.2010. Karan Singh the complainant in the present FIR has not been examined by the prosecution and has rather appeared as a witness of defence and not supported the prosecution case. The evidence of most of the eye witnesses is improvement qua the incident of 19.04.2010 or is based upon hearsay and therefore the evidence on record is severely lacking and does not prove that the incident dated 21.4.2010 was sequel to the earlier incident dated 19.4.2010. He has also pointed out that most of the eye witnesses on the other hand have rather deposed that on 20.4.2010 things were quiet but again on new incident which took place on 21.4.2010 and hence the sequel does not stand established. It is further submitted by the ld. Defence Counsel that on 20.04.2010 there was no incident of any kind and rather the occurrence of 19.04.2010 was settled by the Panchayat there and then also by the five to seven police officials who visited the village to pacify the matter and the version as submitted by the prosecution in the charge sheet is only a distortion. He has pointed out that the incident regarding beating to Gulab who had gone to bring lassi was introduced later on and if the testimony of Gulab is carefully perused he does not mention the fact that he thereafter went to house of Veerbhan as alleged by Satyawan which aspect is also missing from the FIR. It is further argued that two most important witnesses of the prosecution that is PW47 Satyawan and PW48 Gulab have given contradictory version regarding the origin of incident. He has pointed out that if Gulab was the reason for initiation of the incident then there was no occasion for accused to have attacked the basti and then no answer is forthcoming as to why Gulabs house and family was not the first target which house as per site plan is in the
extreme south end. It is also pointed out that another circumstance to break the sequel is the fact that Tara Chand/ Suman etc. were not involved in the incident of 19.04.2010 and no answer is forthcoming as to why they were killed or their house in the extreme end of that street torched. Ld. Counsel has pointed out that the incident of 21.04.2010 was in fact initialed on account of the attack by members of 'B' community on Rajender and Karampal who were returning from the fields in his buggi on account of his failure to supply the milk. It is pointed out that Sheela (PW32) has made very damaging admission that Rajender refused to supply milk to Gulab on 21.04.2010 when he went there to get milk which shows that after the settlement of 20.04.2010 there was no caste war and it is for this reason that Gulab could go to Rajender. It is further submitted that it was the boys belonging to 'B' community who started the occurrence of 21.04.2010 after which the rumour got around that Rajender has been killed by Balmikis and there after the crowd assembled and stone throwing started from both sides an aspect which has also been mentioned by PW30 Santra the witness of the prosecution who has not been declared hostile who in her examination in chief has supported this version. It is therefore submitted that the prosecution is bound by its version and in this regard he has placed his reliance on the case reported in 2005 SCC Cr. 1050. Ld. Counsel has also pointed out that even Satyawan (PW47) has in his testimony deposed that stone throwing started from the 'B' side which aspect has also been proved by the various prosecution witnesses and therefore under these circumstances no presumption of a common object or as provided under Section 8 of SC/ST (POA) Act can be raised.
With regard to the charge framed against the accused under Section 3(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, it is submitted by the Ld. Counsel that the houses of the persons from 'B' community have not been burnt due to any caste bias, but because of a group clash on 21.04.2010 in the morning between Rajender a person from 'J' community and boys belonging to 'B' community which culminated into this sudden flare up and it is for this reason that the site plan placed on record by the prosecution would show that a large number of houses in fact rows of houses in the Basti were left untouched despite the fact that a number of other houses suffered damage. I have considered the rival contentions and I may observe that as per the allegations of the prosecution the accused Dharambir S/o Sh. Tara Chand, Pawan S/o Sh. Ram Mahar, Karambir S/o Sh. Tara Chand, Joginder @ Jogar S/o Sh. Bhim Singh, Dalbir S/o Sh. Dalip Singh, Balwan S/o Sh. Inder Singh, Satyawan S/o Sh. Tara Chand, Jaibir S/o Sh. Mnaphool, Ajit S/o Sh. Sukhbir, Balwan S/o Sh. Dharmabir, Rajbir @ Nanha S/o Sh. Mai Chand, Viren S/o Sh. Yashpal, Dharambir S/o Sh. Mai Chand, Deepak @ Sonu S/o Sh. Krishan @ Pappu, Kuldeep @ Midda S/o Sh. Balbir, Rajinder S/o Sh. Balu, Jagdish @ Hathi S/o Sh. Baru Ram, Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Balbir, Rajinder Kr. S/o Sh. Sadhu Ram, Ramphal S/o Sh. Prithvi, Daya Singh S/o Sh. Jeet Singh, Pardeep S/o Sh. Balwan, Rishi S/o Sh. Satbir, Jasbir S/o Sh. Ishwar, Karampal S/o Sh. Satbir, Sunil @ Sonu S/o Sh. Jasbir, Sumit S/o Sh. Satyawan, Pardeep S/o Sh. Ramphal, Roshan Lal S/o Sh. Ram Swarup, Surender S/o Sh. Jagda, Hoshiar Singh S/o Sh.Mang, Ajit S/o Sh.Dalip, Rajinder S/o Sh. Dhup Singh, Rajinder S/o Sh. Pali, Vijender S/o Sh. Hoshiar Singh, Dinesh S/o Sh. Prem, Kulvinder S/o Sh. Ram Mahar, Monu S/o
Sh. Suresh, Amit S/o Sh. Satyawan, Sunil S/o Sh. Daya Nand, Baljeet S/o Sh. Inder, Rajesh S/o Sh. Dupa, Ramesh S/o Sh. Karan Singh, Ameer S/o Sh. Tara, Anil S/o Sh. Prem Singh, Balwan S/o Sh. Jeela, Charan S/o Sh. Sadhu Ram, Anup S/o Sh. Dharma, Dalbir S/o Sh. Tara, Krishan Kr. @ Dhaula S/o Sh. Satyawan, Jogal @ Doger S/o Sh. Hawa Singh, Jitender S/o Sh. Satbir, Jora Singh S/o Sh. Balwan, Rakesh @ Kala S/o Sh. Satyawan, Krishan S/o Sh. Karan Singh, Kuldeep S/o Sh. Om Prakash, Jasbir @ Lillu S/o Sh.Raja, Manbir S/o Sh. Jile Singh, Nasib S/o Sh. Prem Singh, Rakesh @ Nikle S/o Sh. Amarlal @ Lala Ram, Pappu S/o Sh. Pyara, Pradeep S/o Sh. Jagbir, Pradeep S/o Sh. Jaibir, Pradeep S/o Sh. Satbir, Pradeep S/o Sh. Suresh, Praveen S/o Sh. Jagdev, Pawan S/o Sh. Hoshiar Singh, Pawan S/o Sh. Rajbir, Sandeep S/o Sh. Mahinder Singh, Sandeep S/o Sh. Raj Kumar, Sandeep S/o Sh. Ram Swarup, Sandeep S/o Sh. Rattan Singh, Sandeep S/o Sh. Joginder, Sandeep @ Langra S/o Sh. Chander, Sanjay @ Sanjeep S/o Sh. Amar Lal, Sanjay Handa S/o Sh. Daya Nand, Satta Singh S/o Sh. Karan Singh, Sattu Singh S/o Sh. Randhir Master, Satyawan S/o Sh. Rajinder, Shamsher S/o Sh. Rajinder, Sheela @ Sunil S/oSh. Bira, Sonu @ Monu S/o Sh. Ramesh, Mandeep @ Sonu S/o Sh.Dalbir, Naveen @ Tina S/o Sh. Rajbir, Vedpal @ Bedoo S/o Sh. Karan Singh, Vikash S/o Sh. Sunehera @ Sumer Singh, Vipin S/o Sh. Joginder Singh, Jokhar @ Joginder S/o Sh. Inder Singh, Rajpal S/o Sh. Sheoo Chand, Jaibir S/o Sh. Balbir, Ramesh @ Mahesh S/o Sh. Dalip Singh, Rupesh S/o Sh. Tek Chand, Bobal @ Langra S/o Sh. Tek Chand, Jagdish @ Jangla S/o Sh. Lakshman, Pawan @ Tinku S/o Sh. Sewa Ram, Vinod S/o Sh. Jagdeep all belonging to the 'J' community were members of the unlawful assembly on 21.4.2010 and at about 11:00 AM in prosecution of
common object of the assembly forced the members of Scheduled Caste to leave their houses with intent to humiliate them. It has also been alleged by the prosecution that all the accused being the members of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object of the assembly committed mischief by fire and there caused damage to the houses of the persons belonging to Scheduled Caste in order to compel them to leave their houses and with the intent to humiliate them and committed mischief by fire and caused damage to their houses being used as human dwellings. At the very outset I may observe that the argument raised by the Ld. Defence Counsel that the only charges which could be invoked against the accused fall in two categories that is Section 3 (1) (x) and 3 (1) (xv) of the Act is highly misconceived since it is obvious that on the basis of the aforesaid allegations the charges invoked are under Sections 3(1) (xv), Section 3 (2) (iii) and 3 (2) (iv) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Before proceeding to analyze these allegations and the evidence on record on merits it is necessary to discuss the existing statutory provisions and the law in this regard. Section 3 (1) (xv) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 provides that whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe forces or causes a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe to leave his house, village or other place of residence shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine. Similarly the provisions of Section 3 (2) (iii) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 provides that whoever, not being a member of a
Page No. 1019
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe commits mischief by fire or any explosive substance intending to cause or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause damage to any property belonging to a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to seven years and with fine. Further, the provisions of Section 3 (2) (iv) of the SC/ST (POA) Act provide that whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe commits mischief by fire or any explosive substance intending to cause or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause destruction of any building which is ordinarily used as a place of worship or as a place for human dwelling or as a place for custody of the property by a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine. In the case of Swaran Singh & Ors. -vs- State through Standing Counsel & Anr. reported in (2008) 12 SCR 132, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under: "...Today the word `Chamar' is often used by people belonging to the so- called upper castes or even by OBCs as a word of insult, abuse and derision. Calling a person `Chamar' today is nowadays an abusive language and is highly offensive. In fact, the word `Chamar' when used today is not normally used to denote a caste but to intentionally insult and humiliate someone. It may be mentioned that when we interpret section 3(1)(x) of the Act we have to see the purpose for which the Act was enacted. It was obviously made to prevent indignities, humiliation and harassment to the members of SC/ST community, as is evident from the Statement of Objects & Reasons of the Act. Hence,
while interpreting section 3(1)(x) of the Act, we have to take into account the popular meaning of the word `Chamar' which it has acquired by usage, and not the etymological meaning. If we go by the etymological meaning, we may frustrate the very object of the Act, and hence that would not be a correct manner of interpretation. This is the age of democracy and equality. No people or community should be today insulted or looked down upon, and nobody's feelings should be hurt. This is also the spirit of our Constitution and is part of its basic features. Hence, in our opinion, the so-called upper castes and OBCs should not use the word `Chamar' when addressing a member of the Scheduled Caste, even if that person in fact belongs to the `Chamar' caste, because use of such a word will hurt his feelings. In such a country like ours with so much diversity - so many religions, castes, ethnic and lingual groups, etc. - all communities and groups must be treated with respect, and no one should be looked down upon as an inferior. That is the only way we can keep our country united. In our opinion, calling a member of the Scheduled Caste `Chamar' with intent to insult or humiliate him in a place within public view is certainly an offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Act. Whether there was intent to insult or humiliate by using the word `Chamar' will of course depend on the context in which it was used". Further, in the case of Abdul Gafarsab -vs- State of Karnataka, reported in 1998 Cri LJ 2488 it has been held by the Karnataka High Court that: ........ Merely because it has come on record that the deceased belonged to the Scheduled Caste, that this is no ground on which the accused can be convicted for an offence under this Act unless it is demonstrated that
he has by his conduct said or done something that is directed to offend the sensibilities of the deceased in relation to the caste to which he belonged. The submission is that a scrutiny of the evidence will indicate that irrespective of what the evidence may establish with regard to the main charge, that there is no material to sustain the conviction under the subsidiary head. On a careful scrutiny of the record, we are in agreement with this submission as there is no justification for holding that the accused has committed any offence under the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989..... In the case of Mekala Raji -vs- State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2002 Cri LJ 3407 the Andhra Pradesh High Court while considering the provisions of Section 3 (2) (v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act has held that: ...... From the above provisions it is clear that the Statute laid stress on the intention of the accused in committing such offence. Therefore, I am of the view that mere knowledge that the victim belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community is not sufficient to constitute an offence under S. 3(2)(v) of the Act. On the other hand, such knowledge should necessarily be coupled with intention to commit such an offence, in order to belittle the person as he/she belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community.... In the case of Pappu Singh -vs- State of UP reported in 2002 Crl. L.J. 1251 where the word Chamaria was used by the accused it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that: .... Unless the words uttered by the applicant for commission of offence, it cannot be ascertained that those words amount to insult or intimidate to the complainant...
It further observed that: ..... Assuming that the word Chamaria was used by the accused or the complainant was addressed by these words, it would not make out an offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the Act. Addressing a person by his caste without any intention to insult or intimidate does not constitute an offence under the Section... In the above case the accused were held not guilty under the above provisions because the knowledge that the victim belong to SC community and the fact that the act was done with the intention to commit such an offence against since she belong to SC community could not be established and the Court held that it was difficult to draw an inference that the accused had the intention to commit the offence only because she belong to SC community. Applying these settled principles of law to the facts of the present case it is apparent that three facts stand conclusively established First that the victims are the members of the Scheduled Caste 'B' community, Second that the aggressors belong to dominant 'J' community and Third that the property of the 'B' community had been damaged and many persons of the community had even sustained injuries. I may also observe that one of the grounds so raised by the Ld. Defence Counsel is with regard to the applicability of the the provisions of Section 8 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. Here I may observe that the investigating agency having decided to separate the charge sheet in respect of the incident dated 19.4.2010 from the present charge sheet which is only in respect of the incident dated 21.4.2010, the
argument of the prosecution with regard to the presumptions available to them under Section 8 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 itself fails. However, this would not mean that the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act would not apply and only implies that the presumption so available to the victims under Section 8 of the SC/ST (POA) Act would no longer be available to them. Therefore, under these circumstances the onus of proving the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt would be upon the prosecution there being no presumption available to the victims. Coming now to the allegations that Caste based abuses had been given derogatorily used by the members of the 'J' community who were the aggressors. The witnesses of the prosecution have attributed specific words to the aggressors who had sounded caste abuses slogans as Deda ne mar do; choore deda ne maro; chooreya nu jala do; chooro ke aag laga do deda ne kad do bahar; Phook do phook deda ne phook do; Jala do, aag lago do deda ne; choorya ne dedha ne phook do, mar do; Phook do dedhan ne; Chooraya ne phoonk do; Jala do deda ne; Maro in dedya ne bhanjod ne kutya ne; Maro, jala do etc. which aspect stands established from the testimonies of the witnesses but here I may observe that these slogans so attributed to the members of the 'J' community have been specified for the first time by these witnesses in the Court. Nowhere in their earlier statements made to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the witnesses have specified or attributed the above. I may further observe that the words 'chooreyas' and 'deda' have been used in the context of identification and not in derogation keeping in view the incident which had taken place in the morning where the boys of the 'B'
community had assaulted the boys belonging to the 'J' community. It is evident that the rioting took place only after the morning incident when a rumor had spread in the village that Rajender S/o Pale (accused before this Court) belonging to the 'J' community had been killed by the boys belonging to the 'B' community. Hence it is evident that what transpired thereafter was in the nature of a revenge on account of which the properties of the members of the 'B' community were targeted the aggressors in the earlier incident being the boys from the 'B' community. The statute lays stress on the intention of the accused in committing such an offence and mere knowledge that the victim belong to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is not sufficient to constitute an offence and what is necessary is that such knowledge coupled with the intention to commit such an offence in order to belittle the victim only because he or she belongs to Scheduled Caste community. I may observe that in a case where the name 'choora' or 'Deda' has not been used with the intent to belittle or for derogation of the victim community or in order to show ones own dominance, the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 would not attracted. Further, in a case where the members of the 'B' community are themselves first aggressors or responsible for provoking or inciting violence the provisions of the Act would not apply. Here, I may observe that even if assuming that the members of the 'B' community were the first aggressors in respect of the incident in the morning but there is no justification nor explanation forthcoming as to why and how the properties of so many persons from the 'B' community were targeted and damaged. Neither the names of the
Page No. 1025
aggressors that is the boys from the 'B' community who had waylaid Rajender S/o Pale and Karampal S/o Satbir and had inflicted injuries upon Dinesh S/o Prem Singh have been brought on record nor there is any complaint to the competent authority or cross case in this regard. No doubt the second version put forward by the defence regarding the incident which took place in the morning finds a support from the case diaries dated 21.4.2010 which incident should have been investigated in all fairness, which has not been done but that does not give any right to any person (members of 'J' community) to take the law in his hands. Therefore under these circumstances no justification or explanation forthcoming, there being no identification of the aggressors of the 'B' community to prove that it was the properties of the first assailants of the 'B' community which were targeted, the argument so advanced by the defence in this regard falls flat. Here I may observe that the incident which initially started as an ordinary altercation between two group of young boys belonging to two different communities displayed caste nuances and overtones when finally persons (from the 'B' and 'J' community) who had no concern with the initial dispute got involved only on account of the caste factor. Coming first to the charge under Section 3 (1) (xv) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 that the members of the 'J' community forced or caused the members of the SC/ST to leave their village or other places of residence, on the basis of the evidence on record I hereby hold that the same has not been established and proved beyond doubt and many of the alleged victims who had been initially cited by the prosecution and were later on dropped or not examined have appeared as witnesses of defence and proved that even after the incident they are continuing to reside in
the same village without fear. These witnesses who are residents of village Mirchpur and are members of the 'B' community have specifically testified in the Court that they are still residing in the village and have specifically deposed that they are under no threats. Here, I may add that it was necessary for the persons from the 'B' community who had alleged threat to have at least come to the Court and informed it of the same which they have never done despite the availability of the best legal assistance to them. It is not sufficient only to make tall claims of injustice, damage, discrimination, threats and fear. It is more important that people who make such claims should bring the same on record and prove the same which in the present case has not been done. I may further observe that the provisions of Section 3(1) (xv) would not apply to cases where the members of the SC/ST community voluntarily of their own decide to leave their houses, village or places of residence. The threat or force so contemplated in this provision has to be real and actual and not imaginary or illusory. It will not be out of place to mention here that the witnesses Sushil (PW25) and Vicky (PW42) have also in their testimonies before the Court deposed about a warning on the public announcement system having been circulated by the members of the 'J' community threatening that they would ensure that their boys (accused before this Court) would be released and it is only thereafter out of fear that they left the village. Here I may observe that despite the fact that the Local Administration had made full security arrangements in the village and a police post has been specially created in the Village after which the CRPF Coy. had been deployed the allegations made do not appear to be real and neither they have been substantiated despite the fact that the case is sub-judice and
despite all legal, financial and political assistance being provided to the alleged victims by the Non Government Organizations, politicians and the Government of Haryana not a single police complaint has been made in respect of the said incident nor the Court was informed about the same. The possibility of the allegations being made only to create a justification or an excuse for shifting and housing of a group of alleged victims at Ved Pal Tanwar Farm House and elsewhere for extraneous or superfluous considerations cannot be ruled out.
Coming now to the charges under Section 3 (2) (iii) & (iv) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 I may observe that the aspect of damage caused to the properties of the person from the 'B' community has already been discussed in detail herein above (under the head Unlawful assembly in prosecution of common object causing rioting, murder, dacoity/ robbery, causing grievous/ simple hurt, mischief by fire with intention to cause death, criminal house trespass in order to commit the above offences and also the offence under the SC/ST (POA) Act) and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. Applying the settled principles of law it stands established that the accused Baljeet S/o Inder, Karambir S/o Tara Chand, Karampal S/o Satbir, Dharambir @ Illa S/o Mai Chand and Bobal @ Langra S/o Tek Ram had caused mischief by fire knowing that they by their act are likely to cause damage to the property of Dhoop Singh S/o Rattnu (PW29); Sanjay S/o Gulaba (PW44);
Gulaba S/o Jai Lal (PW48); Manoj S/o Mahender (PW45); Sube S/o Bura (PW39); Sushil S/o Surta (PW25), Satyawan S/o Roshan (PW48) and Vijender S/o Surta (PW40) to the tune of Rs.100/- and upwards for which they are held liable for the offence under Section 435 Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (2) (iii) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. It further stands established that the accused Rajender S/o Pale, Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar and Ramphal S/o Prithvi had committed mischief by fire knowing it to be likely that they would caused
destruction of the dwelling house of Tara Chand and Kamla both belonging to 'B' community for which the above accused are held liable for the offence under Section 436 Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (2) (iv) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. Here, I may observe that the provisions of the Special Enactment that is SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 would prevail over the General Legislation that is Indian Penal Code (Section 435 and 436 Indian Penal Code) and the punishment so provided under the Special Legislation [Section 3 (2) (iii) & 3 (2) (iv) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989] would apply. I may further observe that the provisions of Section 3 (2) (v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 would also apply by default in all cases where the offence committed against the member of an SC/ST community is punishable for imprisonment of more than ten years and in the present case the provisions of Section 436 Indian Penal Code (for which accused Rajender, Kulwinder and Ramphal have been held liable) provides for imprisonment for Life. Therefore under these circumstances technically along with the provisions of Section 3 (2) (iv) of the SC/ST (POA) Act 1989, the provisions of Section 3 (2) (v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 would also apply.
Reasons for failure of the prosecution to establish charges against all the accused:
Before winding up it has become necessary for this Court to bring on record some of the glaring aspects noticed by this Court resulting into failure of the prosecution to bring home the charges it had invoked against the accused before this Court.
Page No. 1029
At the very outset I may observe that Firstly there has been a suppression by the investigating agency of the genesis of the incident dated 21.4.2010 morning connected with an altercation between the accused Rajender (person from the 'J' community) and boys belonging to 'B' community wherein Rajender and Karampal were first waylaid by the boys of the 'B' community after which Rajender and Dinesh were beaten and had to be rushed to the hospital after which the rumour spread in the village of Rajender being killed by the members of 'B' community. Secondly for reasons best known to the investigating agency and the prosecution there was a segregation of the charge sheet with regard to the incident dated 19.4.2010 and 21.4.2010, the prosecution thereby demolishing its own argument regarding the incident dated 21.4.2010 being a sequel to the earlier incident dated 19.4.2010. Thirdly Karan Singh a star witness of the prosecution who is the complainant in the present case has turned hostile not supporting the case of the prosecution and has appeared before this Court as a witness of the defence to prove the defence version of the incident. Fourthly Veer Bhan the complainant and the injured in the earlier incident dated 19.4.2010 (FIR No. 183/2010) turned hostile before the Courts at Hissar and therefore had to be dropped by the prosecution and not examined in the present case to prove the earlier incident dated 19.4.2010. Further, Yogesh Kumar (PW7) the nephew of Veer Bhan who was an eye witness to earlier incident of 19.4.2010 has also turned hostile and not supported the prosecution version in the present case nor has he identified any of the accused in the Court. Fifthly large scale eye witnesses/ victims belonging to the 'B' community have turned hostile and I may observe that out of ninety five witnesses cited by the prosecution who were stated
to be eye witnesses, the prosecution has examined only forty three such witnesses out of which only twenty two witnesses have supported the prosecution version of the case whereas others have turned hostile either on the identity of the accused or with regard to the entire incident. I may observe that victims/ eye witnesses from the 'B' community of the incident dated 19.4.2010 and 21.4.2010 namely Sajjna (DW7), Karan Singh (DW13), Ajmer (DW16), Ram Niwas (DW20) and Praveen (DW22) who had been earlier cited by the prosecution, have rather appeared as witnesses of the defence and supported the version of the defence regarding the first aggression by the boys of 'B' community in the morning of 21.4.2010. Sixthly on the one hand there were some eye witnesses so examined by the prosecution like Vicky (PW42), Pradeep (PW49), Kamla (PW50), Santra (PW30), Manoj (PW45), Vijender (PW40), Sanjay (PW36) and Rani (PW33) who made huge exaggerations and improvements while identifying the accused in the Court so much so that large scale dock identifications were made by a handful of these witnesses raising a huge question mark on the genuineness of their claims whereas on the other hand there were witnesses like Satyawan (PW47) whose presence at the spot is not disputed but who at the time of identification of the accused fell flat. Seventhly many of the eye witnesses who have supported the case of the prosecution are those whose presence at the spot of the incident itself appeared doubtful in view of the absence of any injuries on their bodies or their behaviour and conduct being observed as improbable and unnatural. Eighthly despite having conducted the photography and videography of the damaged properties the Investigating Officers/ eye witnesses have failed to mark/ identify the same so as to establish to
whom the said properties (so reflected in the photographs and the video clippings) belonged and thereafter to prove the extent of damage thereof. Ninethly the Register No. 19 so produced in the Court has been observed to be tampered where one entire page containing column no. 5, 6, 7 and 8 was torn for which no explanation is forthcoming. Therefore under these circumstances the possibility of the tampering of the exhibits so lifted from the spot and sent to the FSL for examination cannot be ruled out. Tenthly despite a huge police contingent reaching the spot by 12:30 noon headed by a senior officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police Hissar, the charge sheet does not reveal that any assailants/ accused before this Court was apprehended at the spot of the incident itself. Rather, allegations have been made that the persons so apprehended by the Superintendent of Police were released later on whose details till date have not been made available. Eleventhly despite the allegations regarding the use of dangerous weapons like gandases and jellies not even a single weapon was seized from the spot nor any efforts were made to recover the same. Twelfthly the statements of the victims/ witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. so recorded by the Investigating Officer reveal that neither the complete details of the incident, nor the complete details of the accused/ assailants or the roles so attributed to the various assailants find a mention in the same. There has been a mechanical recording of the statements of the witnesses by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. so much so that in many such statements the accused have been named much later that is after almost two to three months of the incident. Further, in many of the statements the accused have interestingly been grouped together alphabetically in a stereotyped manner making this Court to ponder
about the correctness and genuineness of the same.
(In this regard
reference may be made to the statements of Sandeep S/o Satpal, Ishro W/o Pasha, Krishna W/o Raghubir, Abhishek S/o Sanjay, Pooja D/o Surta, Kelapati W/o Jai Singh, Shanti W/o Jugti, Sunita W/o Satbir and Chanderpati W/o Sajna all dated 18.5.2010). Lastly not even a single accused was arrested at the instance or pointing out of the victims and despite the fact that the victims in their statements to the police had specifically stated that there were assailants whom they could identify, nor any Test Identification was got conducted. Coming now to the quality of the investigations, I am pained to observe that the caliber of the Investigating Officer and the quality of investigations, the same is severely lacking in skill and quality. Despite the allegations being of caste violence no efforts were made to get the statement of the victims recorded from a Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. or to have videographed the testimonies which should be done in such cases keeping in view the possibility of winning over of the witnesses and tampering of evidence. Further, the investigations have been conducted in a most unscientific, non professional and lopsided manner which apparently did not appear to be fair and independent. Expert Team of forensics/ Crime Team not called at the spot by the investigating agency for collection of evidence and exhibits in the form of ashes etc. were randomly lifted by unskilled/ untrained personnel in a most rustic manner. The pullandas/ parcels so prepared were neither prepared nor sealed in the presence of public witnesses (pullandas and memos do not bear the signature of public persons) so as to rule out tampering. Further, the investigations so conducted are totally silent on the aspect as to how the fire spread. If petrol, kerosene or diesel were
not used for setting the properties of persons of the 'B' community on fire then how was it that the damage so reflected in the photographs and video clippings was caused on account of the fire on which aspect no explanation is forthcoming. Finally after the investigations were concluded it is evident that the last Investigating Officer that is Deputy Superintendent of Police Sh. Tula Ram delayed the filing of the charge sheet in respect of 54 accused which ultimately was filed by an officer of the rank of Inspector for which no explanation is forthcoming. Having brought on record the aforesaid, I hold that there was a total failure of the Administration to act on time. Had the Administration been more sensitive and alert to the dispute between two groups of youngsters already brewing in the village on one issue or the other for quite sometime, it could have certainly averted the explosive situation which took an ugly turn on 21.4.2010. It is desirable that an inhouse probe is carried out at the highest level to examine the manner in which the present case has been investigated and prosecuted particularly the aspects relating to the fairness and independence of investigations and Prosecution. I may further observe that in order to ensure total independence in investigations, prosecution and trial of cases connected with communal and caste violence, due care should be taken to ensure that the Investigating Officers and the Prosecutors so deputed in the investigations and prosecution are in no way connected, related or associated with either of the warring/ litigating groups or communities. It is further recommended/ suggested that in all cases of communal and caste violence the statements of the eye witnesses should be got recorded
Page No. 1034
by a Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and should also be videographed keeping in view the possibility of winning over of the witnesses, as has happened in the present case.
FINAL CONCLUSIONS:
In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda -vs- State of Maharastra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, the Apex Court has laid down the tests which are pre-requisites before conviction should be recorded, which are as under: 1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned must or should and not may be established; 2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; 3. The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency; 4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and 5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. Applying the various guiding principles to the facts of the present case, I may observe that acquittal or conviction depends on proof or otherwise of the criminological chain which invariably comprises of why, where, when, how and who. Each knot of the chain has to be
Page No. 1035
proved, beyond shadow of doubt to bring home the guilt. Any crack or loosening in it weakens the prosecution. Each link, must be so consistent that the only conclusion which must follow is that the accused is guilty. It is also settled law that though guilty should not escape but on reliable evidence truthful witnesses and honest and fair investigation no free man should be amerced by framing or to assuage feelings as it is fatal to human dignity and destructive of social, ethical and legal norm. Heinousness of crime or cruelty in its execution howsoever abhorring and hateful cannot reflect in deciding the guilt. Now coming to the present case, after due evaluation of evidence on record I hereby hold that it is admitted by both the parties and also stand established that Mirchpur is an old village with a settlement of almost a century old where persons from all the communities have co-existed with no caste based incident for the last many (that is almost 55) years. It is evident that there is a substantial population of people from the 'J' community in the village which is the dominant community and there are about 250 families of members of the 'B' community also residing in the same village and a number of members of the 'B' community are financially, economically, politically and also academically almost at par with the other communities. It is also evident that there is no caste based discrimination in matters of religion since for the last almost 20 years it is the members of the 'B' community who are controlling the management of the local temple of the village that is Mata Phoolan Devi Mandir having successively earned the offering rights of the temple duly auctioned by the village Panchayat after every two years.
Page No. 1036
Coming next to the facts which have been alleged but have not been established or proved beyond reasonable doubt, Firstly the Incident dated 19.04.2010 (charge sheet of which has been separated) has not been proved by the prosecution Karan Singh having turned hostile and Veer Bhan not having examined on the ground of being won over by the defence and his nephew Yogesh Kumar (PW10) having turned hostile. The allegations regarding some of the accused before this Court being involved in the said incident of 19.4.2010 or having used caste based abuses or that the incident dated 21.4.2010 was a sequel to the earlier incident of 19.4.2010 has also not been substantiated and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Secondly the identity of the assailants and the persons involved in the incident dated 19.4.2010 and also the nature of injuries received by Veer Bhan and Karan Singh has not been established, the charge sheet for the said incident having been separated in respect of which the trial is pending before the competent Court at Hissar. Since Veer Bhan having turned hostile before the competent court at Hissar has not been examined to prove the complaint in respect of the incident dated 19.4.2010 or that on 21.04.2010 at about 7AM the Panchayat of the members of 'J' community of the village came to the house of Veerbhan, who had returned from the hospital and asked him to compromise the dispute to which Veerbhan had agreed, the said aspects have not been established beyond doubt. Thirdly Karan Singh having turned hostile it does not stand established that on 20.04.2010 a Panchayat belonging to the members of the 'J' community met in the village and it was decided that the matter
should be compromised in the village due to which some persons from the Panchayat comprising of 'J' community went to the Hissar Hospital and requested Karan Singh and Veerbhan not to get the FIR registered and said that they would get the matters compromised. Fourthly it has not been established and proved beyond doubt that the persons from the 'J' community had a meeting on 20.04.2010 in the village to the extent that they would teach a lesson to the members of the 'B' community and that thereafter there was an atmosphere of fear in the village since a large number of boys from the 'J' community had gathered and were going around in the village in groups of twenties and thirties armed with lathis, threatening that they would burn the houses of the 'B' and would throw them out of the village by making utterances chura ne kada ge, chura ne ghara ne aag lageye gai or that the members of the 'B' community of the village were afraid, apprehending that the members of the 'J' community may attack due to which reason the members of the 'B' community remained alert and awake during the night. Fifthly it has not been established that in the morning of 21.4.2010 Rajender while passing through the main gali in a boggie threatened some of the boys belonging to the 'B' community who were sitting in the gali/ street saying that abhi dekhege tare ko, ektha ho kar angeye, aag lanageye or that on account of this, he had a verbal altercation with some boys of the 'B' community after which Rajender S/o Pale ran away from that place raising a false alarm of churya ne mar diya, churya ne mar diya. Sixthly it also does not stand established that after Gulab
Singh (PW48) was beaten by the boys belonging to the 'J' community and shifted to his house, that he returned to the 'B' Basti and informed the persons of 'B' community residing there as to what had happened with him. Seventhly it is alleged that the assailants from the 'J' community were duly armed with lathies, gandases, stones, oil canes, and petrol and also brought stones and containers of oil in a rehri/ carry cart. It is also alleged that the members of the 'J' community started burning the houses of the 'B' while simultaneously indulging into stone pelting and the mob led by Rajender S/o Pale started burning houses, stone pelting and beating the 'B' with lathis, gandases and jellies. The medical evidence consisting of the MLRs of the victims and the FSL report coupled with the fact that there was no recovery of weapons does not substantiate and establish this version of the prosecution and the above allegations regarding the use of gandases, jellies and petrol/ kerosene oil so made against the accused does not stand established. Eighthly it does not stand established that when the rioting was going on wherein there was a large scale stone pelting the persons from the 'B' community including Kamla pleaded with the accused Vinod Kajal (the then SHO Police Station Narnaund) to save them. It is also not established that many of the members of the 'B' community (males) went to 'B' Chaupal and the ladies, children and old persons were left behind and when the 'B' men and boys were moving towards the 'B' Chaupal from the 'B' Basti SHO Vinod Kajal (accused before this Court) told the boys of the 'J' community deda ne ek ghante mein aag laga do or that SHO Vinod Kajal along with son of Shishu (not an accused before
the Court) instigated the 'J' boys to set the houses of 'B' on fire by saying, na daro churya sae, aag laga do and further instructed the 'J' boys that jo kar sansi nikale tha nu churya ne nikal do on which Kamla pleaded with the accused Vinod Kajal (the then SHO Police Station Narnaund) once again to save her husband and children but on hearing the above exhortation from accused Vinod Kajal the boys from the 'J' community surrounded the 'B' Basti from all the four sides and attacked the persons from 'B' community with jellies, gandases and lathies. Ninethly I may observe that it is for the first time in the Court that it has been alleged that the above persons from the 'J' community were also shouting the following caste abuses and slogans: chure deda ne maro. chureya nu jala do churo ke aag laga do deda ne kad do bahar. phook do phook deda ne phook do jala do, aag lago do deda ne. churya ne dedha ne phook do, mar do . Phook do dedhan ne, Chooraya ne phoonk do jala do deda ne. maro in dedya ne bhanjod ne kutya ne. maro, jala do, they were abusing using names of maa and bebe and earlier these allegations were only general and non specific. It is not established that the persons from the 'J' community had come with preparation to carry out arson and looting, they started setting the houses of persons from the 'B' community. Lastly the allegation that oil/ petrol was sprinkled on Tara Chand and Suman and thereafter they were beaten with dandas and pushed inside the house whose doors were locked outside which house was set on fire, has been alleged but not been established. It has also not been established and proved beyond reasonable doubt that Tara Chand had made a statement to SI Bani Singh (Ex.PW65/C).
Now coming to the facts which have been alleged, substantiated and conclusively established. Firstly it stands established that some incident did take place on 19.4.2010 wherein Veer Bhan and Karan Singh had sustained injuries. Secondly it stands established that Rajender S/o Pale is doing the business of supply of milk in the village and could not supply milk on 20.04.2010 and on 21.4.2010 at about 8 AM Rajender S/o Pale was passing through the main gali in his boogie when an altercation took place when Rajender son of Pale and some of the boys belonging to the 'B' community wherein the accused Dinesh who had rushed to save Rajender sustained injuries pursuant to which there was a rumor which spread in the village that Rajender son of Pale has been abducted or being killed. In fact this is the second version of the incident which was suppressed by the prosecution and has been established not only from the case diaries written by the Investigating officer but also by the eye witnesses belonging to the 'B' community examined by the prosecution who have not been declared hostile but also by those witnesses who have been cited by the prosecution and not examined but later on have appeared and deposed as witnesses of defence. This aspect of Dinesh sustaining injuries and Rajender being present at General Hospital Jind to get him treated also finds independent corroboration from the testimony of Dr. Rajesh Gandhi of General Hospital Jind (DW32) and the MLR of Dinesh proved by him and also from the call detail record of the accused Rajender Ex.DW34/C and the testimony of Dr. Kuldeep (DW33). Thirdly the evidence on record also conclusively
Page No. 1041
establishes that in the morning Gulab Singh the Chowkidar of the village belonging to the 'B' community who had gone to collect milk and lassi from the village, on his way back when he reached near the house of Rajender S/o Pale was stopped by certain boys belonging to the 'J' community including Rajender S/o Pale, Karampal S/o Satbir and Ramphal S/o Prithvi and that Rajender S/o Pale caught hold of Gulab Singhs collar, Karampal snatched his walking stick/ lathi and hit Gulab Singh on his back on which Gulab Singh fell down and Ramphal S/o Prithvi hit him on his head has been alleged and proved by Gulab Singh. It is also proved that Gulab Singh was lifted from there by persons from the 'B' Mohalla and was taken to his house and put on a cot/ charpai and after the police came to the spot he was shifted to the hospital. Fourthly it stands established that Satyawan and other persons of 'B' community got together and telephoned the Narnaund police station and informed the SHO (accused Vinod Kajal) about Gulab Singh and the preparation which he had seen in the 'J' Basti and also requested him (accused Vinod Kajal) to come to the spot as Satyawan and members of 'B' community were apprehending that the matters could get aggravated on which the SHO first sent four/ five police persons to the village. Fifthly it is further established that at about 9 AM large number of persons from the 'J' community gathered and came towards the 'B' Basti and initially there were about 100-150 persons but later on the numbers swelled to about 300-400.
Sixthly it is established that these assailants started pelting

stones on the persons of 'B' community in the Basti and the members of the 'B' community also threw stones, bricks and whatever else they could lay their hands on, but the persons belonging to the 'J' community were more in number and there was stone pelting from both the sides on which Satyawan (prosecution witness) again called up the SHO (accused Vinod Kajal) from his mobile and told him that the matters were going out of hand and that a large number of persons from the 'J' community had gathered and had come to the 'B' mohalla and also requested the SHO to come to the village personally on which SHO Inspector Vinod Kajal (accused before this Court) then came to the village in an official vehicle. Seventhly it has been established that the accused Vinod Kajal (the then SHO Police Station Narnaund) along with the other police personnel who had come with him and other police officials who were already present in the village went towards the large mob consisting of persons from 'J' community and after talking to the persons belonging to the 'J' community, SHO Vinod Kajal (the present accused) came towards the members of the 'B' community and told them to collect at the 'B' Chaupal stating that he would get a compromise affected in respect of the dispute between both the communities and also told the members of 'B' community that he had asked the persons from 'J' community to collect at the 'J' Chaupal. Eighthly the Medico-Legal Reports of the various victims have been duly proved by the doctors and the photographs/ video clippings of the spot of the incident taken on the day of the incident itself stand conclusively established thereby proving the extent of the injuries
caused to the victims and also the extent of damage caused to the properties of the various victims. It is established that out of the 55 persons allegedly affected by the incident, two of them expired on account of burns while one sustained grievous injuries while 29 persons sustained simple injuries and 23 did not sustain any injuries. Further, damage to the properties of Dhoop Singh S/o Rattnu (PW29); Sanjay S/o Gulaba (PW44); Gulaba S/o Jai Lal (PW48); Manoj S/o Mahender (PW45); Sube S/o Bura (PW39); Sushil S/o Surta (PW25), Satyawan S/o Roshan (PW48), Vijender S/o Surta (PW40) and Tara Chand (deceased) also stand conclusively established. Ninethly that Tara Chand made a statement to the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class (Ex.PW55/B) wherein he named the accused Rajender as the person who had set his house on fire, stands conclusively established. Tenthly that there is no delay in registration of FIR and the delay if any, has been satisfactorily explained. Lastly the fact that the house of Tara Chand was also set on fire wherein Tara Chand and his daughter Suman lost their lives on account of burns stand conclusively established. I may further observe that there are two stages in the criminal prosecution. The first obviously is the commission of the crime and the second is the investigation conducted regarding the same. In case the investigation is faulty or has not been proved in evidence at trial, the question which arise is whether it would absolve the liability of the culprit who has committed the offence? The answer is obviously in negative, since any lapse on the part of the investigation does not negate
the offence. I do not find any substance in the grounds raised by the Ld. Counsel for this accused who has vehemently that the investigating agency having committed serious defaults during the investigations as pointed out by him, the benefit of the same should go to the accused. The prosecution has proved the identity of the accused, the manner in which the offence has been committed, place of commission of the offence, the investigation including the documents prepared, postmortem report, etc. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and corroborated by medical evidence and the witness of the prosecution have been able to built up a continuous link. Hence, on the basis of the aforesaid, I hereby hold that the allegations against the accused Charan Singh S/o Sadhu Ram, Rakesh @ Nakli S/o Amar Lal @ Lala, Shamsher S/o Rajender, Sandeep S/o Ram Swaroop, Sandeep S/o Joginder, Anoop S/o Dharma, Dinesh S/o Prem, Ramesh S/o Karan Singh, Sandeep S/o Mahender, Sandeep S/o Raj Kumar, Sandeep S/o Rattan Singh, Sunil @ Sheela S/o Bira, Surender S/o Jagdev, Viren S/o Yashpal, Balwan S/o Dharambir, Hoshiar S/o Mangal Ram, Jaibir S/o Balbir, Jaibir S/o Manphool, Jaibir S/o Ishwar, Joginder S/o Bhim Singh, Jora Singh S/o Balwan Singh, Kishan S/o Karan Singh, Kishan Kumar @ Dhaula S/o Satyawan, Rakesh @ Kala S/o Satyawan, Ved Pal @ Bedu S/o Karan Singh, Vinod S/o Jagdev and Satyawan S/o Tara Chand have not been
substantiated and proved nor their presence at the spot stand established and they are accordingly acquitted. Further, the allegations against the accused Vipin S/o Joginder, Jagdish @ Hathi S/o Baru Ram, Pawan S/o Hoshiar Singh, Praveen S/o Jagdev, Sandeep S/o Chander, Sanjay @ Sandeep S/o Amar Lal, Jitender S/o Satbir, Joginder @ Jogar S/o Inder, Kuldeep S/o Balbir, Sonu S/o Ramesh, Pappu S/o Pyara, Naseeb S/o Prem Singh, Rajesh S/o Dhoop Singh, Ajit S/o Dalip, Jagdish S/o Lehna Ram, Manbir S/o Zile Singh, Balwan Singh S/o Jailal, Rajender S/o Belu Ram, Sunil S/o Jaibir, Rajender S/o Dhoop Singh, Pawan S/o Rajbir and Dalbir S/o Tara Chand, Kuldeep S/o Om Prakash, Anil S/o Prem Singh, Dharambir S/o Tara Chand, Roshan S/o Ram Swaroop, Ajeet S/o Sukhbir, Vijender S/o Hoshiyar Singh, Ramesh S/o Dalip, Rajender S/o Sadhu Ram, Satish S/o Randhir, Jugal S/o Hawa Singh, Pradeep S/o Satbir, Pradeep S/o Jagbir, Dalbir S/o Dalip, Naveen @ Tina S/o Rajbir, Suresh S/o Balbir, Vikas S/o Sunehra, Amir S/o Tara Chand, Pawan @ Tinku S/o Sewa Singh and Sonu S/o Dalbir, Pradeep S/o Ramphal and Vedpal S/o Dayanand, Satyawan S/o Rajender, Amit S/o Satyawan, Pawan S/o Ram Mehar, Deepak @ Sonu S/o Kishan, Balwan S/o Inder Singh, Pradeep S/o Balwan, Sanjay S/o Daya Nand, Satyawan @ Satta S/o Karan Singh, Daya Singh S/o Ajeet Singh, Rupesh S/o Tek Ram and Rajbir @ Nanhe S/o Mai Chand have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt nor their presence at the spot stand established. The accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt and are hereby acquitted.
Further, in so far as the accused Vinod Kajal is concerned, I

hereby hold that the allegations regarding inaction or regarding the overt act of Vinod Kajal were added only on 22.04.2010 i.e after the intervention of the political and community leaders from outside and was then arrested under Section 4 of the SC/ST (POA) Act which appears to have been done only for pacifying the situation. He was included in 120B by means of supplementary statements dated 27.07.2010 at the time of the filing of the challan which statements the witnesses alleged that they never made to the Investigating Officer but no admissible and reliable evidence has been brought on the record to connect him with the crime. Hence, I hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove and substantiate the allegations against him for which he is hereby acquitted. However, I hereby hold that the presence of the accused Sumit S/o Satyawan, Pradeep S/o Jaibir, Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand, Pradeep S/o Suresh, Sunil S/o Daya Nand, Rishi S/o Satbir and Monu S/o Suresh at the spot at the time of the incident as one of the persons being a part of the unlawful assembly where they were indulging into stone pelting stands established, for which they are held guilty of the offence under Sections 147, 323/427 r/w 149 Indian Penal Code. Further, the presence of the accused Baljeet S/o Inder, Karambir S/o Tara Chand, Karampal S/o Satbir, Dharambir @ Illa S/o Mai Chand, Bobal @ Langra S/o Tek Ram at the spot at the time of the incident along with the other persons constituting an unlawful assembly and indulging into stone pelting, causing damage to the properties of persons from 'B' community stand established, for which they are held guilty of the offence under Sections 147, 323/427/435 r/w 149 IPC and Section 3 (2) (iii) of SC/ST Act, 1989. I also hold that the presence of the accused Kulwinder S/o
Ram Mehar, Ramphal S/o Prithvi and Rajender S/o Pale at the spot at the time of the incident along with the other persons constituting unlawful assembly, indulging into stone pelting, causing damage to the properties of persons from the 'B' community and also setting fire to the house of Tara Chand stand established, for which they are held guilty of the offence under Sections 147, 323/427/436/304 (II) r/w 149 IPC & Section 3 (2) (iv) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. Case be listed for arguments on sentence on 29.9.2011.
Announced in the open court Dated: 24.9.2011
(Dr. KAMINI LAU) ASJ-II(NW)/ Spl. Judge (SC/ST Cases) Rohini Courts, Delhi
Page No. 1048
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SEESIONS JUDGE-II (NORTH-WEST)/ SPL. JUDGE (SC/ST CASES): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No. 1238/10 Unique Case ID No. 02404R0326422010 State Versus 1. Dharambir S/o Sh. Tara Chand R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) 2. Pawan S/o Sh. Ram Mahar R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Karambir S/o Sh. Tara Chand R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Convicted) Joginder @ Jogar Sh. Bhim Singh R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Dalbir Sh. Dalip Singh R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted)
Page No. 1049
3.
4.
5.
6.
Balwan Sh. Inder Singh R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Satyawan S/o Sh. Tara Chand R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Jaibir S/o Sh. Manphool R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Ajit S/o Sh. Sukhbir R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Balwan S/o Sh. Dharmabir R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Rajbir @ Nanha S/o Sh. Mai Chand R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted)
Page No. 1050
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Viren S/o Sh. Yashpal R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Dharambir @ Illa S/o Sh. Mai Chand R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Convicted) Deepak @ Sonu S/o Sh. Krishan @ Pappu R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Kuldeep @ Midda S/o Sh. Balbir R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Rajinder S/o Sh. Balu R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Jagdish @ Hathi S/o Sh. Baru Ram R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted)
Page No. 1051
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Balbir R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Rajinder Kr. S/o Sh. Sadhu Ram R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Ramphal S/o Sh. Prithvi R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Convicted) Daya Singh S/o Sh. Jeet Singh R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Pardeep S/o Sh. Balwan R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Rishi S/o Sh. Satbir R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Convicted)
Page No. 1052
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
Jasbir S/o Sh. Ishwar R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Karampal S/o Sh. Satbir R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Convicted) Sunil @ Sonu S/o Sh. Jasbir R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Sumit S/o Sh. Satyawan R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Convicted) Pardeep S/o Sh. Ramphal R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Roshan Lal S/o Sh. Ram Swarup R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted)
Page No. 1053
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
Surender S/o Sh. Jagda R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Hoshiar Singh S/o Sh. Mangal @ Manga R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Ajit S/o Sh. Dalip R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Rajinder S/o Sh. Dhup Singh R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Rajinder S/o Sh. Pali R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Convicted) Vijender S/o Sh. Hoshiar Singh R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted)
Page No. 1054
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
Dinesh S/o Sh. Prem R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Vinod S/o Sh. Ram Niwas R/o Vill Nidhana, Tehsil Meham, Distt Rohtak, Haryana (Acquitted) Kulvinder S/o Sh. Ram Mahar R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Convicted) Monu S/o Sh. Suresh R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Convicted) Amit S/o Sh. Satyawan R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Sunil S/o Sh. Daya Nand R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Convicted)
Page No. 1055
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
Baljeet S/o Sh. Inder R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Convicted) Rajesh S/o Sh. Dupa R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Ramesh S/o Sh. Karan Singh R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Ameer S/o Sh. Tara R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Anil S/o Sh. Prem Singh R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Balwan S/o Sh. Jeela R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted)
Page No. 1056
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
Charan S/o Sh. Sadhu Ram R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Anup S/o Sh. Dharma R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Dalbir S/o Sh. Tara R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Krishan Kr. @ Dhaula S/o Sh. Satyawan R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Jogal @ Doger S/o Sh. Hawa Singh R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Jitender S/o Sh. Satbir R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted)
Page No. 1057
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
Jora Singh S/o Sh. Balwan R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Rakesh @ Kala S/o Sh. Satyawan R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Krishan S/o Sh. Karan Singh R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Kuldeep S/o Sh. Om Prakash R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Jasbir @ Lillu S/o Sh. Raja R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Proclaimed Offender) Manbir S/o Sh. Jile Singh R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted)
Page No. 1058
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
Nasib S/o Sh. Prem Singh R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Rakesh @ Nikle S/o Sh. Amarlal @ Lala Ram R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Pappu S/o Sh. Pyara R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Pradeep S/o Sh. Jagbir R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Pradeep S/o Sh. Jaibir R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Convicted) Pradeep S/o Sh. Suresh R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Convicted)
Page No. 1059
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
Pradeep S/o Sh. Satbir R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Praveen S/o Sh. Jagdev R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Pawan S/o Sh. Hoshiar Singh R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Pawan S/o Sh. Rajbir R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Sandeep S/o Sh. Mahinder Singh R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Sandeep S/o Sh. Raj Kumar R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted)
Page No. 1060
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
Sandeep S/o Sh. Ram Swarup R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Sandeep S/o Sh. Rattan Singh R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Sandeep S/o Sh. Joginder R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Sandeep @ Langra S/o Sh. Chander R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Sanjay @ Sanjeep S/o Sh. Amar Lal R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Sanjay Handa S/o Sh. Daya Nand R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted)
Page No. 1061
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
Satta Singh S/o Sh. Karan Singh R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Sattu Singh S/o Sh. Randhir Master R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Satyawan S/o Sh. Rajinder R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Shamsher S/o Sh. Rajinder R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Sheela @ Sunil S/o Sh. Bira R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Sonu @ Monu S/o Sh. Ramesh R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted)
Page No. 1062
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
Mandeep @ Sonu S/o Sh.Dalbir R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Naveen @ Tina S/o Sh. Rajbir R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Vedpal @ Bedoo S/o Sh. Karan Singh R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Vikash S/o Sh. Sunehra @ Sumer Singh R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Vipin S/o Sh. Joginder Singh R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Jokhar @ Joginder S/o Sh. Inder Singh R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted)
Page No. 1063
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
Rajpal S/o Sh. Sheo Chand R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Convicted) Jaibir S/o Sh. Balbir R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Ramesh @ Mahesh S/o Sh. Dalip Singh R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Rupesh S/o Sh. Tek Chand R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Bobal @ Langra S/o Sh. Tek Chand R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Convicted) Jagdish @ Jangla S/o Sh. Lahna @ Lakshman R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted)
Page No. 1064
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
Pawan @ Tinku S/o Sh. Sewa Ram R/o Village Petwar, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Vinod S/o Sh. Jagdeep R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted) Ved Pal S/o Dayanand R/o Village Mirch Pur, Distt Hissar, Haryana (Acquitted)
97.
98.
FIR No.: Police Station: Under Sections:
166/10 Narnaund (Haryana) 120-B, 302, 307, 147, 149, 148, 323, 324, 325, 395, 397, 427, 435, 436, 449, 450, 452 Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 (1) (x), (xv), 3 (2) (iii), (iv) (v) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 24.9.2011 21.10.2011 31.10.2011
Date of Judgment: Arguments heard on: Date of Sentence: APPEARANCE: Present:
Sh. Rakesh Kumar and Sh. Taufique Ahmed, Special Public Prosecutors for the State.
Page No. 1065
Sh. S.P. Ahluwalia, Special Public Prosecutor for the State of Haryana along with Sh. Rupansh Purohit and Sh. Dinesh Kumar Advocates and DSP Sh. Abhay Singh. Sh. Satish Tamta, Special Public Prosecutor for the victims along with Ms. Anubha Rastogi and Sh. Shreeji Bhawsar Advocates. All the convicts in judicial custody with Sh. B.S. Rana, Ms. Jaya Sharma, Sh. Shakti Singh, advocates.
ORDER ON SENTENCE: Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high Where knowledge is free; Where the world has not been broken up into fragments By narrow domestic walls; Where words come out from the depth of truth; Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection; Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way Into the dreary desert sand of dead habit; Where the mind is led forward by thee, Into ever-widening thought and action Into that heaven of freedom, My Father, let his country awake Rabindranath Tagore This case from Hissar (Haryana) relates to an unfortunate incident dated 21.4.2010 which initially started as an inconsequential dispute between two group of youngsters belonging to two different
communities but ultimately ended up engulfing the two communities (the 'B' and 'J' community) of village Mirchpur. In the rioting which took place, two persons both members of the 'B' community lost their lives when their house was set on fire by the members of the 'J' community and one persons sustained injuries which were grievous and 27 persons sustained Simple injuries with damage caused to the properties belonging to member of the 'B' community in the said incident. After investigations, charge sheet was filed against 103 accused in the present case wherein provisions of Sections 120-B, 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 395, 397, 427, 435, 436, 449, 450, 452 Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 (1) (x), (xv) , 3 (2) (iii), (iv) (v) of the Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, were invoked. Out of the 103 persons so charge sheeted, 98 faced trial before this Court (trial of five juveniles being separated) and out of these 98, one that is accused Jasbir @ Leelu absconded during trial who is now a Proclaimed Offender. On the basis of the evidence on record including oral testimonies of the eye witnesses, MLRs of the victims, postmortem reports of the deceased, forensic evidence and documents placed before this Court, vide a detailed judgment dated 24.9.2011 eighty two accused have been acquitted whereas fifteen have been held guilty under various provisions of Indian Penal Code, out of whom eight accused have also been held guilty under the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. The prosecution has been able to successfully establish the following aspects: That some incident did take place on 19.4.2010 wherein Veer Bhan and Karan Singh had sustained injuries.
That Rajender S/o Pale was doing the business of supply of milk in the village and could not supply milk on 20.04.2010 and on 21.4.2010 at about 8 AM Rajender S/o Pale was passing through the main gali in his boogie when an altercation took place when he and some of the boys belonging to the 'B' community wherein another accused Dinesh who had rushed to save Rajender sustained injuries pursuant to which a rumor spread in the village that Rajender son of Pale has been abducted or being killed which was the second version of the incident duly suppressed by the prosecution. This aspect stands established not only from the case diaries written by the Investigating officer but also by the eye witnesses belonging to the 'B' community examined by the prosecution who had not been declared hostile but also by those witnesses who had been cited by the prosecution and not examined but had later on appeared and deposed as witnesses of defence. That the aspect of accused Dinesh sustaining injuries and Rajender being present at General Hospital Jind to get him so treated also found independent corroboration from the testimony of Dr. Rajesh Gandhi of General Hospital Jind (DW32) who had proved the MLR of Dinesh him and from the call detail record of the accused Rajender Ex.DW34/C and the testimony of Dr. Kuldeep (DW33). That in the morning Gulab Singh the Chowkidar of the village belonging to the 'B' community who had gone to collect milk and lassi from the village, on his way back when he reached near the house of Rajender S/o Pale was stopped by certain boys belonging to the 'J' community including Rajender S/o Pale, Karampal S/o Satbir and Ramphal S/o Prithvi and that Rajender S/o Pale caught
Page No. 1068
hold of Gulab Singhs collar, Karampal snatched his walking stick/ lathi and hit Gulab Singh on his back on which Gulab Singh fell down and Ramphal S/o Prithvi hit him on his head an aspect which has been so alleged and proved by Gulab Singh. That Gulab Singh was lifted from there by persons from the 'B' Mohalla and was taken to his house and put on a cot/ charpai and after the police came to the spot he was shifted to the hospital. That Satyawan and other persons of 'B' community got together and telephoned the Narnaund police station and informed the SHO (accused Vinod Kajal) about Gulab Singh and the preparation which he had seen in the 'J' Basti and also requested him to come to the spot as members of the 'B' community were apprehensive that the matters could get aggravated on which the SHO first sent four/ five police persons to the village. That at about 9 AM large number of persons from the 'J' community gathered and came towards the 'B' Basti and initially there were about 100-150 persons but later on the numbers swelled to about 300-400. That these assailants started pelting stones on the persons of 'B' community in the Basti and the members of the 'B' community also threw stones, bricks and whatever else they could lay their hands on, but the persons belonging to the 'J' community were more in number and there was stone pelting from both the sides on which Satyawan again called up the SHO from his mobile and told him that the matters were going out of hand and that a large number of persons from the 'J' community had gathered and had come to the 'B' mohalla and also requested the SHO to come to the
village personally on which SHO Inspector Vinod Kajal then came to the village. That the accused Vinod Kajal (the then SHO Police Station Narnaund) along with the other police personnel who had come with him and other police officials who were already present in the village went towards the large mob consisting of persons from 'J' community and after talking to the persons belonging to the 'J' community, SHO Vinod Kajal came towards the members of the 'B' community and told them to collect at the 'B' Chaupal stating that he would get a compromise affected in respect of the dispute between both the communities and also told the members of 'B' community that he had asked the persons from 'J' community to collect at the 'J' Chaupal. That by 12:30 noon a large police contingent headed by the Superintendent of Police Hissar reached village Mirchpur along with Fire Brigades and Ambulances and took control over the situation, after which the injured were rushed to the hospitals and the fire was got drowsed by the Fire Brigades and thereafter the photographs and video clippings were prepared at the spot and the exhibits lifted on the directions of the senior police officers. That out of the 55 persons whose medical examinations were got conducted, two of them expired on account of burns while one sustained grievous injuries while 29 persons sustained simple injuries and 23 did not show any visible signs of injuries. That there was damage to the properties of Dhoop Singh S/o Rattnu (PW29); Sanjay S/o Gulaba (PW44); Gulaba S/o Jai Lal (PW48); Manoj S/o Mahender (PW45); Sube S/o Bura (PW39);
Sushil S/o Surta (PW25), Satyawan S/o Roshan (PW48), Vijender S/o Surta (PW40) and Tara Chand (deceased). That the house of Tara Chand was also set on fire wherein Tara Chand and his daughter Suman lost their lives on account of burns. That in the hospital (General Hospital Hissar) Tara Chand made a statement to the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class (Dying Declaration) wherein he named the accused Rajender as the person who had set his house on fire. That many witnesses who had initially made tall claims of injustice, damage, discrimination, threats and fear, failed to substantiate the same in the Court. That many of the accused before this Court were named and apprehended after many months of the incident and that too after intervention of the Court. In the Judgment dated 24.9.2011, it has also been observed by this Court that the incident which initially started as a normal altercation between two group of youngsters of the village belonging to two different communities displayed caste nuances and overtones when finally persons (from the 'B' and 'J' community) who had no concern with the initial dispute got involved only on account of the caste factor. This Court also observed that there was a total failure of the Administration to act on time and had the Administration been more sensitive and alert to the dispute between two groups of youngsters already brewing in the village on one issue or the other for quite sometime, it could have certainly averted the explosive situation which took an ugly turn on 21.4.2010. It has also been found desirable that an
in-house probe should be carried out at the highest level to examine the manner in which the present case has been investigated and prosecuted particularly the aspects relating to the fairness and independence of investigations and Prosecution. Also, in the judgment dated 24.9.2011 this Court while considering the manner in which the statements of the witnesses/ victims were recorded, has recommended/ suggested that in all cases of communal and caste violence the statements of the eye witnesses should be got recorded by a Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and should also be videographed keeping in view the possibility of winning over of the witnesses, as has happened in the present case and also that in order to ensure total independence and fairness during investigations, prosecution and trial of cases connected with communal and caste violence, due care should be taken to ensure that the Investigating Officers and the Prosecutors so deputed are in no way connected, related or associated with either of the warring/ litigating groups or communities. Finally, the accused Charan Singh S/o Sadhu Ram, Rakesh @ Nakli S/o Amar Lal @ Lala, Shamsher S/o Rajender, Sandeep S/o Ram Swaroop, Sandeep S/o Joginder, Anoop S/o Dharma, Dinesh S/o Prem, Ramesh S/o Karan Singh, Sandeep S/o Mahender, Sandeep S/o Raj Kumar, Sandeep S/o Rattan Singh, Sunil @ Sheela S/o Bira, Surender S/o Jagdev, Viren S/o Yashpal, Balwan S/o Dharambir, Hoshiar S/o Mangal Ram, Jaibir S/o Balbir, Jaibir S/o Manphool, Jaibir S/o Ishwar, Joginder S/o Bhim Singh, Jora Singh S/o Balwan Singh, Kishan S/o Karan Singh, Kishan Kumar @ Dhaula S/o Satyawan, Rakesh @ Kala S/o Satyawan, Ved Pal @ Bedu S/o Karan Singh, Vinod S/o Jagdev,
Satyawan S/o Tara Chand Vipin S/o Joginder, Jagdish @ Hathi S/o Baru Ram, Pawan S/o Hoshiar Singh, Praveen S/o Jagdev, Sandeep S/o Chander, Sanjay @ Sandeep S/o Amar Lal, Jitender S/o Satbir, Joginder @ Jogar S/o Inder, Kuldeep S/o Balbir, Sonu S/o Ramesh, Pappu S/o Pyara, Naseeb S/o Prem Singh, Rajesh S/o Dhoop Singh, Ajit S/o Dalip, Jagdish S/o Lehna Ram, Manbir S/o Zile Singh, Balwan Singh S/o Jailal, Rajender S/o Belu Ram, Sunil S/o Jaibir, Rajender S/o Dhoop Singh, Pawan S/o Rajbir and Dalbir S/o Tara Chand, Kuldeep S/o Om Prakash, Anil S/o Prem Singh, Dharambir S/o Tara Chand, Roshan S/o Ram Swaroop, Ajeet S/o Sukhbir, Vijender S/o Hoshiyar Singh, Ramesh S/o Dalip, Rajender S/o Sadhu Ram, Satish S/o Randhir, Jugal S/o Hawa Singh, Pradeep S/o Satbir, Pradeep S/o Jagbir, Dalbir S/o Dalip, Naveen @ Tina S/o Rajbir, Suresh S/o Balbir, Vikas S/o Sunehra, Amir S/o Tara Chand, Pawan @ Tinku S/o Sewa Singh and Sonu S/o Dalbir, Pradeep S/o Ramphal and Vedpal S/o Dayanand, Satyawan S/o Rajender, Amit S/o Satyawan, Pawan S/o Ram Mehar, Deepak @ Sonu S/o Kishan, Balwan S/o Inder Singh, Pradeep S/o Balwan, Sanjay S/o Daya Nand, Satyawan @ Satta S/o Karan Singh, Daya Singh S/o Ajeet Singh, Rupesh S/o Tek Ram and Rajbir @ Nanhe S/o Mai Chand have been acquitted. It has also been observed in respect of the accused Vinod Kajal the then SHO Police Station Narnaund that the allegations regarding conspiracy, inaction, negligence and non performance of duties were added only on 22.04.2010 i.e after the intervention of the political and community leaders from outside and it was only then that he was arrested under Section 4 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 which it appeared was done only for pacifying the situation but the Court finding no admissible and reliable evidence to connect him with the crime, the material witnesses
having turned hostile, he was acquitted. Further, the accused Sumit S/o Satyawan, Pradeep S/o Jaibir, Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand, Pradeep S/o Suresh, Sunil S/o Daya Nand, Rishi S/o Satbir and Monu S/o Suresh have been held guilty of the offence under Sections 147, 323/427 r/w 149 Indian Penal Code. The accused Baljeet S/o Inder, Karambir S/o Tara Chand, Karampal S/o Satbir, Dharambir @ Illa S/o Mai Chand, Bobal @ Langra S/o Tek Ram have been held guilty of the offence under Sections 147, 323/427/435 r/w 149 IPC and Section 3 (2) (iii) of SC/ST Act, 1989 and the accused Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar, Ramphal S/o Prithvi and Rajender S/o Pale have been held guilty of the offence under Sections 147, 323/427/436/304 (II) r/w 149 IPC & Section 3 (2) (iv) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. Now coming to the aspect of quantum of sentence, it has been vehemently argued by the Ld. Special Public Prosecutor for the victims that a stern view be taken against the convicts keeping in view the facts of the present case where two persons have lost their lives and the entire community of the victim targeted. Ld. Special Public Prosecutor has submitted that the members of the 'J' community had resorted to agitation and protests in the form of 'rasta roko' and 'rail roko' in respect of which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already taken an adverse view of the conduct of the community and the inability of the State Government to prevent the loss to the general public which demonstrate that the community of the convicts and their family members do not have an iota of remorse for what has happened. It is also submitted that as per the Special Legislation that is SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 Sections 3 (2) (iv) and (v) clearly lay down the punishment of
Life Imprisonment for the offence committed and this Court has no discretion to levy a lesser punishment. Ld. Special Public Prosecutor has also placed his reliance on the provisions of Section 16 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 which mandates the levy of a collective fine on the community which is responsible for the caste based crime and a request has been made that keeping in view the provisions of Section 357-A Code of Criminal Procedure this Court may award compensation for rehabilitation of the victim community over and above any such compensation given by the State Government. He has in this regard placed his reliance on the cases of Sevaka Perumal and Another -vsState of Tamil Nadu reported in 1991 (3) SCC 471 and Dhananjoy Chaterjee -vs- State of West Bengal reported in 1994 (2) SCC 220. I may further bring on record that while dealing with the aspect of compensation which could be awarded by this Court to the victims as a part of the sentence, this court was informed by Mr. Tamta that the State has already granted compensation to the victims who have now filed a petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court seeking their shifting to some other place and providing employment facilities to them for their rehabilitation which matter is sub-judice. He requests that this being so, this Court may not touch upon these sub-judice issues. Mr. Ahluwalia, Special Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana has also informed this Court that in so far as the notification of the scheme formulated by the State Government under Section 357-A of the Cr.P.C. regarding compensation and rehabilitation of the victims is concerned, the same could not be notified pending consideration before the Punjab and Haryana High Court on the judicial side.
Page No. 1075
Sh. B.S. Rana the Ld. Defence Counsel has on the other hand prayed for a lenient view against the convicts most of whom are young boys in their twenties and thirties. He has submitted that the members of the 'J' community and the residents of the village Mirchpur belonging to all communities have in order to reestablish peace and tranquility in the village and end all hostilities have appealed and made efforts to bring back the persons from the 'B' community who have left the village and have decided to ensure their rehabilitation in respect of which a resolution has also been passed by the village Panchayat and the respectables of the village, copies of which have also been placed on record. He has further argued that in so far as the convicts Sumit S/o Satyawan, Pradeep S/o Jaibir, Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand, Pradeep S/o Suresh, Sunil S/o Daya Nand, Rishi S/o Satbir and Monu S/o Suresh are concerned, they are all first time offenders, most of whom are below the age of 21 years and hence as they have only been convicted under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, he prays for grant of benefit to these convicts under the Probation of Offenders Act. He has in this regard placed his reliance on the case of Rajesh Kumar -vs- State reported in 2004 (1) JCC 322 and State of Karnataka -vs- Muddappa reported in 1999 (10) JT 221. He has fairly conceded that in so far as the other convicts are concerned, keeping in view the fact that they have also been held guilty under the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, the Probation of Offenders Act would not apply in view of the provisions of Section 19 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. Further, in so far as the provisions of Section 3 (2) (iii) of the SC/ST (POA) Act are concerned it is argued by the Ld. Defence Counsel that there is no dispute, the said provisions being pari-materia to Section 435 Indian Penal Code
providing for a punishment for an imprisonment for a term upto seven years. However, according to the Ld. Defence Counsel in so far as the punishment provided under Section 3 (2) (iv) of the SC/St (POA) Act, 1989 (which provisions are pari-materia to the provisions of Section 436 Indian Penal Code) the maximum punishment which can be so imposed, cannot be distinct and different to that provided under Section 436 Indian Penal Code or else it would be discriminatory and violative of the Constitutional provisions. He has argued that Article 15 of the Constitution of India only provides for special provisions for advancement of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens and Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes, which cannot be construed to include a Penal Legislation which discriminates on the ground of caste and hence under these circumstances, the word 'shall' appearing in Section 3 (2) (iv) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 should be read as 'may' and reading it as mandatory would render the provisions ultra-vires of the Constitution being discriminatory. He has argued that a Special Legislation may create a specific offence but cannot create a distinction/ discrimination with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed on the ground of caste of the victim. The Ld. Counsel has argued that the Constitution of India mandates creation of special provisions for advancement of Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribes but prohibits discrimination on the basis of caste of the victim and hence, according to him, judicial discretion is available with the Court to impose a lesser punishment under Section 3 (2) (iv) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 as provided under the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Rana has submitted that ordinarily the used of word 'shall' raises a presumption that it is imperative but there are numerous cases where it has been construed as
merely directory. He has in this regard placed his reliance on the principles of interpretation while reading the words 'shall' in the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and also on the observations made by Lord Esher in the case of Tuckanson -vs- Priester reported in 1887 (19) QBD 629 (638) and has argued that in a case where two reasonable constructions are possible of a penal provision then the Court must lean towards the construction which exempts the subject from penalty rather than which imposes a penalty. [Ref.: Commentary given by Justice G.P. Singh (Retired) in his Book Principles of Statutory Interpretation 12th Edition 2010 (pages 406 to 409 and pages 894 & 895)]. On the other hand Sh. Satish Tamta, Ld. Special Public Prosecutor for the victims has vehemently argued that no discretion has been provided under the Act to the Court to impose a lesser punishment and the only punishment which can be imposed upon the convicts under Section 3 (2) (iv) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 is Life Imprisonment. I have considered the rival contentions. No doubt the use to word 'shall' raises a presumption regarding a mandate but it is primafacie an inference which may be rebutted by other considerations such as the scope and object of the enactment and the consequences flowing from such a construction. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hidayatullah has in the case of Sainik Motors -vs- State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1961 SC 1480 (1485) observed that ordinarily the word 'shall' is mandatory but it is sometime not so interpreted if the context or intent otherwise demands. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subbarao in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh -vsBabu Ram reported in AIR 1961 SC 751 (765) observed that when a statute uses the word 'shall', primafacie it is mandatory, but the Courts may ascertain the real intent of the legislature by carefully attending the
whole scope of the statute. In this regard the Court may in order to ascertain the real intent of the legislature, look into the legislative debates which have taken place at the time when the legislation was tabled in the House. Mr. Rana, the Ld. Defence Counsel has conceded that he has not been able to lay his hands on any such debates particularly on the aspect of the provisions of Section 3 (2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and submits that in fact no such debates are available as per his knowledge showing that perhaps at the time the Act was so tabled, no debates took place. I have considered the submissions made by Mr. Rana. Here, I may observe that it is necessary for Penal Legislation affecting life and liberty of persons to be subjected to intense legislative scrutiny in the House and the legislative debates which take place, provide an important insight to the manner in which the various provisions of the Act are required to be interpreted and it is unfortunate that no such debate is available in respect of this important legislation [SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989]. In so far as this Court is concerned, after considering the submissions made by the Ld. Counsels, I conclude that the word 'shall' imposes an obligation and the word 'may' confers a discretionary power unless the context and intent otherwise demands, which intent can be ascertained by looking into the scope and object of the legislation. Now, after going through the aims and objects of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and applying the rule a plain and literal interpretation, in my opinion the use of word 'shall' as appearing in the Section 3 (2) (iv) of the Act is mandatory and not directory and the issues relating to validity and Constitutional vires of this provision when given such a construction are left open to be decided by the Higher Constitutional Courts.
Before proceeding further, I wish to bring on record the observations of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.P. Wadhwa in the case of State of Maharastra -vs- Rajendra Jamanmal Gandhi Etc. reported in AIR 1997 Supreme Court 3986 (1) holding that there is a procedure established by law governing the conduct of trial of a person accused of an offence and a trial by press, electronic media or public agitation is very antithesis of rule of law which may lead to miscarriage of justice. Echoing the sentiments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, I hold that the task of the Judge in such cases become onerous and the Court is required to guard itself against any such pressure and is to be strictly guided by the rules of law. For the convicts who have been found guilty by this Court for various offences the issue of the question of sentence to be awarded to the convicts has to be in accordance with the provisions of law uninfluenced by any kind of trial by press, electronic media or public agitations by members of either of the communities. At the same time this Court cannot permit groups based upon castes and community to highjack the governance of the State and hold democracy to ransom. In this country where we cherish the values of equality and justice, no leniency can be shown to those responsible for trampling these Constitutional objectives. In the words of Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy in the case of Sevaka Perumal Etc. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 1991 SC 1463 ......Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or
committed etc.... It is therefore necessary for the court to keep in mind that the object should be to protect the society and to deter the criminal while achieving the avowed object of law by imposing appropriate sentence. The Courts are expected to operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of the society and sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. (Ref. Siddarama and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2006 IV AD (Crl.) SC 78). Guided by these principles I now proceed to determine the sentence to be awarded to the various convicts. The report of the Probation Officer, District Hissar has been received in respect of the convicts Sumit S/o Satyawan, Pradeep S/o Jaibir, Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand, Pradeep S/o Suresh, Sunil S/o Daya Nand, Rishi S/o Satbir and Monu S/o Suresh. The Social Investigation Report reflects that all the above convicts are young boys in their twenties and thirties and have no criminal involvement except in the present case which according to the report was without any criminal intent. It has been reported that the chances of reform of these convicts are bright and they should be granted the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. The convict Sumit S/o Satyawan is a young boy of 20 years having a family comprising of parents and one brother. He is an agriculturalist and has no criminal background being a first time offender who is in custody since 17.5.2010. The convict Pradeep S/o Jaibir is a young boy of 21 years having a family comprising of aged widow mother and two sisters and is the sole bread earner of his family having no previous involvements being a first time offender who is in custody
since 3.9.2010. The convict Pradeep S/o Suresh is aged about 25 years having a family comprising of aged widow mother, wife, one son and daughter who is an agriculturist and is the sole bread earner of his family with no previous involvements being a first time offender who is in custody since 1.9.2010. The convict Sunil S/o Daya Nand is aged about 35 years having a family comprising of aged parents, one brother, one sister, wife and two sons who is 8 th class pass and was serving as a Constable in Haryana Police and is the sole bread earner of his family. This convict had two previous involvements that is in FIR No. 556/1997, u/s. 341 IPC, PS Narwana and in FIR No.51/2001, u/s. 341/186, 323/353, 506/34 IPC, PS City Jind wherein he has been acquitted. He is in custody in the present case since 4.9.2010. The convict Rishi S/o Satbir is aged about 36 years with a family comprising of aged parents, two brothers, one sister and wife and no previous involvements being a first time offender who is in custody since 15.5.2010. The convict Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand is aged about 27 years with a family comprising of aged widow mother, three brothers and two sisters have not previous involvements being a first time offender who is in custody since 28.7.2010. He is a student and at the time of the incident was doing his Graduation. The convict Monu S/o Suresh is a young boy of 22 years with a family comprising of aged parents and one younger brother and has no previous involvements except in the present incident (dated 19.4.2010 wherein Karan Singh and Veer Bhan have not identified him). He is a student of B.A. 2 nd year is in custody in the present case since 3.9.2010. I may observe that all the above convicts are in custody for the last more than one year and have been held guilty of the offences
under Sections 147,323/427 read with 149 Indian Penal Code which provide for a maximum punishment for a period of two years. In fact the convicts Sumit S/o Satyawan and Rishi S/o Satbir have already undergone imprisonment for almost one year five months. They have not been held liable for the offences under the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and therefore can be given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. I accordingly direct that the convicts Sumit S/o Satyawan, Pradeep S/o Jaibir, Rajpal S/o Sheo Chand, Pradeep S/o Suresh, Sunil S/o Daya Nand, Rishi S/o Satbir and Monu S/o Suresh be released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 for a period of one year with supervision, on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each with one surety of the like amount and to appear and receive sentence when called upon during such period and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. In case of any default or repetition of offence, the convicts shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year. Now coming to the convicts Baljeet S/o Inder, Karambir S/o Tara Chand, Karampal S/o Satbir, Dharambir @ Illa S/o Mai Chand, and Bobal @ Langra S/o Tek Ram they have been held guilty of the offence under Sections 147, 323/427/435 r/w 149 IPC and Section 3 (2) (iii) of SC/ST Act, 1989. Here, I may observe that the punishment as provided in the Special Legislation that is Section 3 (2) (iii) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 would prevail over the General Legislation that is Section 435 Indian Penal Code. The maximum punishment so provided is imprisonment which may extend to seven years and fine and the minimum punishment so provided is six months [Section 3 (2) (iii) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989].
The convict Baljeet S/o Inder, aged about 37 years with a family comprising of widow mother aged about 70 years is an agriculturist and the sole bread earner of his family having no previous involvements being a first time offender who is in custody since 5.9.2010. The convict Karambir S/o Tara Chand, aged about 42 years with a family comprising of aged parents, wife, one daughter and two sons is an agriculturist and the sole bread earner of his family having no previous involvements being a first time offender who is in custody since 21.4.2010. The convict Karambir S/o Satbir, aged about 26 years with a family comprising of aged parents is an agriculturist by profession and the sole bread earner of his family having no previous involvements being a first time offender who is in custody since 15.5.2010. The convict Dharambir S/o Mai Chand, aged about 38 years with a family comprising of old father aged about 80 years, wife and two sons is an agriculturist and the sole bread earner of his family having no previous involvements being a first time offender who is in custody since 28.4.2010. The convict Bobal S/o Tek Ram, aged about 38 years is unmarried and belongs to a very poor family having a small piece of land and is an agriculturist by profession. His parents have already expired and there is no other person in his family. 1.8.2010. I hereby award the following sentences to the convicts Baljeet S/o Inder, Karambir S/o Tara Chand, Karampal S/o Satbir, Dharambir S/o Mai Chand and Bobal S/o Tek Ram: He has no previous involvements and is a first time offender who is in custody since
Page No. 1084
1.
For the offence under Section 147 IPC they are sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Two years.
2.
For the offence under Section 323 read with 149 IPC they are sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Two years.
3.
For the offence under Section 427 read with 149 IPC they are sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Two years.
4.
For the offence under Section 3 (2) (iii) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 (which would prevail over Section 435 IPC) they are sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Five years and fine to the tune of Rs.20,000/- each. The entire fine amount, if recovered, shall be given as compensation to the victims. In default of payment of fine the convicts shall under go Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month each. All the sentences shall run concurrently. Benefit of
Section 428 Cr.P.C. shall be given to all the convicts for the period already undergone by them during the trial. Now coming to the convicts Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar, Ramphal S/o Prithvi and Rajender S/o Pale who have been held guilty of the offence under Sections 147, 323/427/436/304 (II) r/w 149 IPC & Section 3 (2) (iv) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and the provisions of Section 3 (2) (v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 would technically apply in default in view of the fact that the provisions of Section 436 and Section 304 IPC provide for a punishment of imprisonment more than ten years and as already observed herein above the provisions of the Special Legislation would prevail over the General Legislation.
Page No. 1085
The convict Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar, aged about 30 years with a family comprising of wife and two daughters is an agriculturist by profession with no previous involvement being a first time offender who is in custody since 5.9.2010. The convict Ramphal S/o Prithvi, aged about 35 years is unmarried and has a family comprising of aged parents and is an agriculturist by profession with no previous involvements being a first time offender who is in custody since 14.5.2010. The convict Rajender S/o Pale, aged about 30 years with a family comprising of aged widow mother, wife and two daughters is a milk supplier by profession and has no previous involvements being a first time offender who is in custody since 19.5.2010. I hereby award the following sentences to the convicts Kulwinder S/o Ram Mehar, Ramphal S/o Prithvi and Rajender S/o Pale: 1. 2. 3. 4. For the offence under Section 147 IPC they are sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Two years. For the offence under Section 323 read with 149 IPC they are sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Two years. For the offence under Section 427 read with 149 IPC they are sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Two years. For the offence under Section 3 (2) (iv) & (v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 (which would prevail over Section 436 and Section 304 (2) IPC) they are sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for Life and fine to the tune of Rs.20,000/- each. payment of fine The entire fine amount, if recovered, shall In default of Simple
Page No. 1086
be given as compensation to the victims.
the convicts shall under go
Imprisonment for a period of one month each. All the sentences shall run concurrently. Benefit of
Section 428 Cr.P.C. shall be given to all the convicts for the period already undergone by them during the trial. Further, the amount of fine so deposited shall be placed at the disposal of the Member Secretary, State Legal Services Authority for disbursement to the victims for purposes of their rehabilitation. The convicts are informed that they have a right to prefer an appeal against this judgment. They have been apprised that in case they cannot afford to engage an advocate, they can approach the Legal Aid Cell, functioning in Tihar Jail or write to the Secretary, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, 34-37, Lawyers Chamber Block, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi. Before ending, I may observe that Social and Legislative Audit of every Welfare Legislation is imperative to enable the legislatures to evaluate and analyse the efficacy and effectiveness of such legislation so enacted by them and judicial pronouncements are an important source of such Audit. The SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 is one such Legislation which came into existence almost two decades ago whose efficacy and effectiveness needs to be evaluated in the changing socioeconomic scenario. I also say this, in view of some of the aspects so highlighted during the trial of this case relating to the various provisions of this legislation which in my view require a re-look and an effective debate. Atrocity is the wrong of the grossest kind and all atrocities are crime against humanity. The SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 deals with atrocities but restricts its operation to the particular groups based upon
caste. Instances are not rare where powerful members of a clan commit atrocity over less fortunate members of the same clan/ caste/ community. Atrocities which deals with crimes/ offences against humanity should not, in my view, be restricted to particular caste or groups. Just as an offender or a violator of law has no caste, creed, race, sex or religion and so does the victim. Section 3 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 is inclusive and not exhaustive. An exhaustive definition is required to be given so as to cover all atrocities inflicted on any citizen of this Country irrelevant of caste, creed, race, sex or religion. I may further observe that community and caste based violence can be prevented by inclusive and interactive political process to subdue the poisonings fanaticism of divisive communal thinking. Caste distinctions are often exploited by those wanting to cultivate discontent and instigate violence and the only effective safeguard is the bonds developed by National democracies and the vigour of the democratic politics in generating tolerant values. Formulation of tolerant values is centric to functioning of smooth democratic system. (Ref.: Idea of Justice by Amartya Sen). Tagore had dreamed of a nation not broken into fragments by narrow thinking with its citizens and with citizens having clear stream of reason. Indian values of liberty, sovereignty, freedom and equality for all have to be cherished and established. It is the obligation of the Courts to bring about the social change through social engineering by proper implementation of Welfare Legislations. This country governed by Rule of Law treats all equally and knows no distinction. Any person or community who take law into its hands has to be legally dealt with at par as any other violators of law. Any legislative distinction in the implementation of Penal provisions on the basis of religion, race, caste,
sex or place of birth (as provided under Article 15 of the Constitution of India) weakens the secular democratic fiber leading to polarization based on religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth and results into division of the Country. The SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 is one such legislation whose provisions create a distinction on the ground of caste in matters of imposition of sentence in case of certain offences [Section 3 (2) (iv) and (v)] thereby creating an anomalous situation, where on the one hand it provides a stringent punishment for imprisonment for life in case if the victim of atrocity is member of Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe and the violator is a not a member of Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe but would let goes a violator who is a member of Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe (irrespective of whether the victim is a member of the Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe or not). Similarly in a case where the victim is not a member of Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe, the punishment provided for the same offence to the violator would be under the General Legislation [IPC which provides for judicial discretion in matters of imposition of punishment which could be lesser than that provided under the SC/ST (POA) Act]. Why this distinction when the crime committed is the same and the victim suffers as much? Further, the provisions of Section 4 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 which provide for a punishment with imprisonment for a term not less than six months which may extend to one year if any public servant, who is not a member of Schedule Caste or Scheduled Tribes, willfully neglects his duties required to be performed under this Act. Non performance/ willful neglect in performance of public duty is directly linked to an Office and can under no circumstances be linked to the Caste of such public servant. All public servants are under an obligation to perform their public duties
and any non performance of duties required to be performed under the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 cannot under any circumstances be tolerated or overlooked which is imperative for one and all. The provisions of Section 4 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 on the one hand let goes a member of the Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe who commits the same crime of non performance/ neglect in the performance of duties in relation to the provisions of the Act but punishes a person who is not a member of Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe. Why so? Is it not a palpable discrimination? To my mind the provisions of Section 4 of SC/ST (POA) Act when subjected to Judicial scrutiny and tested on the touch stone of Constitutional validity and objective/ purpose sought to be attained by the Special Legislation, does not fulfill the constitutional test and object sought to be attained by this Special Legislation there being no rational or logic in creating this exception and it is for this reason that above issues which came up for consideration during trial were left open by this Court for scrutiny by competent authorities. It is this, what has made me ponder if it was not time that the Atrocities Act be made Caste Neutral with a provision for uniform punishment for all violators irrespective of Caste Distinctions. It is with this note that I end by placing on record special appreciation for all the Counsels i.e. Special Public Prosecutors and the defence counsels, Sh. Satish Tamta, Sh. S. P. Ahluwalia, Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Sh. Taufique Ahmed, Sh. B.S. Rana, Sh. P.K. Sandhir, the team of junior Advocates particularly Ms. Anubha Rastogi, Sh. Shreeji Bhavsar, Sh. Rajat Kalsan, Sh. Puneet Ahluwalia, Sh. Tarun Gehlot, Sh. Pradeep Singh Sh. Yashwinder Rathi, Sh. Deepak Lohchab, Sh. Jitender Sharma, Sh. Pankaj Gupta and Sh. Mukesh Kuhar who have all tirelessly
worked and assisted this Court and made it possible to ensure the conclusion of the trial in a time bound manner. Above all, the Court staff Shailendra Vashisth, Pramod Kumar, Yougal Kishore, Monika Rawal, Ghanshyam, Praveen Bhatt, Praveen Kumar, Abhimanyu and Dinesh and the police authorities, particularly Inspector Ram Avtar, SI Puran Chand and many others for making necessary arrangements to ensure the conduct of the trial in a peaceful manner despite huge number of persons involved in the litigation and administrative constraints. Lastly I also place my appreciation on record for the members of the Non Government Organization Human Rights Law Network (HRLN) for tirelessly working for securing justice to the victims of atrocity. I direct that a copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convicts free of costs and another copy of sentence be attached with their jail warrants. Copy of the judgment along with the sentence be also sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana for information and compliance and one copy be sent to the Secretary General, Rajya Sabha to be placed before the concerned committee dealing with Legislative matters. File be consigned to Record Room to be taken up on the arrest of accused Jasbir @ Leelu who is a Proclaimed Offender. Announced in the open court Dated: 31.10.2011 (Dr. KAMINI LAU) ASJ-II(NW)/ Spl. Judge (SC/ST Cases) Rohini Courts, Delhi
Page No. 1091

Mirchpur Killings Case Judgement

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Mirchpur Killings Case Judgement

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SEESIONS JUDGE-II (NORTH-WEST)/ SPL.

St. Vs. Dharambir Etc, FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaund (Haryana)

St. Vs. Dharambir Etc, FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaund (Haryana)

St. Vs. Dharambir Etc, FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaund (Haryana)

St. Vs. Dharambir Etc, FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaund (Haryana)

St. Vs. Dharambir Etc, FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaund (Haryana)

St. Vs. Dharambir Etc, FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaund (Haryana)

St. Vs. Dharambir Etc, FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaund (Haryana)

St. Vs. Dharambir Etc, FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaund (Haryana)

St. Vs. Dharambir Etc, FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaund (Haryana)

St. Vs. Dharambir Etc, FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaund (Haryana)

St. Vs. Dharambir Etc, FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaund (Haryana)

St. Vs. Dharambir Etc, FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaund (Haryana)

St. Vs. Dharambir Etc, FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaund (Haryana)

St. Vs. Dharambir Etc, FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaund (Haryana)

St. Vs. Dharambir Etc, FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaund (Haryana)

St. Vs. Dharambir Etc, FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaund (Haryana)

FIR No.: Police Station: Under Sections:

18.12.2010 2.8.2011/ 17.9.2011 24.9.2011

St. Vs. Dharambir Etc, FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaund (Haryana)

26.2.2011: 11.3.2011: 18.3.2011:

List of witnesses examined:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

St. Vs. Dharambir Etc, FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaund (Haryana)

St. Vs. Dharambir Etc, FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaund (Haryana)

PW 46 PW 47 PW 48 PW 49 PW 50 PW 51 PW 52 PW 53 PW 54 PW 55 PW 56 PW 57 PW 58 PW 59 PW 60 PW 61 PW 62 PW 63 PW 64 PW 65 PW 66 PW 67 PW 68 DW1 DW2 DW3 DW4 DW5 DW6

Sh. Harish Goel (JMIC) Judicial Officer

St. Vs. Dharambir Etc, FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaund (Haryana)

100. DW 32 101. DW 33 102. DW 34 103. DW 35 104. DW 36

St. Vs. Dharambir Etc, FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaund (Haryana)

105. DW 37 106. DW 38 107. DW 39 108. DW 40 109. DW 41 110. 111. 112.

Details of the exhibits:

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

St. Vs. Dharambir Etc, FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaund (Haryana)

St. Vs. Dharambir Etc, FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaund (Haryana)

St. Vs. Dharambir Etc, FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaund (Haryana)

Seizure Memo of Motorcycle and ashes Proved

St. Vs. Dharambir Etc, FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaund (Haryana)

Proved Proved Proved Proved Proved

120. PW54/A21 121. PW54/A22

St. Vs. Dharambir Etc, FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaund (Haryana)

Proved Proved Proved

Disclosure statement of accused Dinesh Proved

St. Vs. Dharambir Etc, FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaund (Haryana)

St. Vs. Dharambir Etc, FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaund (Haryana)

Inquest Papers of Tara Chand

St. Vs. Dharambir Etc, FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaund (Haryana)

St. Vs. Dharambir Etc, FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaund (Haryana)

Arrest Memo of Dinesh S/o Prem Singh Admitted

St. Vs. Dharambir Etc, FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaund (Haryana)

Arrest memo of Rajender S/o Belu Ram Admitted

Arrest memo of Jasbir S/o Ishwar Singh Admitted

St. Vs. Dharambir Etc, FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaund (Haryana)

Arrest memo of Jaibir S/o Balbir

St. Vs. Dharambir Etc, FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaund (Haryana)

Arrest memo of Sandeep S/o Raj Kumar Admitted

St. Vs. Dharambir Etc, FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaund (Haryana)

Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted Admitted

Arrest memo of Baljeet S/o Inder Singh Admitted

St. Vs. Dharambir Etc, FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaund (Haryana)

St. Vs. Dharambir Etc, FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaund (Haryana)

Denied Denied Denied Denied Proved

St. Vs. Dharambir Etc, FIR No. 166/10, PS Narnaund (Haryana)

Bed head ticket of Dinesh S/o Prem Singh