Crl.A.No.280-DB of 1998 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. Crl.A.No.280-DB of 1998 Date of decision: February , 2oo8 Mohinder Singh ....Appellant. vs. State of Haryana ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTI CE J.S.KHEHAR. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER. --- Present: Mr.R.S.Manhas, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.J.S.Toor, Addl. Advocate General Haryana, for the State. -- J.S.KHEHAR,J. The instant appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Narnaul in Sessions Case No. 2 of 1995, decided on 9.3.1998. By the impugned judgment, the accused/appellant Mohinder Singh has been held guilty for the murder of Santra and accordingly convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. By a separate order passed on the next day i.e. on 10.3.1998, the accused/appellant Mohinder Singh was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The prosecution version of the incident is based on the statement of the complainant Pintu PW8 son of the deceased Santra who had eye witnessed to the occurrence. The complainant Pintu PW8 made a statement on 30.10.1994 to Sub Inspector Shish Pal Singh PW11, that he along with his mother Santra were residing in village Khudana. The other Crl.A.No.280-DB of 1998 2 members of his family namely, his father Mool Chand and his elder brother Raju are stated to be employed in Delhi. It was alleged that Raju son of Ami Lal had good terms with his mother Santra. However, Raju and Ami Lal started to give beatings to Santra, and therefore, a complaint was made to the police which had challaned Ami Lal as well as Raju under Section 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the complainant Pintu PW8 the accused/appellant Mohinder Singh is the cousin of the complainant PW8 i.e. the son of the elder brother of the complainant's father Mool Chand. The accused/appellant Mohinder Singh is also stated to be married to the daughter of brother of Santra. The accused/appellant Mohinder Singh was unhappy with the relationship between the complainant's mother Santra and Raju son of Ami Lal. On a day before the occurrence, Hari Singh the elder brother of the accused/appellant Mohinder Singh had come to the residence of Santra and had been talking to the mother of the complainant for a long time. Afterwards, the accused/appellant Mohinder Singh also came to their house. The accused/appellant Mohinder Singh along with his brother Hari Singh, are alleged to have left their residence threatening to kill his mother Santra. On the following morning at about 8 A.M. the mother of the complainant Pintu PW8 had gone to fetch “lassi”. After some time, the complainant PW8 heard the alarm of his mother repeatedly calling for Sanjna PW10. On hearing the alarm of Santra, both Pintu PW8 and Sanjna PW10 reached the urinal situated near the thoroughfare leading to the High School, and saw, the accused/appellant Mohinder Singh inflicting knife blows on the stomach of Santra. Consequent upon the receipt of the knife blows, Santra fell down on the ground. Mahavir a Panch of the village also reached the spot Crl.A.No.280-DB of 1998 3 whereupon Mohinder Singh ran away towards his house with his knife. After the accused/appellant Mohinder Singh had run away, all the three i.e. the complainant Pintu PW8, Sanjna PW10 and Mahavir Panch carried Santra to her house. After some time, a jeep was arranged and Santra was sought to be taken in the jeep for treatment to Mohindergarh. However, soon after they had departed from village Khudana, Santra breathed her last on account of the injuries inflicted upon her by the accused/appellant Mohinder Singh. Thereafter, the body of the deceased Santra was brought back to the village. Leaving his father (who had in the meantime returned to the village) and other villagers to supervise the dead body of Santra, the complainant Pintu PW8 proceeded towards the Police Station to record his complaint. According to the complainant, Mohinder Singh had committed the murder of his mother Santra due to family enmity. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint made by Pintu PW8, First Information Report bearing No.369 was registered at Police Station Mohindergarh in district Narnaul at 3.10 P.M. on the day of the incident itself i.e.30.10.1994. The inquest report of the dead body of Santra was prepared by S.I Shish Pal Singh PW11. The dead body of Santra was sent to CHC Mohindergarh for post mortem examination. The post mortem examination was conducted by Dr.Narvir Singh, SMO, CHC, Mohindergarh PW7 on 31.10.1994 at about 8 A.M. According to the post mortem examination, the following ten injuries were found on the person of the deceased Santra:- “1. A stabbed wound 1cm x0.5 cm on the front of chest near lower end of sternum. On dissection, right ventricle of heart was found punctured. Pericardium was full of blood. 2. Stabbed wound 1.5cmx 0.5cm on the front of abdomen, 8 Cms above umblicus. On dissection, liver was found functured. Crl.A.No.280-DB of 1998 4 Abdmonal cavity was full of blood. 3. Incised wound 1.5cm x 0.5cm x 0.5cm x 0.5cm on the front of abdomen. 1 cm below injury No.2. 4. Incised wound 1.5cm x0.5 cm x 0.25cm on the front of left side of chest, 13 Cms below left nipple. 5. Incised wound 1.5 Cm x 0.5cm x 0.5 cm on the front of left flank of abdomen. 6. Incised wound 1.5cm x 0.5cm x 0.5 cm on the back of abdomen in the right lumber region, 10 Cms below lower end of scapula. 7. Incised wound 1.5cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 Cm on the back of abdomen, in the left lumber region, 11 Cms below the lower end of scapula. 8. Incised wound 1.5 Cm x 0.5 cm x0.25 cm on the proximal phalanx of left index finger on the back side. 9. Incised wound 4 Cms x 0.5 Cmx 0.5 on the lateral aspect of forearm. 10. Incised wound 1.Cm x 0.5 Cm x 0.25 Cm on the back of middle phalanx of right index finger. Clotted blood was present in all the injuries.” All the injuries were found to be antimortem in nature. Injuries No. 1 and 2 in the opinion of Dr.Narvir Singh PW7, were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It was also opined by Dr,Narvir Singh PW7 that the cause of death of Santra was due to shock and haemorrhage and as a result of injuries No. 1 and 2. On completion of invesitgation challan was presented in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Mohindergarh. By an order dated 5.1.1995, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Mohindergarh, concluded that a prima facie case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was made out against the accused/appellant Mohinder Singh. Since Crl.A.No.280-DB of 1998 5 the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by the Court of Session , the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Mohindergarh, by his order dated 5.1.1995, committed the case to the Court of Session. On 28.4.1995, the Sessions Judge, Narnaul, charged the accused Mohinder Singh for having committed the murder of Santra and thereby the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal code. The accused was confronted with the charge levelled against him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined a number of witnesses. The brief description of the deposition of the witnesses produced by the prosecution is being summarized hereinafter. The prosecution first of all examined Krishan Kumar PW1. Krishan Kumar PW1 is a formal witness. He had prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PA of the place of occurrence. The statement of Raghbir Singh, Photographer was recorded as PW2. He had visited the place of the occurrence and taken photographs of the dead body of Santra. Six photographs were taken by him along with their negatives and the same were placed on the record of this case as Exhibits P1 to P6 (negatives) and exhibits P7 to P12 (positives). The statement of HC Nand Lal was recorded as PW3. HC Nand Lal PW3 tendered in evidence his sworn affidavit Ex.PC. HC Nand Lal PW3 was a formal witness who had taken various sealed parcels from the spot to the Malkhana of the Police Station. HC Gurdayal Singh is another formal witness produced as PW4 who tendered his sworn affidavit Ex.PC in the evidence. A perusal of the affidavit Ex.PC would reveal that he was sent by S.I. Shish Pal Singh PW11 to get the post mortem examination of the dead body of Santra conducted. Constable Som Dutt appeared on behalf of Crl.A.No.280-DB of 1998 6 the prosecution as PW5. He tendered into evidence his sworn affidavit Ex.PD. A perusal of Ex.PD reveals that Constable Som Dutt PW5 had handed over the sealed parcels at the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban for examination, after having taken the same from the Malkhana. Constable Hanuman was examined as PW6. He had taken the special report of the case and handed over the same in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate. The statement of Dr.Narvir Singh Senior Medical Officer, CHC,Mohindergarh, was recorded as PW7. He had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Santra details whereof have already been narrated above. The complainant Pintu son of Mool Chand the son of the deceased Santra appeared as PW8. He reiterated the factual position expressed by him at the time of making his complaint on 30.10.1994. He further stated that his blood stained Kurta and Pyjama were taken into possession by the police and put in a sealed parcel. He also stated that on interrogation the accused/appellant Mohinder Singh, in his presence, disclosed that he had concealed the knife used in the occurrence underneath the clothes of a bed in his house. His disclosure statement Ex.PK was recorded whereupon the thumb impression of the accused/appellant Mohinder Singh was affixed which was attested by the complainant Pintu PW8 and Mahavir Punch. Thereafter,the accused / appellant Mohinder Singh led the police party to the place where he had concealed the said knife, and got recovered the knife whereupon the recovery memo Ex.PK/1 was prepared. Hoshiar appeared as PW9. Hoshiar PW9 during the course of his cross examination asserted that the place of occurrence is a thoroughfare situated at a distance of ten paces from the house of Mool Chand/Santra. Mahavir Singh PW was given up Crl.A.No.280-DB of 1998 7 being won over by the accused. Sanjna another eye witness was examined as PW10. Sanjna in her examination-in-chief asserted that she had heard the cries of Santra calling out her name whereupon she had come out of her house and had gone towards the urinal where she saw accused/appellant Mohinder Singh inflicting knife blows to the deceased Santra on her chest. Pintu son of the deceased Santra also arrived at the spot whereupon the accused ran away. Santra was then lifted and taken to her house and a vehicle was arranged for removing her to Mohindergarh but on the way Santra died. Sanjna PW10 affirmed that her Salwar stained with the blood of Santra was taken by the police vide memo Ex.PO. It would however be pertinent to mention that there was a substantial dilution in the statement of Sanjna PW10 in her cross examination. During the course of her cross examination, Sanjna PW10 asserted that the accused/appellant Mohinder Singh had already inflicted knife blows on the body of Santra before she reached the place of occurrence. She also asserted that the accused/appellant Mohinder Singh had run away from the place of occurrence before she reached there. The statement of the Investigating Officer S.I. Shish Pal Singh was recorded as PW11. He affirmed the fact that he had recorded the statement of the complainant Pintu PW8 on 30.101994 at about 3.10 P.M. Thereafter, he had gone to the place of occurrence and had found the dead body of Santra in the house of the complainant. He had got the place photographed and also lifted blood samples and prepared various sealed parcels , as have been noticed hereinabove. In his deposition, he affirmed that he had prepared the rough site plan of the place of occurrence Ex.PP and had sent the dead body of Santra for post mortem examination through HC Gurdayal Singh. On the Crl.A.No.280-DB of 1998 8 same day, he arrested the accused/appellant Mohinder Singh. On interrogation, the accused/appellant had made a disclosure statement on the basis whereof the knife allegedly used by the accused/appellant Mohinder Singh in the commission of the crime was recovered. Separate parcels were also prepared by him, of the blood stained clothes of the complainant Pintu PW8 and Sanjna PW10. After having recorded the statements of various persons and after completion of investigation he prepared the challan and submitted the same in the Court on 1.10.1996. On the statement of the Public Prosecutor, the evidence of the prosecution was closed. The statement of the accused/appellant Mohinder Singh was thereupon recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 15.10.1996. In his statement, he asserted that Santra deceased was having illicit relations with many persons in the village. On coming to know about her infidelity perhaps her husband Mool Chand had murdered her and he (Mohinder Singh) has been falsely implicated in the case. The accused/appellant Mohinder Singh made a statement before the trial Court that he did not desire to lead any defence evidence. Accordingly, the defence evidence was closed. The Sessions Judge, Narnaul delivered the judgment in Sessions Case No.2 of 1995 on 9.3.1998 wherein the accused/appellant Mohinder Singh was held guilty of having committed the murder of Santra and was accordingly convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. On the following day i.e. on 10.3.1998 the accused/appellant Mohinder Singh was heard on the question of sentence whereupon he was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to further undergo rigorous imprisonment Crl.A.No.280-DB of 1998 9 for a period of six months. A perusal of the evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution as well as the judgment rendered by the Sessions Judge, Narnaul, reveal that while convicting the accused/appellant Mohinder Singh, reliance has been placed substantially on the ocular evidence of the complainant Pintu PW8 who is none other than the son of the deceased Santra. Reliance has also been placed on the statement of Sanjna PW10. Insofar as, the expert medical evidence is concerned, reference has been made to the post mortem examination conducted by Dr.Narvir Singh PW7 so as to depict that the injuries on the body of the deceased Santa had been caused by the knife blows inflicted on her body. Reliance was also placed on the disclosure statement made by the accused/appellant Mohinder Singh which resulted in the recovery of the knife used by the accused/appellant Mohinder Singh in the commission of the crime. During the course of his submissions, learned counsel for the accused/appellant, Shri R.S.Manhas, has tried to impeach the veracity of the two star witnesses namely, the complainant Pintu PW8 and Sanjna PW10. Both of them were allegedly eye witnesses to the murder of the deceased Santra at the hands of the accused/appellant Mohinder Singh. Insofar as, the statement of the complainant Pintu PW8 is concerned, reference has been made to his statement to show the improbability of the fact that the father of the complainant Pintu PW8 namely Mool chand had left his residence at 7 A.M. on the morning of the very day on which the occurrence took place at 8 A.M. He also invited the Court's attention to the fact that when the body of the deceased Santra was being taken to the hospital, his father Mool Chand came back. In the absence of any Crl.A.No.280-DB of 1998 10 explanation in respect of the return of Mool Chand to village Khudana whereas he had left for Delhi in the morning of the same day is also, according to learned counsel, a very suspicious circumstance leading to serious inroads into the evidence produced by the prosecution. He also invited the attention of this Court to the fact that while his mother Santra was being taken to the hospital at Mohindergarh at that time his father Mool Chand met them at about 8.30 A.M. while Santra was still alive. Coupled with the aforesaid factual position depicted in the statement of the complainant Pintu PW8, learned counsel for the appellant has invited this Court's attention to the suggestion made to the witness under reference to the effect that his mother Santra was having illicit relations with some persons in the village and that his father Mool Chand had come to know of the same and had, therefore, committed the murder of his mother. Although all these suggestions have been denied by the complainant Pintu PW8 yet inviting the Court's attention to the statement made by the accused/appellant Mohinder Singh under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (extracted above) it was submitted that the same was the true version in respect of the murder of the deceased Santra. While inviting the Court's attention to the discrepancies in the statement made by Sanjna PW10, it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the accused/appellant that Sanjna had disclosed the true version of the occurrence during her cross examination. It is submitted, that during the course of her examination-in-chief Sanjna PW10 disclosed that she had actually seen the accused/appellant Mohinder Singh inflicting stab injuries on the deceased but she stated during the course of her cross-examination that the assailant Mohinder Singh had run away before she had reached the Crl.A.No.280-DB of 1998 11 place of occurrence where Santra was lying in a pool of blood. We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant so as to discredit the statements of the complainant Pintu PW8 and that of Sanjna PW10. Despite the submissions noticed hereinabove, it is not possible for us to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant so as to find fault with the determination rendered by the trial Court. It would be pertinent to mention that Pintu PW8 is the son of the deceased Santra, he was an eye witness of the occurrence. He affirmed having seen the accused/appellant Mohinder Singh actually inflicting stab injuries with a knife on his mother Santra. The place of occurrence was just a few feet from the residence of Santra. The presence of Pintu PW8 at the place of occurrence is natural. Pintu PW8 had been attracted to the place of occurrence on the basis of the cries of his mother Santra calling out for Sanjna PW10. In the absence of any suspicious circumstance, we find no justification in disbelieving the statement of Pintu PW8. The statement of Santro PW10 obviously has to be a subject matter of closer scrutiny. While in her examination-in-chief she asserted that she had actually seen the accused/appellant Mohinder Singh inflicting knife injuries on the chest of Santra and that she had also seen the accused/appellant Mohinder Singh running away from the place of occurrence, she stated during the course of her cross-examination that the accused had already inflicted knife blows on the person of the deceased Santro before her arrival and he was not at the spot when she reached there. It, therefore, has to be determined, which of the two versions is correct ? Would it be proper to accept the statement of Sanjna PW10 during the course of her examination-in-chief, or would it be more appropriate to Crl.A.No.280-DB of 1998 12 accept the statement made by her during the course of her cross examination. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid, we are of the view that only the statement made by her during the course of her examination-in-chief must be believed. This conclusion of ours is based on the fact that the accused/appellant Mohinder Singh is closely related to her. He is none other than the son of her husband's elder brother. In other words, Randhir Singh the husband of Sanjna PW10 is the younger brother of Ram Nath father of the accused/appellant Mohinder Singh. In all probability after her examination-in-chief, she was prevailed upon to dilute her statement so that the accused/appellant Mohinder Singh could get the benefit of doubt. The transposition in the attitude of Sanjna PW10 occurred after she had recorded her examination-in-chief. Had there been an unconflicting stand in her statement, there would have been no difficulty whatsoever. We have closely examined the statement of Sanjna PW10. In fact, the language of the statement made during the course of her cross examination reveals that she was lying during the course of cross- examination. If the accused/appellant Mohinder Singh had not inflicted injuries in her presence how could she has stated “the accused had already inflicted knife blows on the person of Santra before my arrival”, she would have stated that “someone” not seen by her had inflicted the injuries before her arrival, but she stated that the “accused” had caused the injuries and had run away. Sanjna PW10 had obviously seen the accused giving “knife blows” and,therefore, had made the statement in the form noticed above during the course of her cross-examination. How could she have identified the “accused” if the accused had already run way before she had reached the place of occurrence. In this behalf, it is relevant to notice that in her Crl.A.No.280-DB of 1998 13 cross-examination she inter alia stated “the accused had already absconded prior to my reaching there”. If she had not witnessed the incident, she could not have known who had run away after inflicting injuries on Santra. It is obvious that she had seen the “accused” committing the crime so as to be able to say that the “accused” had already inflicted knife blows, and that the “accused” had run away before she had reached the spot. The fact that she was related to the accused/appellant Mohinder Singh is also indicative of the reason why she had diluted her version during her cross-examination. All the aforesaid apart, there is the clear and unambiguous statement of Pintu PW8 an eye witness to the crime. The statement of Pintu PW8 is in consonance with the examination-in-chief version of the statement of Sanjna PW10. In view of the above, we are of the view that the statement of Sanjna PW10 recorded during the course of her examination-in-chief alone should be accepted as her truthful statement. On the basis of the ocular evidence in the form of the statements of complainant Pintu PW8 and the examination-in-chief of Sanjna PW10 which stand fully corroborated with the expert medical evidence rendered by Dr.Narvir Singh PW7 coupled with the motive for the same, emerging from the statement of Pintu PW8, and in conjunction with the disclosure statement made by accused/appellant Mohinder Singh resulting in the recovery of the knife used in the commission of the crime, fully establish the case of the prosecution, that the accused/appellant Mohinder Singh committed the murder of Santra. Mohinder Singh has, therefore, rightly been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the trial Court and has rightfully been sentenced for the same. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in the Crl.A.No.280-DB of 1998 14 appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. The bail bond/surety bond of the accused/appellant Mohinder Singh are cancelled. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, shall take necessary steps for getting the accused/appellant Mohinder Singh arrested to undergo the remaining part of the sentence awarded to him by the trial Court and confirmed by this Court. ( J.S.Khehar ) Judge ( Sham Sunder ) Judge February , 2008 rk