Criminal Appeal No.94-DB of 2002. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.94-DB of 2002. Date of Decision : 13.8.2010. Ranjit Singh and another ...... Appellants Versus State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLR MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. H.S.Gill, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vivek Goyal, Advocate, for the appellants. Ms. Manjri Nehru Kaul, Addl. AG Punjab, for the respondent-State. Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate, for the complainant. NAWAB SINGH J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated January 7th 2002 passed by Sessions Judge, Sangrur, whereby, the accused-appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence Sentence Fine In default U/S 302/34 IPC Imprisonment - - for Life. U/S 364 IPC RI for 7 years Rs.2000/- RI for 6 months 2. On March 18th, 1997 at about 7.00 PM, Gurbachan Singh (PW-4) along with his sons - Rajinder Singh and Sukhwinder Singh (deceased) (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") was present in his house in village Bhindran. Major Singh (died during the pendency of the trial), Ranjit Singh and Criminal Appeal No.94-DB of 2002. 2 Bahadur Singh, accused-appellants came to the house of Gurbachan Singh (PW-4) and called the deceased out for a stroll. The deceased went with them but did not return. During night, search was made but no clue could be found. 3. On March 19th, 1997 at about 9.00 AM, the dead body of the deceased was found lying in the canal minor on the cart- road leading from village Laddi to Naiwala near kotha (chamber) of tubewell of Nihal Singh (PW-3). It had multiple injuries on his person. An empty bottle of country-made liquor and a glass were also found lying near the kotha. On the track of canal and in front of the kotha, foot-prints were also found. A suspicion arose against Major Singh about the murder of the deceased because a few days prior to the occurrence, the deceased had cut a joke with Sukhpal Kaur alias Palo, niece of Major Singh, regarding which Major Singh made grievance to Gurbachan Singh (PW-4). Rajinder Singh remained on the spot to guard the dead-body. Gurbachan Singh (PW-4) went to the house of Ajaib Singh, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Bhindran and along with him proceeded to lodge the report to the Police. Tale Ram, Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Sangrur (PW-16) met them near Nankiana chowk, Sangrur. He recorded his statement (Exhibit PA) narrating the aforesaid facts. First Information Report (Exhibit PA/1) was registered in Police Station, Kotwali, Sangrur. 4. Tale Ram (PW-16) reached the spot. He conducted inquest proceedings (Exhibit PB). A pair of shoes of the deceased (Exhibit P-10/12) and blood stained earth (Exhibit P-11) were taken into possession from the spot by the Investigator vide recovery memorandums Exhibit PO and PQ respectively. An empty bottle of country-made liquor (Exhibit P-8) and glass (Exhibit P-9) having finger marks on it, found in front of the kotha of tubewell of Nihal Singh (PW-3) were also taken into possession vide recovery memorandum (Exhibit PM) in the presence of Gurmeet Singh Sub- Inspector, (PW-12) Finger Prints Expert, Patiala who preserved the finger prints on the bottle and the glass with grew powder. Moulds of Criminal Appeal No.94-DB of 2002. 3 feet were prepared and taken into possession vide recovery memorandum (Exhibit PR and PS). Autopsy was conducted on the dead body of deceased. When Tale Ram (PW-16) - Investigator was present on the spot, Babu Ram (PW-1), Gurjant Singh (PW-2) and Nihal Singh (PW-3) reached there and made their respective statements. The resume of their statements is as under :- i). Babu Ram (PW-1) stated that on March 18th, 1997, at about 10.00 PM, he reached the tubewell of Darshan Singh in order to search his buffalo and witnessed Major Singh armed with a dagger, Ranjit Singh armed with a kirpan and Bahadur Singh armed with a knife causing injuries to the deceased with their respective weapons and threw him in the canal minor. He asked as to why they were causing injuries to the deceased. The accused replied that they were teaching a lesson to the deceased as he was in the habit of teasing girls in the village. He was warned not to divulge the incident to any one in the village. He came back to his village and slept. ii). Gurjant Singh (PW-2), uncle's son of the deceased, also witnessed the accused-appellants and the deceased consuming liquor on the canal bank and exchanging abuses, while he was on his way to Sangrur on bicycle at 9.30 PM. He asked them not to hurl abuses to each other, on which they told him that it was none of his business and advised him to go to home as it was their routine matter. iii). Nihal Singh (PW-3) also another uncle's son of the deceased, met the accused on March 18th, 1997 at about 10.15 PM on the village road, while he was on his way to his village on his bicycle from village Balian and noticed the accused armed with dagger, knife and kirpan. The clothes of the accused were blood stained. He asked them where they were coming from? They told him that they were coming from hunting. Next day, he learnt that Criminal Appeal No.94-DB of 2002. 4 Sukhwinder Singh was murdered. The Police came in the village and he made his statement to it. 5. On March 27th, 1997, the accused-appellants and Major Singh went to Khazan Singh, Sarpanch of their village and confessed their guilt before him. He produced all the accused before the Police and were arrested. 6. The accused were interrogated. During interrogation, Ranjit Singh-accused-appellant made disclosure statement (Exhibit PAA) that he had kept concealed kirpan (Exhibit P-5) under the heap of wheat-chaff in the room of his house and could get the same recovered. In pursuance thereto, the blood stained kirpan was got recovered and the same was taken into possession vide seizure memorandum (Exhibit PAA/1). Bahadur Singh, accused-appellant, pursuant to his disclosure statement (Exhibit PCC), got recovered blood stained knife (Exhibit P7) from the room of wheat chaff of his house which was taken into possession vide recovery memorandum (Exhibit PCC/2). Similarly, Major Singh (since deceased), pursuant to his disclosure statement (Exhibit PBB), got recovered blood stained dagger (Exhibit P6) from the room of his house and the same was taken into possession vide recovery memorandum (Exhibit PBB/1). 7. On March 28th, 1997, finger prints of the accused were taken by the Investigator after obtaining orders (Exhibit PEE/1) from Shri Mewa Singh, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sangrur (PW- 17). On the same day – March 28th, 1997, Investigator had also taken the foot prints of the accused-appellants in the presence of Parveen Kumar, Naib Tehsildar, Longowal (PW-14). 8. The weapons of offence dagger, kirpan and knife allegedly got recovered by Major Singh, Ranjit Singh and Bahadur Singh respectively were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh (for short 'the FSL'). Vide its report dated April 22nd, 1997, human blood was found on the weapons. 9. Moulds bearing impressions of left naked foot and right naked foot C-1 and C-2 respectively lifted from the scene of Criminal Appeal No.94-DB of 2002. 5 crime and moulds bearing impressions of left and right naked foot of Ranjit Singh T-1 and T-2 respectively and that of Major Singh T-1 and T2 were sent to the FSL. The FSL vide its report dated April 30th, 1997 found that the impressions of the left naked foot of mould C-1 were of left naked foot of Ranjit Singh T-1 and the impressions of right naked foot C-2 were of right naked foot of Major Singh T-2. 10. The empty bottle of liquor, the glass lifted from the spot, four photographs bearing the photographed impressions and three sample papers bearing 10 digit impressions of Ranjit Singh, Bahadur Singh and Major Singh were sent to the Finger Prints Bureau, Phillaur for comparison. The Finger Prints, Bureau vide his report (Exhibit PLL) found that the finger impressions of Major Singh tallied with finger impressions on the glass. 11. On completion of investigation, the accused were arraigned for trial. 12. The accused-appellants were charged under Sections 302 and 364 read with Section 34 IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 13. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined eighteen witnesses viz. Babu Singh (PW-1), Gurjant Singh (PW-2), Nihal Singh (PW-3), Gurbachan Singh (PW-4), Khazan Singh (PW- 5), Dr. Ravinder Bansal (PW-6), Nachhatar Singh, Patwari, (PW-7), Bhim Sain, Head Constable (PW-8), Jarnail Singh, Head Constable (PW-9), Ajaib Singh, Constable (PW-10), Jagmohan Singh, Constable (PW-11), Gurmeet Singh, Sub Inspector (PW-12), Sohan Lal, Sub Inspector (PW-13), Parveen Kumar, Naib Tehsildar (PW- 14), Maghar Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW-15), Tale Ram, Inspector – Investigator (PW-16), Mewa Singh, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (PW-17) and Jagtar Singh, Constable (PW-18). 14. In their examination recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied their complicity and pleaded innocence. 15. The accused-appellants examined Balbir Singh (DW-1) and Ram Dass (DW-2) in their defence. Balbir Singh on the Criminal Appeal No.94-DB of 2002. 6 basis of summoned record---attendance register proved that Gurjant Singh (PW-2) attended the class in Industrial Training Institute on March 19th, 1997 from 9 AM to 5 PM at Sangrur. He proved the copy of the attendance register (Exhibit DA). Ram Dass (DW-2) proved the daily diary report Nos.12, 21 and 33. 16. The evidence on record, material circumstances of the case and the arguments addressed by learned counsel for the parties have been appraised. 17. The probative evidence led by the prosecution is :- (i) that on March 18th, 1997 at about 7 PM, the accused-appellants had taken away the deceased from his house in the presence of deceased's father Gurbachan Singh (PW-4). (ii) that on March 18th, 1997 at about 9.30 PM, the accused-appellants and the deceased were seen together on the bridge of canal minor consuming liquor and exchanging abuses by Gurjant Singh (PW-2). (iii) that on March 18th, 1997 at about 10 PM, the accused-appellants were also witnessed by Babu Singh (PW-1) causing injuries with their respective weapons to the deceased. (iv) that on March 18th, 1997 at about 10.15 PM, the accused-appellants armed with lethal weapons viz knife, dagger and kirpan having blood stains on their clothes were seen by Nihal Singh (PW-3). (v) that the dead-body of deceased was found in the canal minor near the tubewell of Nihal Singh. (vi) that the accused-appellants made extra-judicial confession before Khajan Singh (PW-5). (vii) the recovery of blood strained knife, dagger and kirpan at the instance of Bahadur Singh, Major Sigh and Ranjit Singh from the place where they kept concealed. According to report of the FSL dated April 22nd, 1997, human blood was found on all these weapons. (viii) that bottle of liquor and glass taken from the spot had the finger prints of Major Singh-accused. Criminal Appeal No.94-DB of 2002. 7 (ix) that moulds of feet were also taken from the spot and the same were found to be of Major Singh and Ranjit Singh accused-appellants. 18. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants has assailed the evidence in regard to (i) to (iv) given by the witnesses on the ground that testimony of these witnesses should not be believed as they are interested witnesses being related to the deceased. 19. Admittedly, Babu Singh (PW-1) is relation of the deceased. Gurjant Singh (PW-2) and Nihal Singh (PW-3) are uncle's sons of the deceased. Gurbachan Singh (PW-4) is father of the deceased. The law on this aspect is now well settled. Evidence of related witnesses cannot be rejected straightway on the sole ground that they are interested witnesses. The Court has to scrutinize evidence of interested witnesses with care and caution. It may be also pointed out that close relations of the deceased are, in fact, best witnesses who would naturally like to ensure that the culprits do not escape. In this connection, it is considered necessary to reproduce observations made by the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Kalki and another AIR 1981 SC 1390. The observations were made in relation to the deposition of widow of the deceased who was said to be the most natural witness. The observations are : “Related' is not equivalent to 'interested'. A witness may be called 'interested' only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eye witness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be 'interested'. In the circumstances of the instant case, the widow of the deceased was the only and most natural witness; she was the only person present in the hut with the deceased at the time of the occurrence, and the only person who saw the Criminal Appeal No.94-DB of 2002. 8 occurrence. True, it is she is the wife of the deceased; but she cannot be called an 'interested' witness. She is related to the deceased. She had no interest in protecting the real culprit and falsely implicating the accused.” 20. In Shyam Vs. State of M.P. 2007(2) RCR (Criminal) 61 the occurrence was witnessed by wife of the deceased. She gave cogent and lucid description and withstood the test of cross-examination. It was ruled that there is no proposition of law that relatives are to be treated as un-truthful witnesses. If the peal of partiality is removed then reason has to be shown that witness wanted to shield the actual culprit and implicate the accused. 21. In the light of aforesaid proposition of law, let us examine the evidence of four witnesses. 22. The evidence of last seen consists of in the statement of Gurbachan Singh (PW-4). He deposed that on March 18th, 1997 at about 7 PM, the accused-appellants and Major Singh called and took away the deceased from his house for a stroll and thereafter, the deceased did not return. On next day-March 19th, 1997 at about 9 AM, the dead-body of deceased was found in the canal minor. The accused-appellants and the deceased were co- villagers. The evidence of Gurbachan Singh has been corroborated by Gurjant Singh (PW-2) who while on his way to Sangrur on bicycle noticed the accused-appellants, Major Singh and the deceased taking liquor on the bridge of the canal minor. According to Gurjant Singh (PW-2), he was a student of ITI at Sangrur and he was to attend his class on the morning of March 19th, 1997 and was to stay at Sangrur on the night of March 18th, 1997. Balbir Singh (DW-1) has testified that Gurjant Singh attended the class on March 19th, 1997 which proves that he was on his way to Sangrur when he witnessed the accused-appellants, Major Singh and the deceased consuming liquor on the bridge of the canal minor. Gurjant Singh's statement further finds corroboration from the fact that bottle of country-made liquor (Exhibit P-8) and the glass (Exhibit P-9) were found lying near Criminal Appeal No.94-DB of 2002. 9 the bridge in front of the tubewell of Nihal Singh. Except that these witnesses are father and cousin of the deceased, no flaw could be pointed out in their testimony by the learned counsel for the accused- appellants. Their evidence cannot be thrown overboard on this point alone in view of the judgments referred to above on the point at issue. In view of this, the evidence of these witnesses is trustworthy and the prosecution has established that soon before the death of deceased, he was last seen in the company of the accused- appellants and Major Singh. 23. The evidence of Nihal Singh (PW-3) is worth credence when he stated that he met and conversed with Ranjit Singh, Bahadur Singh accused-appellants and Major Singh accused carrying blood stained kirpan, knife and dagger and their clothes were also having blood stains because kirpan (Exhibit P-5), knife (Exhibit P-7) and the dagger (Exhibit P-6) recovered at the instance of Ranjit Singh, Bahadur Singh accused-appellants and Major Singh were sent to the FSL and vide its report dated April 22nd, 1997, human blood was found on all the weapons. This instance alone proves that Nihal Singh (PW-3) met the accused-appellants while they were carrying blood stains arms. 24. Now comes the ocular testimony given by Babu Singh (PW-1). He has given a vivid narration of the occurrence. He was in search of his buffaloes in the field. On March 18th, 1997 at about 10 PM, he witnessed the accused-appellants and Major Singh armed with kirpan, knife and the dagger respectively and causing about 17/18 injuries to the deceased. He also overheard them saying that they would teach him a lesson for teasing girls. He also asked them as to why they were killing the deceased. He was warned not to divulge the incident to any one otherwise, he would also face the same consequences which the deceased faced. This witness was cross-examined at length but his credence could not be shaken. Rather, during hearing also, learned counsel for the accused- appellants could not point out any flaw in his testimony except that why did he not report the incident to the father of the deceased or Criminal Appeal No.94-DB of 2002. 10 anyone else in the village upto 3 PM when the Police came in the village. It shows that he was an introduced witness, it has been argued. The answer to the same is very simple. It has come in the statement of Babu Singh (PW-1) that the accused threatened to kill him if he narrated the incident to anybody. He has also stated that he remained in his house throughout until the Police came in the village. Under these circumstances, it was not unnatural for Babu Singh to hide himself than to freely move in the village. Possibility can not be ruled out that due to the threat, Babu Singh might have been under the fear that he may also be eliminated to screen the eye witness account of the occurrence by the accused. The testimony of Babu Singh is also in consonance with the post-mortem examination report. Dr. Ravinder Bansal (PW-6) conducted the post-mortem on the dead-body of the deceased and found the following injuries on his person :- 1. Incised wound 7 cm x 1 cm present in occipital area, horizontal, on dissection underlying bone was fractured. Brain matter incused, blood was present in cranial cavity. 2. Incised wound of 9 cm x 1 cm x bone deep present in right maxillary area extending from nose towards right ear. 3. Eliptical penetrating wound of 3 cm x 1 ½ cm x lungs deep present on left side of chest, 6 cm lateral to sternum just below clavicle. On dissection underlying rib fractured, pleurae incised, lung penetrated and blood present in pleural cavity. 4. Lacerated wound of 2 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep present in lt (left) mammary area. 5. Lacerated wound of 1.6 cm x 1 cm x muscle present inferolateral to right nipple. 6. Penetrating elipticle wound of 2 cm x 1 cm present in right infra mammary area of chest in anterior axillary line. On dissection underlying Criminal Appeal No.94-DB of 2002. 11 pleura and ribs fractured, pleura with lung, penetrated & blood present in pleura cavity. 7. Eliptical penetrating wound of 1 cm x 0.5 cm present in left iliac area of abdomen intestinal coils protruding out of it. On dissection peretoneum and underlying gut coils perforated and blood present in abdominal cavity. 8. Incised wound of 5 cm x 1 cm present on ulnar side of back of right wrist. Underlying bones fractured. 9. Incised wound of 4 cm x 1 cm present on back of lower third of right forearm. 10. Lacerated wound of 8 cm x 1 cm present on anterior side of middle of right palm. 11. Incised wound of 2 cm x 1 cm present on lateral side of upper third of left arm. 12. Incised wound of 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on back of left elbow. 13. Incised wound of 4 cm x 1 cm x muscle on back of left hand at bases of index and middle fingers. 14. Incised wound of 2 cm x 0.5 cm on back of left thumb with underlying fracture of bone at IP joint. 15. Incised wound of 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm at base of left thumb. 16. Incised wound of 1 cm x 0.5 cm on back at about middle of dorsal spine. 17. Incised wound of 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm on back of right scapular area. 18. Incised wound of 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm on back of neck. He also opined that the injuries could be caused by kirpan (Exhibit P-5), Dagger (Exhibit P-6) and the knife (Exhibit P-7). In view of this, medical evidence adduced in the present case is also supporting the ocular evidence. Criminal Appeal No.94-DB of 2002. 12 25. In view of above, there is no force in the submission of learned counsel for discarding the testimony of aforesaid four witnesses viz Babu Singh (PW-1), Gurjant Singh (PW- 2), Nihal Singh (PW-3) and Gurbachan Singh (PW-4) on the ground that they were related to the deceased. 26. In this case, motive has also been proved. A few days prior to the occurrence, deceased had cut a joke on the niece of Major Singh. Major Singh felt offended. He conveyed his annoyance to Gurbachan Singh (PW-4) about the incident. In this part of the country to tease someone's daughter, niece, sister or wife is considered to be a social insult and humiliation and it is very difficult to swallow the humiliation in the family and the village. That constitutes an adequate motive for the crime. 27. This Court may notice here a serious omission committed by the trial Judge. The feet moulds, the bottle of liquor and the glass were taken into possession by the Investigator from the scene of occurrence. The finger and foot prints of the accused- appellants and Major Singh were also taken. All these items were sent to the Finger Prints Bureau and FSL. Vide report (Exhibit PLL), Director, Finger Prints Bureau, Phillaur found that the finger prints on the glass were that of Major Singh and the moulds of the feet taken from the spot were of Ranjit Singh accused-appellant and Major Singh as finds mentioned in the report of the Deputy Director, FSL, Punjab, Chandigarh dated April 30th, 1997. These circumstances, of course, binds the accused-appellants to the crime but it is unfortunate that no specific question about these circumstances has been put to them by the Court in their examination under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure. Trial Judge even did not notice these circumstances in the impugned judgment. Be that as it may, there is overwhelming evidence led by the prosecution discussed in the preceding paragraphs of the judgment which unerringly points to the conclusion that within all human probabilities, the murder of Sukhwinder Singh was committed by the accused-appellants and none else. This Court, therefore, upholds the conviction and Criminal Appeal No.94-DB of 2002. 13 sentence of the accused-appellants and dismisses their appeal. 28. The accused-appellants were released on bail by this Court during the pendency of the appeal. Their bail/surety bonds are cancelled. They be arrested and sent to jail to undergo the remaining part of sentence. Learned trial Judge is directed to comply with this order forthwith under intimation to this Court. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE JUDGE 13.8.2010. som Whether refer to reporter :