Criminal Appeal No.77 DB of 1999 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNAJB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: Feb 11, 2008 Criminal Appeal No.77 DB of 1999 Manjit Singh .....Appellant vs. The State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.D.Anand Present: Ms. Nirmaljeet Kaur, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, DAG, Punjab for the State. JUDGMENT: The appellant is aggrieved by his conviction under section 302 IPC for which he has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo further RI for six months. Maninder Kaur PW2, sister of the deceased Jasbir Singh, visited the house of her aunt (mother's sister as well as wife of father's brother) Davinder Kaur on 23.12.1996 at 5.30 PM. She had been brought up by the said Davinder Kaur DW3 as her parents had died. Her younger brother Jasbir Singh, aged 18 years, Criminal Appeal No.77 DB of 1999 2 was living with Davinder Kaur, who was treating him as her son after death of his parents. The accused is husband of her sister Nita. Maninder Kaur was accompanied by Sukhdev Singh (brother of her husband). Since the call given at the door did not respond, she opened the door after giving 2-3 kicks and found that accused Manjit Singh was strangulating the deceased with the aid of a black coloured Chunni (long cloth). She raised alarm, on which the accused left the spot. Jasbir Singh had died. She proceeded to inform the police and met Inspector Charan Dass PW3 on the way, who recorded her statement Ex.PF at 6.40 PM at Chowk Chatiwind, Amritsar. According to her, Jasbir Singh was the only heir of his parents and of Davinder Kaur. A sum of Rs.70,000/- was deposited in his name, which he could withdraw within few days of becoming major. The accused wanted to usurp the property. Inspector Charan Dass PW3 prepared inquest report Ex.PC and sent the dead body for post mortem. In the inquest report, he made a note against Column No.15 that the deceased was holding hair in his hands. He had mark of strangulation. Dr. Gurmanjit Singh PW1 conducted post mortem examination and found a bunch of white and black colour hair in the fingers of right hand of the deceased. He found the following injuries:- Criminal Appeal No.77 DB of 1999 3 “1. Ligature mark A reddish brown ligature mark 32 x 3 cms was present at the level of thyroid cartilage, completely encircling the neck. An area of 5 cms in the ligature mark on right side of back of neck was pale in colour and spared of mark. 2)Multiple reddish brown abrasions (11 in number) present below the mark on front of neck. Size varies from 1 x 0.3 cms to 0.2 cm x 0.1 cms. 3)Reddish brown abrasion 1 x 0.5 cms present on right side of face 1 cm lateral to outer angle of eye. 4)Reddish brown abrasion 0.5 x 0.2 cms on front of left leg in its lower 1/3rd.” In his opinion, death was on account of legature strangulation which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He handed over, inter-alia, plastic jar containing bunch of hair removed from the right hand of the deceased. The said hair was sent to the FSL and as per report Ex.PX, hair contained in parcel 'A' recovered from the right hand grip of the deceased had similar character with the hair contained in parcel 'B' alleged to be of the scalp of the accused. After completing investigation, the accused was challaned. The accused denied the prosecution allegations and stated that his wife was daughter of Davinder Kaur, who had brought up PW2 Maninder Kaur and the deceased Jasbir Singh Criminal Appeal No.77 DB of 1999 4 who were both daughter and son of her sister. Davinder Kaur had arranged the marriage of Maninder Kaur as well as his wife Nita. Maninder Kaur was inimical to him and his wife and had not even attended their marriage. He examined DW1 Navjot Sandhu, Journalist, DW2 Sawinder Singh, photographer and DW3 Davinder Kaur to the effect that it was not known as to who caused the death. The trial court accepted the version of the prosecution and convicted and sentenced the accused. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. There is sole testimony of Maninder Kaur PW2 in the form of ocular account and it is reliability of her version on which the case primarily rests. Contention on behalf of the appellant is that testimony of Maninder Kaur PW2 was not reliable, as she was inimical to the accused and she was the real sister of the deceased. The accused or his wife was not heir, who would have inherited the estate of the deceased. It was also submitted that Chemical Examiner's report about comparability of hair recovered from the deceased with the hair of the accused, was not conclusive evidence. Reference was made to Modi's 'Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology' (23rd Edition), page 312, wherein it has been observed that science of Criminal Appeal No.77 DB of 1999 5 comparison of hair has not yet reached perfection like the comparison of fingerprints. Dissimilarity of hair can be more reliably shown than their similarity. Similar observations have been made in 'Forensic Science in Criminal Investigation and Trials' (4th Edition), page 1049 by B.R.Sharma, to the effect that identification of hair is not conclusive at the present stage of development except through DNA profiling. Learned counsel for the State, however, referred to the testimony of PW2 Maninder Kaur, to the effect that parents of the deceased had died and the deceased was living with Davinder Kaur, who had no other issue. He was, thus, being treated as her own son by Davinder Kaur and he was to inherit the entire property of his parents as well as that of Davinder Kaur. She had orally adopted Jasbir Singh. We are of the view that there is no reason to reject the testimony of PW2 Maninder Kaur, who is sister of the deceased. Relation witness cannot be treated as interested witness. A close relative will be the last person to leave aside the real accused and to falsely implicate the other close relative. There is nothing to substantiate defence version that Maninder Kaur was inimical to the accused or had not attended his marriage. The version given by PW2 Maninder Kaur is corroborated by version immediately after the occurrence. Even DW3 Davinder Kaur stated that when she Criminal Appeal No.77 DB of 1999 6 came back home at 5.30 PM, her son Jasbir Singh was dead and PW2 Maninder Kaur was present, who told her that he had been strangulated to death by the accused. She denied the version of DW1 Navjot Sandhu and DW2 Sawinder Singh attributing interview to her to the effect that she did not know who killed her son. She further stated that her husband was brother of father of Jasbir Singh deceased. She refers to Jasbir Singh as her own son. In our view, version given by by Maninder Kaur PW2 is truthful. FIR was immediately lodged. The medical testimony also corroborates the version of strangulation. Comparison of hair, no doubt may not be perfect science, has been relied upon by the prosecution only as corroboration to the ocular account. We accept the ocular account as truthful. Once ocular testimony is reliable, inadequacy or absence of motive cannot be given any significance and the case of the prosecution cannot be rejected on the ground that the motive was not sufficient. Contention that the accused would not have been benefited by elimination of the deceased is not correct in view of the fact that even if the accused's wife was not real sister of Jasbir Singh, she was the sole heir of Davinder Kaur, in absence of the deceased. If the deceased would have been alive, he might have inherited the property of Davinder Kaur, who was treating him as her son. However, we do not consider it necessary to express any Criminal Appeal No.77 DB of 1999 7 final view on correctness or otherwise of the motive pleaded. It is well-settled that if eye witness account is reliable, motive is not of much significance. In view of above, we do not find any merit in the appeal. Conviction and sentence of the appellant is upheld. The appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge February 11 , 2008 (S.D.Anand) 'gs' Judge