CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 144-DB OF 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: March 09, 2009 Parties Name Deepa Ram ...APPELLANT. VERSUS State of Punjab ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Saranjit Singh Randhawa, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. D.S. Brar, D.A.G., Punjab JASBIR SINGH, J. JUDGMENT Deepa Ram, appellant, along with Daljit Singh alias Bidar was put to face trial for murder of Paramjit Singh alias Pammi, alleged to have been committed on May 24, 1997, at 8/9 PM near Octroi Post, Rajpura Road, Patiala. After trial, Daljit Singh alias Bidar was acquitted vide judgment dated February 17, 2000, however, the appellant was convicted for commission of an offence falling under Section 302 IPC and vide order of the same date, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default further RI for one year, for commission of above said offence. Hence this appeal. Process of criminal law was set in motion on a statement made CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 144-DB OF 2000 -2- Process of criminal law was set in motion on a statement made by Karnail Singh (PW9), who stated that on hearing that a dead body was lying in Kumhar Sabha School ground, he went there on a Scooter and discovered that dead body was of his nephew Paramjit Singh. He saw that Paramjit Singh had injuries on his head and neck. In his statement Ex. PK, he narrated the above said fact to the police, whereupon formal FIR Ex. PE/1 was recorded at 3.30 PM by SI Krishan Kumar (PW5) in Police Station Kotwali Patiala. It is necessary to note here that in the FIR, which was recorded at the instance of Karnail Singh (PW9) none was named as an accused. The Investigating Officer Inspector Rajwinder Singh (PW7) took up the investigation, prepared inquest report (Ex. PC) of the dead body and sent it for post-mortem examination. Dead body was identified by Ujagar Ram (PW3) and Surinder Pal (PW2). In their statements annexed with the inquest report, above named witnesses have not mentioned the appellant as an accused. It was stated that Paramjit Singh was murdered by some unknown person. They did not even raise any suspicion against the appellant and his co-accused. Post-mortem on the dead body was conducted by Dr. Deepak Walia (PW1) on May 25, 1997, at 5 PM, he found the following injuries on the person of the deceased: “1.A lacerated wound 3 cm x 0.5 cm obliquely placed on right side of mandibula region of face. 2. A contusion 4 cm x 3 cm , 1 cm below right eye on right maxillary region of face. In the Central portion of this contusion there was a lacerated wound which was bone deep. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 144-DB OF 2000 -3- 3. A contusion 4 cm x 1 cm on right eye brow. 4. A lacerated wound on bridge of nose, extending upwards between two eye brows, nasal and frontal bones were found fractured. Membranes were ruptured and brain tissue was lacerated. 5. A lacerated wound 5 cm x 4 cm on front middle of fore-head near hair. Underlying bone was found fractured. Membrane fracutred. A sub-dural haematoma 4 cm x 3 cm was present. Brain tissue lacerated.” As per opinion of the doctor, death was caused due to injuries on vital organs, i.e., brain and head. Injuries were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course. The Investigating Officer collected the blood stained earth from the spot against recovery memo. He also got prepared rough site plan (Ex. PN) with correct marginal notes. During course of investigation, the Investigating Officer examined some witnesses, from whom he got useful clues with regard to identity of the accused. Inder Ram PW had stated that deceased and the accused were known to him. 15/20 days prior to the date of occurrence, they had a dispute over some money transaction. Inder Ram along with four- five other persons of the village got the matter patched up. Even then the deceased was threatened by the accused because they were not satisfied with decision of the Panchayat. Surinder Pal (PW2), who after discovery of the dead body remained present through out, informed on May 26, 1997, that he along with Inder Ram had seen the accused fighting with the deceased on May 24, 1997 in the evening. To the same effect is the CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 144-DB OF 2000 -4- statement made by Inder Ram (PW10). Similar statement was made by Kharaiti Ram (PW15), who saw the accused and the deceased fighting near Octroi Post on May 24, 1997, at 9.30 PM. Ujagar Ram (PW3) deposed that before him extra judicial confession was made by both the accused on June 18, 1997. Thereafter, the accused were arrested. Accused Daljit got recovered watch while accused Deepa Ram, appellant, got recovered a gold ring, which belong to the deceased. On completion of investigation, final report was put in Court for trial. The accused were charge-sheeted, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution produced 15 witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence to prove its case. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, separate statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating material existing on record was put to them. They denied the same, pleaded innocence and false implication. It was specifically averred by both of them that they were arrested after about 20/ 25 days of the occurrence. They were then kept in police custody and were falsely involved in this case. The trial Court on appraisal of evidence convicted and sentenced appellant Deepa Ram. However, his co-accused Daljit Singh alias Bidar was acquitted. On March 5, 2009, at the time of regular hearing of this appeal, none put in appearance on behalf of the appellant. With a view to safeguard interest of the appellant, we appointed Shri Sarabjit Singh Randhawa, Advocate, as an amicus curia to assist this Court. Shri Randhawa has taken us through contents of the paper book and made an attempt to show that the appellant – accused was falsely implicated in a blind murder case. By making reference to the statements of CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 144-DB OF 2000 -5- PW2 Surinder Pal, PW10 Inder Ram and PW15 Kharaiti Ram, he argued that these witnesses have failed to prove that the deceased was last seen in the evening of May 24, 1997, in the company of the appellant and his co- accused. By making reference to various discrepancies in the statements made by above named witnesses, he argued that these witnesses were introduced to concoct a false story against the appellant. As per case of the prosecution, the appellant and his co-accused had made extra judicial confession before Ujagar Ram (PW3). Shri Randhawa by making reference to the statements made by this witness argued that the testimony of this witness was not reliable. By stating that the appellant had no motive to commit the crime, the prosecution has failed to prove alleged motive, he contended that the appellant was falsely implicated in this case. He further stated that recovery of watch and gold ring was implanted upon the accused and his co-accused. To say so, he has made reference to the statements made by Shangara Ram (PW6) and Inspector Rajwinder (PW7). He prayed that as the prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the appellant – accused, this appeal be allowed and the appellant be acquitted of the charge framed against him. Prayer made by counsel for the appellant has vehemently been opposed by counsel for the respondent – State. He, by making reference to the statements made by the prosecution witnesses, argued that the involvement of the appellant in the crime was fully proved on record. The prosecution has proved motive to commit the crime. The appellant was last seen with the deceased immediately before death. The appellant along with his co-accused made extra judicial confession before Ujagar Ram (PW3), who produced him and his co-accused before the Investigating Officer. He CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 144-DB OF 2000 -6- prayed that this appeal having no substance be dismissed. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is convinced that this appeal deserves to be allowed. As per case of the prosecution, the deceased was last seen with the appellant and his co-accused in the evening on May 24, 1997. To say so, reliance has been placed upon the statements made by Surinder Pal (PW2), Inder Ram (PW10) and Kharaiti Ram (PW15). It is necessary to note here that Surinder Pal (PW2) came present at the spot on discovery of the dead body of Paramjit Singh. He remained associated with the investigation. His statement was recorded when inquest report on the dead body was prepared. In his statement Ex. PD, he has not mentioned factum of, last seen the appellant with the deceased on May 24, 1997. Even suspicion was not raised against the appellant. In his statement, PW2 has specifically admitted that he did not disclose to the police or anybody else about fight between the accused and the deceased, which had taken place in the evening hours of May 24, 1997. He disclosed this fact to the police only on May 26, 1997, when his statement was recorded. Deceased is the real nephew of this witness. It was expected from him that he would disclose the factum of fight to the police at the first available opportunity. Despite remaining present through out during investigation, he did not disclose this fact even to the Investigating Officer. This fact casts doubt upon truthfulness of this witness. Inder Ram (PW10), has also stated that he had seen the deceased with the appellant at about 8 PM on May 24, 1997. In Court this witness has specifically stated that he does not remember as to when his statement was recorded. He has further stated that his statement was recorded after 10 days of the quarrel. As per prosecution, statement of this CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 144-DB OF 2000 -7- witness Ex. DB was recorded on May 25, 1997. However, this witness has denied the same and stated that he did not put his thumb impression on that statement. The statement, which was made after 10 days of the occurrence, was not available with the prosecution. Kharaiti Ram, (PW15) has stated that on May 24, 1997, he had seen the deceased grappling with the appellant and his co-accused . In his cross-examination this witness has admitted that he was taken to the Police Station by maternal uncle of the deceased on May 25, 1997, at 1 PM. The very fact that this witness had reached Police Station at 1 PM on May 25, 1997, indicates that the dead body was recovered prior to 2.30 PM , which otherwise was alleged by the prosecution. Testimony of this witness does not inspire confidence. As per case of the prosecution, appellant and his co-accused had made extra judicial confession before Ujagar Ram (PW3). This witness has specifically stated that both the named accused disclosed to him regarding murder of Paramjit Singh about 24 – 25 days after the occurrence. This witness has further stated that house of Deepa Ram accused is situated at a distance of 70 Karams from his house and the accused had been meeting him occasionally during the period between the occurrence and the day on which he made his confessional statement to him. Above said fact clearly indicates that the entire prosecution story is an afterthought. If Deepa Ram was named as a suspect by the witness on May 25, 1997, why no attempt was made to arrest him. Testimony of Ujagar Ram (PW3) is not trust-worthy. He is an interested witness. He remained present throughout during investigation. He identified the dead body and his statement was recorded when inquest report was prepared. However, to the contrary he has CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 144-DB OF 2000 -8- stated that his statement was not recorded at the spot, rather it was recorded for the first time after one month from the date of occurrence. He has specifically stated that his statement was not recorded on June 18, 1997, which fact runs contrary to the statement made by the Investigating Officer. Ujagar Ram is not a person of means, before whom it could be expected that the accused would like to make any confessional statement. Contention of counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has failed to prove motive to commit the crime, also appears to be justified. Inder Ram (PW4) has stated that there was some money dispute between the appellant and the deceased. The same was got patched up about 15- 20 days prior to the date of occurrence. The appellant was not satisfied with the compromise, and on account of that he threatened the deceased. In his cross- examination this witness has stated that the compromise was effected on May 25, 1997, i.e. one day after the date of occurrence. No resolution was put the proceeding register of the Gram Panchayat regarding that compromise. This witness has failed to tell names of other persons who were associated in the process of patch up. The witness has also denied that he got recorded in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the deceased had a dispute with the appellant about 15 – 20 days before the occurrence. To the contrary, he has stated that the dispute had taken place 5 – 6 months earlier. Recovery of gold ring from the appellant and watch from his co-accused also does not inspire confidence. These articles are commonly available and can be planted if investigation is tainted, which appears to have been done in the present case. Mode and manner in which disclosure statement was recorded and then recovery was effected are doubtful. The CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 144-DB OF 2000 -9- above said articles were stated to have been identified by Sucha Singh PW11 (father in law of the deceased). In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he had made no statement in that regard on August 28, 1997. He has further stated that he had seen the ring and the watch in Court for the first time. Above said fact runs contrary to the statement made by the Investigating Officer, who has stated that he got the watch and the ring identified from the above named witness on August 28, 1997 through Prem Singh, ASI. In view of facts, mentioned above, this appeal is allowed, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the appellant are set aside and he is acquitted of the charges framed against him. We appreciate the efforts made by Shri Sarabjit Singh Randhawa, Advocate, in properly assisting this Court. We direct Secretary, Punjab State Legal Services, Punjab, to pay him legal fee as per norms. (JASBIR SINGH) JUDGE (JORA SINGH) JUDGE March 09, 2009. DKC