IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Appeal No. 268 of 2001 (Old No. 980 of 1994) Soban Singh alias Sabar Singh alias Pratap Singh alias Soniya Singh Patwari Circle Bura Tehsil and District Chamoli. ….....Appellant. Versus State of U.P. .……….Respondent. Shri Raman Kumar Sah, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Shri M.A. Khan, learned Brief Holder and Shri Harish Pujari, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent. Coram:Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. Per:-Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This appeal, preferred under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.06.1994, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chamoli, in Sessions Trial No. 19 of 1992, whereby the accused/appellant- Soban Singh alias Sabar Singh alias Pratap Singh alias Soniya Singh, is convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred as I.P.C.), and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record. 2 3. Prosecution story in brief is that on 28.10.1988, accused/appellant Soban Singh went to the house of Alam Singh (deceased). Mangsiri Devi (P.W. 2) wife of Alam Singh, and her daughter Km. Leela (P.W. 3) were also in the house. Accused/appellant Soban Singh introduced himself as Conductor in the motor vehicle in which son of the deceased used to work as Driver. He told Alam Singh and his wife that their son had gone to Badrinath and has sent laddus (Sweets) and a bottle of liquor. Alam Singh and his family members after consuming laddus got unconscious. Alam Singh also took the liquor brought by accused Soban Singh. Laddus and liquor were not taken by accused. On the next day, in the afternoon Mangsiri Devi (P.W. 2) regained consciousness. She found that six Murkele (jewellery made of silver) and one Bulak (golden jewellery) were missing from her house. She further saw that Alam Singh had died. She went to P.W. 1 Mohan Singh (nephew of the deceased) and narrated the entire incident to him. On 31.10.1988, Mohan Singh got lodged First Information Report (Ext. A-1) at 4:00 p.m. with Patwari Circle Bura. (In the interior hills revenue officials are given police powers vide U.P. Government Notification No. 494/VIII-418-16, dated 07.03.1916). Kundan Singh Rawat (P.W. 5), Patwari of the Circle, registered crime relating to offences punishable under Sections 328 and 302 I.P.C. against the accused Soban Singh, and prepared check report (Ext. A-4) of the First Information Report and also made necessary entry in the general diary. He went to the spot and took the dead body of Alam Singh in his 3 possession. The Investigating Officer (Kundan Singh) prepared inquest report (Ext. A-6), sketch of the dead body (Ext. A-7) and letter to Chief Medical Officer (Ext. A-8). He also prepared site plan (Ext. A-9). The dead body was sent in a sealed cover for post mortem examination to District Hospital Gopeshwar (Chamoli). Dr. N.S. Pal (P.W. 4) conducted post mortem examination on 02.11.1988 on the dead body of the deceased Alam Singh. No ante mortem injuries were found on the dead body and there was digested liquid weighing two ounce present in the stomach. In the circumstances, the viscera was preserved after preparing post mortem examination report (Ext. A-2). The Investigating Officer interrogated the witnesses and Section 392 I.P.C. was also added to the crime, registered against accused Soban Singh. During investigation on 25.04.1989, Km. Leela (P.W. 3) handed over the cloth containing vomit of the deceased. The same was sent for chemical examination to the Forensic Laboratory at Agra. On examination of viscera and the vomit it was found that alcohol consumed by deceased contained poison-carbomate pesticide (a poison). In an attempt to secure the arrest of the accused Soban Singh, Investigating Officer moved to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli, for processes under Sections 82, 83 Cr.P.C. Finally it was found that meanwhile, the accused had gone in judicial custody in Himachal Pradesh. The Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet (Ext. A-14) against the accused Soban Singh. 4 4. The Magistrate, on receipt of charge sheet, after giving necessary copies to the accused, as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C., committed the case to the court of sessions for trial. Learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties, framed charge of offences punishable under Sections 328, 392 and 302 I.P.C. against accused Soban Singh, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined P.W. 1 Mohan Singh (nephew of the deceased and complainant), P.W. 2 Smt. Mangsiri Devi (widow of the deceased), P.W. 3 Km. Leela (daughter of the deceased), P.W. 4 Dr. N.S. Pal (who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased), and P.W. 5 Kundan Singh Rawat (Investigating Officer, who investigated the crime). The oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused in reply to which he alleged the same to be false. In defence D.W. 1 Narayan Datt, Central Jail Warden, Nahan, Himachal Pradesh, was got examined by the accused. Said witness told the court that accused Soban Singh alias Sabar Singh alias Pratap Singh alias Soniya Singh, remained in jail in Nahan from 22.07.1989 to 04.10.1990. After hearing the parties the trial court found accused Soban Singh guilty of charge of offence under Section 302 I.P.C. He stood acquitted of other charges. After hearing on sentence the convict was sentenced to imprisonment for life. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 23.06.1994, passed by Sessions Judge, Chamoli, the convict filed this appeal before Allahabad High Court on 05.07.1994, where it was admitted on 06.07.1994. The appeal is received by 5 this Court under Section 35 of U.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000, for its disposal. 5. Before further discussion, we think it just and proper to mention here what has been recorded in the post mortem examination report by P.W. 4 Dr. N.S. Pal. Perusal of the post mortem examination report (Ext. A-2), shows that there was no ante mortem injury on the dead body of the deceased. In the opinion of the Medical Officer, who conducted post mortem examination, cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved. While preserving viscera, contents of stomach were preserved in bottle No. 1, piece of liver was kept in bottle No. 2. Chemical Examiner’s report (Ext. A-3) shows that carbomate pesticide (a poison) was found in the contents with alcohol. 6. Now, we come to the oral testimony of the witnesses. P.W. 1 Mohan Singh (complainant) has stated that on 30.10.1988, Mangsiri Devi (P.W. 2) came and told him that on 28th evening Soban Singh came to her house and told her and her husband that their son has gone to Badrinath. He (accused Soban Singh) further gave 1 kilogram of sweets and one bottle of liquor. According to the witness Mohan Singh, Mangsiri Devi told him that the sweets were offered by accused to her family members and liquor was given to Alam Singh (deceased). After eating sweets, all members of the family fell unconscious. The next day when she (Mangsiri Devi) got conscious, she found that 6 Alam Singh had already died. P.W. 1 Mohan Singh further states that he lodged First Information Report (Ext. A-1) on the basis of story narrated to him by Mangsiri Devi (P.W. 2). 7. P.W. 2 Mangsiri Devi, narrating the prosecution story, states that accused came to her house. He addressed her as DAADI (grandmother). She further told that at that time, her husband Alam Singh and daughter Leela were also present in the house. According to this witness, he introduced himself as Conductor with her son, who works as Driver. P.W. 2 Mangsiri Devi further stated that accused told them that their son has gone to Badrinath with the vehicle and has sent Laddu (sweets) and a bottle of liquor. The witness further states that one laddu was taken by each one of them namely, Alam Singh, Mangsiri Devi and Leela. Thereafter, the accused offered liquor from the bottle to Alam Singh. She further states that next day when she regained consciousness, her husband (Alam Singh) had already died. Thereafter, she narrated the whole story to her nephew Mohan Singh (P.W. 1). 8. P.W. 3 Km. Leela corroborated the prosecution story, as narrated by her mother P.W. 1 Mangsiri Devi. With the statement of P.W. 2 Mangsiri Devi and P.W. 3 Km. Leela, prosecution has successfully proved that accused Soban Singh had offered Laddu (sweets) to them and liquor to Alam Singh (deceased), which he himself (accused) did not take. 7 9. The chemical examination report (Ext. A-3), proves the fact that on examination of the viscera, it was found that alocohol in the stomach of the deceased contained poison-carbomate pesticide. P.W. 4 Dr. N.S. Pal, has stated in his oral examination that the cause of death was poison found in the alcohol by the Chemical Examiner. This evidence read with the oral testimony of the aforesaid two witnesses, proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused Soban Singh alias Sabar Singh alias Pratap Singh alias Soniya Singh, has committed murder of Alam Singh by making him to consume liquor containing poison. The motive for commission of crime is also not difficult to be found from the evidence on record, as P.W. 3 Leela, has told that when she and her mother got conscious, they found that six Murkele (jewelry made of silver) and one Bulak (golden jewelry), were missing from the house of the deceased. P.W. 2 Mangsiri Devi has also corroborated said fact. In the circumstances, having reassessed the entire evidence on record, we concur with the finding recorded by the trial court that accused Soban Singh alias Sabar Singh alias Pratap Singh alias Soniya Singh, has committed murder of Alam Singh. As such, we do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court against the appellant. 10. For the reasons, as discussed above, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. The same is dismissed. The appellant, during pendency of appeal, is said to have escaped from Sampoornanand jail, Udham Singh 8 Nagar, where he was serving out the sentence. Lower court record be sent back to the trial court to ensure that convict/appellant serves out the remaining part of the sentence. (Dharam Veer, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt: 16.07.2008 Sweta 9 10 11 12 13