Hariom vs State Of Haryana on 19 February, 2024

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Hariom vs State Of Haryana on 19 February, 2024

                                                          Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022997




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH
                          ****
                                       CRM-M-61734-2023
                                    Reserved on: 15.02.2024
                                  Pronounced on: 19.02.2024
                                                                 2024:PHHC: 022997
HARIOM
                                                                 . . . . PETITIONER
                                         Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA
                                                            . . . . RESPONDENT
                                 ****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
                                 ****
Argued by: - Mr. Pradeep Virk, Advocate,
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

                                        ****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

By way of this petition filed under Section 439 CrPC,

petitioner prays for his release on regular bail in case FIR No.69 dated

13.03.2023 registered under Sections 302/201 IPC at Police Station Sadar

Gohana, District Sonepat.

2. Status report dated 14.02.2024, by way of an affidavit of

Somvir Singh, HPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Gohana-II, Sonipat,

has been filed on behalf of the respondent-State of Haryana and the same is

taken on record.

3.1 As per prosecution version, on 11.06.2021, information was

received by the police that Rinku son of Vishnu Dutt, resident of village

Sikandarpur Majra, District Sonipat was brought to the hospital having

suffered injuries. Police reached the hospital, but no person/witness was

found there. On 12.06.2021, police again visited the hospital, where

Poonam wife of deceased Rinku met the police officials and made

statement, as per which her husband i.e. deceased Rinku was habitual of

1 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 20-02-2024 04:15:56 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022997

CRM-M-61734-2023 2024:PHHC: 022997

consuming liquor. She and her husband were residing separately from her

parents-in-law. On 11.06.2021, her husband had gone to meet his parents.

She went there to call him. When she was returning along with her

husband-Rinku, Rinku fell down in metalled street in front of the house and

suffered injuries on backside of his head. Her father-in-law shifted Rinku to

PGI, Khanpur Kalan, where doctor declared him brought dead. She stated

that her husband had died having sustained injuries due to fall in the street

under influence of liquor and that nobody was at fault and so, she did not

want any action to be taken. Said statement made by Poonam was supported

by Vishnu Dutt-father of the deceased and also by Savitri wife of Krishan.

3.2 As no offence was found to be made out in view of the

aforesaid statement, DDR No.12 dated 12.06.2021 was entered in Police

Station Sadar, Gohana. Inquest report under Section 174 CrPC was

conducted. However, the postmortem examination of the dead body of the

deceased revealed as many as 19 external injuries on his person. Cause of

the death was opined to be head injury coupled with manual strangulation.

All the injuries were opined to be ante-mortem in nature, recent in duration

and caused by blunt force and that manner of death was homicidal. The

Viscera was preserved for chemical analysis and histopathological

examination. After receiving the reports from the FSL, opinion of the

Board of Doctors was obtained, which confirmed the cause of the death to

be head injury coupled with manual strangulation and that manner of death

was homicidal. In these circumstances, offence under Section 302 IPC was

found to have been committed and FIR was accordingly registered.

3.3 During investigation, statements of eye-witnesses namely

Vishnu Dutt (father of the deceased), Kela Devi (mother of deceased)

Page 2 of 5
2 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 20-02-2024 04:15:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022997

CRM-M-61734-2023 2024:PHHC: 022997

besides their neighbour Man Mohan son of Rohtash were recorded. The

parents Vishnu Dutt and Kela Devi disclosed that their son Rinku was

habitual drunkard; and that on 11.06.2021 at about 10:00 PM, Rinku had

come under the influence of liquor. They had asked him to go to his house.

In the meantime, their other son Hariom (petitioner) also came in the street,

where altercation took place between the two brothers and out of anger,

Hariom (petitioner) had inflicted injuries to Rinku, who fell unconscious.

He was shifted to City Hospital and declared brought dead. They also stated

that at that time, they did not know about the cause of death.

3.4 Hariom (petitioner) was arrested on 15.03.2023. On

interrogation, he suffered disclosure statement admitting his guilt. He

disclosed about the altercation between him and the deceased, during which

deceased had caught his private parts and that with a view to get the same

released, he had pressed the throat of Rinku. He also disclosed that he then

took out a wooden fawda and inflicted injuries with the same on the head

and other body parts of Rinku and later on, burnt the wooden fawda.

Section 201 IPC was added. Poonam (wife of the deceased) had already had

already died in the meantime on 05.03.2023.

3.5 After completion of investigation, final report under Section

173 CrPC was filed. Charges were framed on 19.07.2023. Out of 22

witnesses cited by the prosecution, 7 have already been examined and the

next date of hearing is 11.03.2024.

4. It is submitted by ld. counsel that petitioner has been falsely

implicated after registering the FIR more than 1 year and 9 months of delay

from the date of occurrence. All the material witnesses have turned hostile.

Case of the prosecution is based on the disclosure statement of petitioner,

Page 3 of 5
3 of 5
::: Downloaded on – 20-02-2024 04:15:57 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022997

CRM-M-61734-2023 2024:PHHC: 022997

recorded during police custody, which is not admissible in law; that

petitioner is in custody since 15.03.2023; that nothing was recovered from

him; that trial may take long time to conclude and so, he be granted bail.

5. Ld. State counsel opposed the petition by pointing out

towards gravity of offence and that petitioner in his disclosure statement

admitted the guilt. However, it is conceded that the material witnesses of

the petitioner namely Vishnu Dutt and Kela Devi, parents of the petitioner

as well as that of the deceased, have not supported the prosecution.

6. I have considered submissions of both the sides and have

appraised the record.

7. Initial version of the prosecution was that Rinku died due to

fall on the surface under the influence of liquor and had sustained injuries.

This version is based on the statement of Poonam, wife of the deceased,

who has already expired.

8. FIR has been registered after 1 year and 9 months of the

occurrence, based upon the postmortem report and the opinion given by the

Board of Doctors, as per which cause of death of Rinku is head injury

coupled with manual strangulation and that it was a case of homicide.

9. In the investigation, the parents of the deceased namely,

Vishnu Dutt and Kela Devi are stated to have disclosed to the police that it

is their other son i.e. Hariom (petitioner), who had caused injuries to the

deceased, resulting in his death. However, Kela Devi as well as Vishnu

Dutt, during their testimony before the Court as PW2 and PW3

respectively, have not supported the prosecution case at all and were to be

declared hostile, as is evident from their statements, copies of which have

been placed on record.



                                  Page 4 of 5
                                   4 of 5
                ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2024 04:15:57 :::
                                                            Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022997




CRM-M-61734-2023                                            2024:PHHC: 022997



10. PWs Ramesh son of Lakhmi Chand, and Man Mohan son of

Rohtash have also not supported the prosecution version as is evident from

the copies of their statements placed on record. Prosecution is, thus, left

with disclosure statement of the petitioner, which admittedly was recorded

in police custody, after arresting the petitioner. It has been admitted by

PW5 HC Amin, the witnesses to the disclosure statement that no recovery

was effected from the petitioner pursuant to his disclosure statement.

11. Having noticed the aforesaid facts and circumstances, but

without commenting anything further on merits of the case, this Court is of

the view that no purpose shall be served by keeping the petitioner detained,

who is already in custody since 15.03.2023 and as trial may take time to

conclude. Consequently, petition is allowed. Petitioner is admitted to

regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds and surety bonds to the

satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, by observing

usual terms and conditions.



19.02.2024                                               (DEEPAK GUPTA)
Vivek                                                        JUDGE

             1. Whether speaking/reasoned?         Yes
             2. Whether reportable?                No




                                                           Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022997
                                     Page 5 of 5
                                      5 of 5
                ::: Downloaded on - 20-02-2024 04:15:57 :::
 

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

VISHAL SAINI ADVOCATE