IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 778 -DB of 2006 Dated of Decision:- February 13, 2009 Inderjit Singh and another ....APPELLANTS VERSUS The State of Punjab ....RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHTAB S.GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL Present:- Sh. Vinod Ghai, Advocate for the appellants. Sh. S.S.Gill, Addl. Advocate General Punjab. Sh. Vikas Behl, Advocate for the complainant. ------ MEHTAB S.GILL, J. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 14.10.2006 of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Nawanshahr, whereby he convicted Inderjit Singh son of Joga Singh and Gurmail Singh son of Sucha Singh under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each. In default to further undergo R.I. for one year. The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement Ex.PF of Gurdev Singh given to Paramjit Singh SI on 9.12.2001 at 2.30 p.m. at Garhshankar Chowk, Banga. 2 Criminal Appeal No. 778 -DB of 2006 Gurdev Singh stated, that he is a resident of Village Lassara, Police Station Phillaur. He had four sons and a daughter. His daughter is the eldest of his children. Sukhwinder Singh, his son resides in America for the last 6/7 years, but expired about 8 months back. On 8.12.2001, his son Amarjit Singh at about 1 p.m. left for his maternal house at Village Pathlawa from Village Lassara on a motor cycle, Kawasaki Boxer bearing No. PB-32C-2175. Gurdev Singh’s wife Gurdev Kaur had a Fixed deposit (F.D.) in the Punjab State Bank, Banga, which had been kept at his maternal house in Village Pathlawa. Amarjit Singh was sent to collect the F.D., as a sponsorship from England was received by his uncle (Masarh) Chain Singh. His interview was fixed in the Embassy at Delhi. Gurdev Singh reached his house at 7.30 p.m. from Ludhiana after finishing his work. His other son Karnail Singh told him, that he had received a call from Amarjit Singh from Pathlawa that he would start at about 4.30 p.m. and would bring meat. But he has not reached as yet. By then it was 9.30 p.m. Gurdev Singh along with his neighbour Chain Singh, Inderjit Singh and Palwinder Singh went in a jeep in search of Amarjit Singh. They made telephone calls to their relatives and searched from their relatives, but could not trace Amarjit Singh. On 9.12.2001 they reached canal bridge in the area of Banga and on the right side of pulli (small bridge) towards Banga, they saw the motor cycle of Amarjit Singh lying. About 300 yards from the pulli, while searching they found a dead body in the water of canal. They took out the body and it was that of Amarjit Singh. Blood was oozing out of his head. There were sharp edged weapon injuries on his head. 3 Criminal Appeal No. 778 -DB of 2006 On the basis of this statement, FIR Ex.PF/2 was recorded on 9.12.2001 at 2.40 p.m. The special report reached the J.M.I.C., Nawanshahr on the same day at 6.30 p.m. The prosecution to prove its case brought into the witness box, Dr. Kamaljit Singh PW1, Gurdev Singh PW2, Piara Singh PW3, Hans Raj PW4, Surinder Sharma PW5, Kapoor Singh PW6, HC Nirmal Singh PW7, Swaran Singh PW8, HC Pawanjit Singh PW9, Sucha Singh PW10, ASI Parminder Singh PW11 Finger Print Expert, SI Paramjit Singh PW12, Manjit Singh, Naib Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Banga PW13, Naresh Kumar Draftsman PW14, C.Som Nath PW15, ASI Bhupinder Singh PW16 and C.Subhash Chander PW17. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued, that the case is of circumstantial evidence. There is no motive for the commission of the offence and the chain of events have not been completed by the prosecution. Kapoor Singh PW6, is the Nana (mother’s father) of the deceased, who has stated that 8/9 months earlier, a quarrel had taken place between the deceased and appellant Inderjit Singh. The matter had been compromised. As the matter had been compromised, there was no grudge of the appellants now left against the deceased. Nothing has come on record, nor has any witness come into the witness box of the teasing of the girl in Village Lassara. Nothing has come on record as to how the dispute arose. Motive has been spelt out for the first time in the Court. No panchayat was convened, nor any respectables were brought to show, that a compromise had been reached to this effect. The names of the respectables also have not been given by both Kapoor Singh PW6 and Swaran Singh PW8 in their 4 Criminal Appeal No. 778 -DB of 2006 testimony before the Court. In fact it is a blind murder. Motive, if any, is only qua appellant Inderjit Singh. The last seen evidence as propounded by Kapoor Singh PW6 and Swaran Singh PW8 is also falsified, as Gurdev Singh PW2 has stated in his testimony before the Court, that he was accompanied by Inderjit Singh. But this version of he being accompanied by Inderjit Singh is not given in FIR Ex.PF/2. If both Kapoor Singh PW6 and Swaran Singh PW8 had seen the deceased in the company of appellant Inderjit Singh, Gurdev Singh would have been the first person to enquire from him about the whereabouts of deceased Amarjit Singh. Swaran Singh PW8 has stated, that he heard heated arguments taking place between the deceased and appellants Inderjit Singh and Gurmail Singh. In fact the last seen evidence is all a fabrication. If Swaran Singh PW8 had heard the heated arguments taking place, he would have been the first one to inform the family members of deceased Amarjit Singh about the quarrel. Both theses witnesses i.e. Kapoor Singh PW6 and Swaran Singh PW8 have been introduced at a later stage. The extra judicial confession made before Sucha Singh PW10 is also a fabrication. He is neither a Panch, nor a Sarpanch. He has stated, that he has good relations with the deceased. This itself shows that he is an interested witness. Appellants would have not reposed confidence in him. The finger prints of appellants Inderjit Singh and Gurmail Singh have been taken in a very suspicious manner. No application was made before the trial Court by Manjit Singh, Executive Magistrate, Banga PW13 for taking the finger-prints of the appellants and strangely the recovery is of one liquor bottle, one glass tumbler and a mirror of the motor cycle. It seems that as 5 Criminal Appeal No. 778 -DB of 2006 per the version put forward by the prosecution, all the three i.e. the deceased and the appellants were having liquor from one glass. Then the finger prints of all the three i.e. the appellants and the deceased should have come on the glass tumbler. Similarly, if there was one liquor bottle, the deceased would have also poured some liquor for himself and the others, his finger prints should have come on the bottle. Though his finger prints could not be taken, as he had died, there should have been a third set of finger prints on the glass tumbler and on the liquor bottle, which the Finger Print Expert Parminder Singh ASI PW11 should have taken notice of. In fact appellants after being arrested were forced to put their finger prints on the glass tumbler, liquor bottle and mirror of the motor cycle and it is thereafter they were sent to the FSL. Learned counsel for the State has argued, that FIR is prompt. The last seen evidence as propounded by Kapoor Singh PW6 and Swaran Singh PW8 inspires confidence. Both the appellants and the deceased knew each other. In fact Swaran Singh PW8 saw the appellants quarreling with the deceased. The motive for the commission of the offence was that appellant Inderjit Singh teased a girl of Village Lassara, which was objected to by the deceased. A compromise had been effected, but the appellants kept it in mind and took out their revenge after 8/9 months. The extra judicial confession made before Sucha Singh PW10 also inspires confidence. No worthwhile cross-examination has been done to demolish the extra judicial confession. 6 Criminal Appeal No. 778 -DB of 2006 The finger-prints of the appellants were found matching on the mirror of the motor cycle, glass tumbler and liquor bottle by Parminder Singh ASI PW11, the Finger Print Expert. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. Gurdev Singh in his testimony before the Court has stated, that he was accompanied by Inderjit Singh, Palwinder Singh and Chain Singh, when he went to search his son Amarjit Singh. He has further stated, that he knew both appellants Inderjit Singh and Gurmail Singh. They belonged to Village Pathlawa. Both of them were friends of his son. They had a quarrel with his son about one year back, but the dispute was compromised. In FIR Ex.PF/2, he has stated, that he was accompanied by one Inderjit Singh, Chain Singh and Palwinder Singh. The motive for the commission of the offence and the last seen evidence has been spelt out by Kapoor Singh PW6. He has stated in his testimony before the Court, that deceased Amarjit Singh had a dispute with appellant Inderjit Singh about 8/9 months back of teasing a girl of Village Lassara. He had effected a compromise. Appellants and deceased remained on friendly terms after that incident. The last seen evidence as spelt out by Kapoor Singh PW6 is that Amarjit Singh made a phone call to his father, that he would bring meat and they should prepare the gravy. He was accompanied by Inderjit Singh. At about 7.30 p.m., he (PW6) received a call from Gurdev Singh, that Amarjit Singh had not returned to his house. He went to the house of Inderjit Singh and Gurmail Singh, but could not find them. Gurdev Singh 7 Criminal Appeal No. 778 -DB of 2006 PW2 reached the house of Kapoor Singh PW6 and they jointly started searching for Amarjit Singh. They saw the motor cycle parked near the bridge of the canal on Village Jhika road. They found the dead body of Amarjit Singh about 300 yards from the canal bridge. If this version of Kapoor Singh PW6, accompanying Inderjit Singh in search of Amarjit Singh is to be accepted, then the names of both Inderjit Singh and Gurmail Singh should have come in FIR Ex.PF/2, as Kapoor Singh PW6 is the one, who saw Inderjit Singh and deceased Amarjit Singh the last time together, when they both left his house on the motor cycle. It is strange that he did not tell this to Gurdev Singh PW2, nor has it come in the statement of any witness and especially of Gurdev Singh PW2, Kapoor Singh PW6 or Swaran Singh PW8, that they inquired about Amarjit Singh from appellants Gurmail Singh or Inderjit Singh. In fact the first one to be questioned by them would have been appellants Inderjit Singh and Gurmail Singh, asking them about the whereabouts of the deceased. Not only that, but Swaran Singh PW8 also has stated, that he heard heated arguments between the deceased and the appellants. The extra judicial confession was made before Sucha Singh PW10 by appellant Inderjit Singh, wherein appellant Inderjit Singh stated, that he developed relations with a girl and it was he and Amarjit Singh, who quarreled with each other. Deceased Amarjit Singh had insulted him. The extra judicial confession made by appellant Gurmail Singh does not inspire confidence, as in this incident he does not have any role to play, nor does he state so regarding the motive for the commission of the offence. 8 Criminal Appeal No. 778 -DB of 2006 The finger prints taken from the mirror of the motor cycle, glass tumbler and the liquor bottle are all fabricated pieces of evidence made at a later date. Manjit Singh, Executive Magistrate, Banga PW13 has stated in his testimony, that on 20.2.2002 both appellants Gurmail Singh and Inderjit Singh were brought before him and he took finger prints of both the accused, which being Ex.PS and Ex.PT. Strangely he has also admitted, that there is no written application on the file that the appellants were produced before him, when they were in police custody. He had not recorded the statements of the appellants. We cannot overlook this fact and are constrained to make these observations, that appellants had been arrested on 15.12.2001 and the Investigating Officer got their thumb impressions on the three pieces i.e. mirror of motor cycle, glass tumbler and liquor bottle, when they were in police custody. Parminder Singh ASI PW11, the Finger Print Expert has not said anything with regard to the third set of finger prints on the liquor bottle or the glass tumbler. As per the prosecution version, all the three i.e. appellants and the deceased were having liquor. Deceased Amarjit Singh would have also touched the liquor bottle to pour for himself and the appellants and also the glass tumbler which was only one and all three i.e. appellants and the deceased were having liquor from. Similarly, the mirror of the motor cycle would have also had more than two finger prints. In the inquest report Ex.PC, nothing has been shown qua the recovery of these articles. The finger print evidence is a concocted version. With the above discussion and observations, we are of the considered opinion that murder of Amarjit Singh had been committed by 9 Criminal Appeal No. 778 -DB of 2006 Appellant Inderjit Singh son of Joga Singh, as he alone had the motive to commit the offence. Gurmail Singh son of Sucha Singh had been unnecessary roped in. He is given the benefit of doubt and is acquitted of all the charges framed against him. Appeal qua appellant Gurmail Singh is allowed. His conviction and sentence is set aside. If in custody, he be set free forthwith. Appeal qua appellant Inderjit Singh son of Joga Singh is dismissed. If on bail, he is directed to present himself before the C.J.M./ Duty Magistrate, Nawanshahr, to undergo the remaining part of his sentence. (MEHTAB S.GILL) JUDGE (L.N.MITTAL) February 13, 2009 JUDGE SKArora WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO