Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
41. She stated that she came near to the joint wall and through space in the wall saw that Ram Chander (accused) and Randhir (accused) were holding Gandasas in their hands whereas Sohan Lal (accused) and Om Prakash (accused) had caught hold of Masso's hand and legs and Ram Chl!nder (accused) with his gandasa gave blow on Messo's neck, which completely severed Messo's neck from her body.
42. She stated that Ram Kumar (accused) then caught hold of Raj Bala who was on a separate cot and Ranbir (accused) with his gandasa gave blow on Raj Bala's throat due to which her neck was completely severed from her body. The accused persons then put both · the bodies on one cot along with their severed heads and put mattresses on the dead bodies. Sohan Lal then put some wood sticks by the side of the cot and poured two tins'-Of diesel/kerosene on the cot and set the cot ablaze with matchstick.
43. She stated that Ranbir (accused) then came to her (Guddi's) house and took their tractor and camel cart to Messo's house. He dumped ashes, bones and other burnt material in the tractor and proceeded with the tractor to an unknown place. She_ stated that before leaving, Ram Chander plastered the place of occurrence with mud and cow-dung and cleaned the place. She stated that she told about this incident to Bhoop Singh but on hearing it, he ran away out of fear.
44. She stated that next morning when Ram Sarup, Dholi and Om -Prakash-Sarpanch came, she narrated the entire incident to them, which eventually led to filing of FIR by Dholi immediately in the conce!'lWd nearby Police Station naming therein the appellants as the culprits ~f commission of the offence.
45. Dholi (PW-8) corroborated the evidence ofGuddi (PW-9) on material points such as (I) all the accused visiting Messo's house and giving threat in her presence to Messo and Raj Bala, (2))laj Bala's marriage proposal with a boy from Manik Dewan (3) She having left to her uncle's place at the request of her mother Messo to infor,m him about the incident (4) her family relations with the accused and with RAM CHANDER & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] other family members and lastly, what Guddi (PW-9) told her about the entire incident arid the manner in which it was accomplished by the accused on her reaching the house next day morning with Ram Sarup and Om Prakash.
46. Ram Sarup (PW-10) also corroborated the version of Guddi (PW-9) and Dholi (PW-8) on all material points. He stated that when he along with Dholi and Om Prakash went to Guddi, she was weeping and frightened. On being consoled, she narrated the entire incident (mentioned above) to them.
47. The evidence of the Investigating Officer H.ardawari Lal (PW- 11) and Kiran Kumar (PW-7) who was the Scientific ~ssistant (Forensic Science Laboratory) proved that the blood stains were found on the walls and earth and also fresh mud and cow-dung was found on the walls and when it was removed, blood stains were noticed on the bricks of the wall. Kiran Kumar (PW-7) also corroborated the existence of joint wall with sufficient space available' in the common wall as stated by Guddi (PW- 9).
48. The evidence of Investigating Officer (Pw:11) also. pro\ .:·d the recoveries ofarticles on the basis of disclosure statements made by respective appellants (accused). The seized articles were proved and exhibited.
49. It is with this evidence, the question arises as to whether the two Courts below were justified in placing reliance on the evidence of Guddi (PW-9) for resting the appellant's conviction?
50. On scan.ning the aforementioned evidence, we are of the considered opinion that both the Courts below were justified in accepting the evidence ofGuddi (PW-9).for resting the appellants' conviction upon it. We, while concurring with the reasoning and the conclusion of both the Courts below, give our reasons infra. In our view, the following facts are proved with the aid of evidence.
51. First, Guddi (PW-9) was next·doorneighbour to the house of both the deceased where the incident took place. Second, she was closely related to the deceased family and the family of the accused. Third, she knew the accused persons and the family members of the deceased very well much prior to the date of incident being a part of the same families. Fourth, she was fully aware of the marriage issue of Raj Bala. Fifth, she was present at the time of threat giv~;1 by Sohan Lal and his c c (2017] l S.C.R. sons (accused) to Messa. Sixth, she was able to see the incident graphically due to sufficient space available in the common wall. Seventh, · Scientific Assistant, Kiran Kumar (PW-7) on inspection of the place of occurrence proved that the common wall has space. He said "there was open space between this wall and the room". Eighth, it also corroborates with the evidence of Hardawari Lal(PW-11) and the spot map (EX-PU) of the place of incidence that the wall and the open space therein did exist; Ninth, Guddi's narration of entire incident is so graphic that it looks natural. lt also shows how confidently she was able to narrate the role of every accused in commission of the offence.
Tenth, the existence of blood stains on wall and earth coupled with fresh mud and cow dung put on the walls/earth duly proved by Hardawari Lal, Investigating Officer(PW-11) and Kiran Kumar (PW-7) corroborates Guddi's statement that '"Ram Chander – one of the accused before leaving the place of occurrence cleaned the place with mud and cow-dung … Eleventh, it is not possible to give description of an incident in such graphic manner and that too by a middle aged illiterate housewife unless she had actually seen such incident and why should Guddi (PW- 9) give evidence against the appellants and falsely implicate them when there is no evidence to prove their previous animosity; Twelfth, motive to eliminate the two deceased was proved by Guddi against the appellants a11d lastly, nothing could be brought out to shake her testimony in cross- examination.
52. The submission oflearned counsel for the appellants that since Guddi (PW-9) was in close relation with the deceased persons, she should not be believed for want of evidence ofany independent witness, deserves to be rejected in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Dalbir Kaur and Ors. vs. State of Punjab, ( 1976) 4 SCC 158, and Harbans Kaur and Anr. vs. State of Haryana, (2005) 9 SCC 195, which lays down the following proposition: "There is no proposition in law that relatives are to be treated as untruthful witnesses. On the contrary, reason has to be shown when a plea of partiality is raised to show that the witnesses had reason to shield actual culprit and falsely implicate the accused."
53. In Namdeo Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 14 SCCl50, this Court further held: "38 ……….. it is clear that a close relative cannot be .. RAM CHANDER & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] characterised as an "interested" lvitness. He is a "natural" witness. His evidence, however, must be scrutinised carefully. If on such scrutiny, his evidence is found to be intrinsically reliable, inherently probable and wholly trustworthy, conviction can be based on the "sole" testimony of such witness. Close relationship of witness with the deceased or victim is no ground to reject his evidence. On the contrary, close relative of the deceased wouid normally be most reluctant to spare the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent one."
54. We follow and apply this well settled princ.iple of law for rejecting the submissions oflearned counsel for the appellants.
55. In the light of aforementioned twelve reasons, we are of the view that Guddi (PW-9) was rightly held to be an eye-witness and the two Courts rightly relied upon her sworn testimony for sustaining the appellants' conviction.
56. This takes us to the next argument of learned counsel for the appellants. It was urged that the alleged recovery of articles on the strength of disclosure statement of the accused and in particular the "ashes and the bones" from the canal is not possible. We do not agree. c
57. In our view, there is no evidence to prove the fact as to whether the canal from where the recovery of ashes and bones was made had any water therein or not at the relevant time. We do not find that any question was put to any witness on this issue and secondly, no independent evidence was brought on record to prove as to whether the canal was full ofwateror had no water therein. In any event, one could not dispute that bones were recovered from the canal. In the absence of any evidence, which could otherwise be led in any form, this submission at this stage is, therefore, not acceptable.
58. This takes us to the next argument of learned counsel for the appellants. Learned Counsel urged that why the prosecution did not examine any independent witness from the village other then Guddi (PW-9).
59. We find no merit in this submission for more than one reason. First, no such argument was advanced before the two courts below. Second, the incident had taken place during midnight when all the villagers were fast asleep. Third, no evidence was adduced to prove that near the c [2017] I S.C.R. place of incident, there were many houses and lastly, had the injury been caused by the Gun Shot, it would have created some noise in the nearby locality and attractthe attention of the villagers. Such was, however, not the case because the weapon used in commission of the offence was 'Gandasa'.
60. In our considered opinion, the disclosure statements made by the accused during their interrogation on the basis of which the recoveries of articles were made such as – gandasa, bones, ashes, blood stained bricks and earth, tractor with cart, two plastic cans smelling dies.el oil, which were duly proved by the Investigating Officer are sufficient to sustain the conviction when it is examined in the context of oral evidence. Merely because no expert opinion was obtained to prove as to whether bones recovered were human or animal bones, in our view, would not weaken the case of prosecution in the light of overwhelming evidence available on record to prove the complicity of the appellants.
61. It is the consistent view of this Court that minor discrepancies, even if noticed, wou Id not affect the prosecution case, if there is a sufficient independent evidence to sustain the conviction. (See.- Vijay @ Chinee vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 8 SCC 191, Paras 23 & 23). In this case, the evidence adduced was found sufficient to sustain the conviction and we find no good ground to take a different view from the one taken by the two Courts below and concur with their findings and views by giving our own reasons mentioned supra.
62. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeals are found to be devoid of any merit. The appeals thus fail and are accordingly dismissed. In case ifany of the appellants is on bail, his bail bond stands cancelled and he is directed to be taken into custody forthwith to undergo remaining period of sentence awarded to him by the Sessions Court. Devika Gujral Appeals dismissed.