IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. A. No. 300-DB of 2006 DATE OF DECISION : 06.09.2011 Suraj Bhan .... APPELLANT Versus State of Punjab ..... RESPONDENT CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. J.S. Bains, Advocate, and Ms. Anju Arora, Advocate (amicus curiae) for the appellant. Ms. Gurveen H. Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. 1. Appellant Suraj Bhan was tried by the court of Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, for committing the murder of his landlord Ram Singh. Vide judgment and order dated 3.8.2005, the trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ` 10,000/-, or in default thereof to undergo further rigorous rigorous imprisonment for one year. The appellant has challenged the said judgment and order in this appeal. Case of the prosecution 2. As per the prosecution case, which is based upon the statement of Sant Baldev Singh (PW.2), Ram Singh alias Guddu (deceased), aged Crl. A. No. 300-DB of 2006 -2- about 50 years, who was cousin (son of father's elder brother) of the complainant, was running a furniture repair shop in Ludhiana. The shop was taken on rent by his father Sewa Singh. His parents had already expired and he being un-married was all alone and was used to stay in the shop during the day and night. He was owning a house in Vishkarma Colony, Street No.9, Dholewal Chowk, Ludhiana. About 8/9 months prior to the occurrence, the house was rented out by Ram Singh to appellant Suraj Bhan. It is the case of the prosecution that Ram Singh was feeling uncomfortable, while staying in the shop and he wanted to shift to his house, therefore, he requested the appellant many times to vacate the house, but the appellant threatened Ram Singh with dire consequences, if he insisted on vacating the house. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 9.10.2003 at about 9.30 PM, when complainant Sant Baldev Singh and his friend Ranjit Singh, after doing their work, reached in front of the shop of Ram Singh on their respective scooters. There they saw that the appellant was sitting with Ram Singh in the shop. After enquiring the welfare of Ram Singh, both of them proceeded further to their houses. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 10.10.2003 at about 10 AM, one Bindu (PW.4) gave information on telephone to the complainant that Ram Singh has been murdered by some unknown person with sharp edged weapon. Thereupon, complainant Sant Baldev Singh along with Ranjit Singh came at the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of his cousin Ram Singh smudged with blood lying on a cot. After leaving Ranjit Singh at the spot, complainant proceeded for Police Crl. A. No. 300-DB of 2006 -3- Station to give information. In the way, at Vaishno Devi Chowk, Ludhiana, the police party headed by Inspector Harjinder Singh (PW.12) SHO Police Station Division No.3, Ludhiana met him, where he got recorded his statement (Ex.PB) to the aforesaid effect. He further stated that he is confident that appellant Suraj Bhan had killed Ram Singh with sharp edged weapon. 3. On the basis of the above said statement, FIR (Ex.PA/1) was registered at 2.20 PM. Thereafter, Inspector Harjinder Singh visited the spot, prepared the rough site plan (Ex.PH) and the inquest report (Ex.PF) and vide application (Ex.PE), he sent the dead body to Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, for conducting the post mortem examination. SI Surinder Singh (PW.3), the Finger Prints Expert, was summoned at the spot. He checked the nip and glass, which were found at the spot. The finger prints were found available on the nip and its separate parcel was prepared. This parcel along with the glass were taken into possession vide recovery memo (Ex.PC), which was attested by complainant Sant Baldev Singh (PW.2), SI Surinder Singh (PW.3) and SI Paramjit Singh (PW.10). On the same day, at about 10.15 PM (night), the appellant was arrested. Medical 4. On 11.10.2003, Dr. Gurcharan Singh, conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Ram Singh, and he found the following injuries on the body of the deceased : Crl. A. No. 300-DB of 2006 -4- 1. Four punctured wounds ½ cm in diameter each in an area of 2 ½” to 2” on right side o front of chest 3” above from right nipple. 2. Six punctured wounds ½ cm in diameter each in an area of 4” x 2 ½” around right nipple. Four present on left side of nipple. One just above and one lateral and below the right nipple. 3. Punctured wound ½ cm in diameter, on sternal area in mid line, just in the line of nipple. 4. 13 punctured wounds ½ cm in diameter each in an area of 5” x 3” present on lower third of right axillary area. 5. Punctured wound ½ cm in diameter on right hypochondrial area. 6. 12 incised wounds measuring from 3/4” x 1/4” to 1/3” x 1/6” in an area of 7” x 3” present on lower aspect of chest, on frontal aspect. Four present on right side, 3 in mid line above epigestric area. Four on the left side of the chest and one on epigestric area. 7. 12 punctured wounds ½ cm in diameter each present in an area of 7” x 2” on upper part of abdomen, 4 on right side just lateral to mid line and 8 on left hypochondrial area. 8. Two punctured wounds ½ cm in diameter each present on right side of the abdomen 3” right lateral to umblicus and 1 ½” apart from each other. 9. Punctured wound ½ cm in diameter present on dorsum and lower third of right fore arm. 5. As per the Post Mortem Report (Ex.PD), the cause of death in the opinion of the Doctor was due to haemorrhage and shock, as a result of multiple injuries, which were sufficient to cause death in an ordinary course of nature. The injuries were ante mortem in nature. The probable time between the injuries and death was stated to be immediate and between death and post mortem was about 36 hours. Crl. A. No. 300-DB of 2006 -5- Investigation 6. During investigation, on 12.10.2003, in pursuance of his disclosure statement (Ex.PG/1), the appellant got recovered the knife (Ex.P1), used by him in the crime, which was kept concealed by him in his house in an iron trunk. The same was taken into possession vide recovery memo (Ex.PG/2), attested by SI Paramjit Singh. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. On 10.11.2003, HC Narinder Singh (PW.7) took the finger prints of both the hands of the appellant with the permission of the court and on 11.11.2003, the parcel containing the empty half liquor having finger prints recovered from the place of occurrence as well as the finger prints of the appellant were deposited with the Finger Print Bureau, Phillaur and vide report dated 8.12.2003(Ex.PK) the Director, Finger Print Bureau, Phillaur, has opined that the half empty bottle bear the finger prints of the appellant. Vide report (Ex.PL) of the Forensic Science Laboratory Punjab, Chandigarh, it has been found that the clothes of the deceased, removed at the time of his post mortem examination, and the knife, got recovered by the appellant, are stained with human blood. 7. After completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the accused and charge under Section 302 IPC was framed, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution evidence 8. The case of the prosecution is based upon the circumstantial evidence and in order to prove its case, the prosecution has relied upon five Crl. A. No. 300-DB of 2006 -6- types of evidence, i.e. (i) last seen; (ii) recovery of knife; (iii) medical evidence; (iv) expert evidence of the finger prints; and (v) the motive. 9. In order to prove the evidence of last seen as well as the motive, the prosecution examined PW.2 Sant Baldev Singh (complainant), PW.4 Bindu and PW.15 Prem Singh. PW.10 SI Paramjit Singh and PW.12 Inspector Harjinder Singh (Investigating Officer) have been examined to prove the recovery of knife at the instance of the appellant. To prove the medical evidence, PW.6 Dr. Gurcharan Singh has been examined, whereas in order to prove the expert evidence of finger prints, PW.3 SI Surinder Singh, who took the finger prints from the empty nip lying at the spot, has been examined, and report of the Finger Print Bureau, Phillaur (Ex.PK) has been tendered into evidence, Defence of the accused 10. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. He pleaded his innocence and false implication. He admitted that he was a tenant under deceased Ram Singh in one room. However, he stated that the remaining 7-8 rooms of the house were in possession of the deceased. He further stated that there was no dispute between him and deceased Ram Singh, and the instant case has been planted on him by the complainant with the sole purpose to grab the property of Ram Singh. Defence evidence 11. In defence, the appellant examined three witnesses. Crl. A. No. 300-DB of 2006 -7- 12. DW.1 Darshan Singh, Ahlmad of the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Ludhiana, proved that in a rent petition, titled as Gorakh Lal versus Sewa Singh (father of deceased Ram Singh), complainant Sant Baldev Singh had filed an application for impleading him as legal representative of Ram Singh after the death of Ram Singh. 13. DW.2 Albel Singh, Patwari Halqa, Dholewal, stated that after the death of Ram Singh, mutations No. 22828 dated 25.12.2003 and 23193 dated 9.8.2004 regarding the estate of his deceased father Sewa Singh were sanctioned in favour of complainant Sant Baldev Singh on the basis of an oral Will dated 31.1.2003. 14. DW.3 Tarvinder Kumar, Office Kanungo, Ludhiana stated that as per the record, both the aforesaid mutations were sanctioned in favour of complainant Sant Baldev Singh on the basis of an unregistered Will dated 31.1.2003. Trial court findings 15. While relying upon the circumstantial evidence, led by the prosecution, in the shape of last seen, recovery of knife, medical evidence, expert evidence of the finger prints as well as the motive; and while disbelieving the defence version of the appellant, the trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellant, as indicated in the first para of this judgment. Arguments of learned counsel for the appellants 16. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that in the present Crl. A. No. 300-DB of 2006 -8- case, which is based upon the circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has miserably failed to lead the evidence, from which the conclusion of guilt of the accused can be drawn safely and which is consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. All types of the circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution are not reliable, complete or conclusive, on the basis of which the aforesaid conclusion can be drawn. Learned counsel argued that if the statements of all the three witnesses, namely PW.2 Sant Baldev Singh (complainant), PW.4 Bindu and PW.15 Prem Singh, who have been examined by the prosecution to establish the evidence of last seen, are closely examined, then it reveals that the testimony of all these three witnesses are unreliable and untrustworthy, which do not establish the case of the prosecution at all. 17. Regarding the medical evidence, learned counsel argued that this piece of evidence led by the prosecution does not corroborate the prosecution version. A perusal of the Post Mortem Report (Ex.PD), proved by PW.6 Dr. Gurcharan Singh, shows that the deceased had received 40 punctured wounds and 12 incised wounds on his body, which indicates that these injuries were caused by two weapons. Learned counsel further argued that the number of injuries further indicates that the act of causing injuries to the deceased was the handwork of more than one person, therefore, the prosecution version that these injuries might have been caused by the accused alone on the intervening night of 9/10.10.2003 is doubtful. 18. With regard to the evidence of motive, learned counsel for the Crl. A. No. 300-DB of 2006 -9- appellant argued that in order to prove the motive, the prosecution is relying upon the testimony of PW.2 Sant Baldev Singh (complainant), which has not been corroborated by any one. Ranjit Singh, in whose presence the alleged threat was given, has not been examined by the prosecution. While referring to the defence evidence, learned counsel argued that there was a strong motive on the part of the complainant to falsely implicate the appellant in order to grab the property of the deceased. 19. So far as the report of the Finger Print Bureau, Phillaur is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the fact with regard to a nip and glass does not find mention in the inquest report and the site plan. Though the prosecution witnesses have stated about this fact in their statements, but this part of the statement, in the absence of its mention being made in the inquest report and the site plan, which were prepared by the police at the spot, is doubtful. 20. While referring to the evidence of recovery of knife at the instance of the appellant, learned counsel for the appellant argued that it has not been established that the said knife was used for committing the crime. 21. Thus, according to the learned counsel, without properly appreciating the circumstantial evidence, available on record, which is wholly unreliable and untrustworthy, the trial court has wrongly convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Arguments of learned counsel for the respondent-State 22. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, Crl. A. No. 300-DB of 2006 -10- Punjab, argued that the trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant on the basis of the circumstantial evidence, led by the prosecution, which is complete and incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis except that of the guilt of the accused, and the entire prosecution evidence in totality lead to the inference of the guilt of the accused. Discussion 23. On 10.10.2003 at about 9.30 AM, Bindu (PW.4) went to the shop of deceased Ram Singh, in front of which he used to sell the spectacles, goggles and belts etc. He found that Ram Singh was lying on a cot having multiple injuries. As per the Post Mortem Report (Ex.PD), there were 40 punctured wounds and 12 incised wounds on the body of the deceased. He died due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of multiple injuries, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The probable time between death and post mortem was about 36 hours. No body has seen the appellant causing the death of Ram Singh. He was probably murdered on the intervening night of 9/10.10.2003. According to complainant Sant Baldev Singh (PW.2), the appellant has committed the murder of Ram Singh, because earlier he was threatening him with dire consequences, if he (Ram Singh) insisted upon getting the rented house vacated from the appellant. The case of the prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence. In order to prove that the appellant has committed the murder of Ram Singh, the prosecution is relying upon the circumstantial evidence in the shape of motive, last seen, recovery of knife, medical Crl. A. No. 300-DB of 2006 -11- evidence and the expert evidence of the finger prints. 24. In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under :- “It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that before convicting an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the following principles must be fully established :- (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned must or should and and not may be established; (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the Crl. A. No. 300-DB of 2006 -12- accused is guilty; (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. These principles were subsequently reiterated in a number of cases by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the background on the aforesaid principles, we have to examine and analyse very carefully the circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution and then it is to be seen whether in the instant case, the circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution is sufficient to reach to the conclusion that it is only the appellant, who has committed the alleged crime. We will examine and analyse the circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution, under different heads. Motive 25. As per the prosecution version, the appellant has committed the murder of his landlord Ram Singh, because he (Ram Singh) was insisting the appellant to vacate the house. It is the further case of the prosecution that the appellant, who was un-married, was all alone and used to stay in his shop, but since he was feeling uncomfortable while staying in the shop, therefore, he wanted to shift to his house and had requested the appellant many times to vacate the house. In order to prove this motive, the Crl. A. No. 300-DB of 2006 -13- prosecution is relying upon the statement of PW.2 Sant Baldev Singh (complainant). According to him, in his presence and in the presence of Ranjit Singh, Ram Singh asked the appellant many times to vacate his house, but in their presence, the appellant had refused to vacate the house and threatened Ram Singh with dire consequences. But Ranjit Singh has not been examined by the prosecution to corroborate the version of the complainant. 26. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant has stated that he was tenant of deceased Ram Singh in one room of the house, consisting of 7-8 more rooms. It has come in the statements of PW.2 Sant Baldev Singh (complainant), PW.10 SI Paramjit Singh (the Investigating Officer) and PW.11 Kulwant Singh that the house of the deceased was consisting of many rooms, the appellant was in possession of only one room and the remaining rooms were lying unoccupied. 27. Now, the question arising for consideration is whether the relationship between Ram Singh and the appellant were strain and whether Ram Singh was actually insisting the appellant to vacate one room of his house for his personal us. In his initial statement before the police as well as in his statement before the court, PW.2 Sant Baldev Singh has stated that on 9.10.2003 at about 9.30 PM, he and Ranjit Singh reached the shop of Ram Singh after finishing their work, where they saw the appellant sitting with Ram Singh in the shop. After enquiring the well being of Ram Singh, he and Ranjit Singh went to their houses, but while making improvement in his Crl. A. No. 300-DB of 2006 -14- cross-examination, he further stated that on 9.10.2003 at about 9.30 PM, when they reached the shop of Ram Singh, the appellant and Ram Singh were having altercation. Ram Singh was insisting to vacate his house, but the appellant refused to vacate the house and threatened Ram Singh with dire consequences. He further stated that then they advised the appellant not to give threat, upon which the appellant said to them that they should not interfere. This improvement in the statement of Sant Baldev Singh creates doubt about the fact as to whether Ram Singh deceased actually wanted to get the room of his house vacated from the appellant. It is an admitted position that the room was rented out to the appellant, just 8/9 months prior to the occurrence. Normally within such a short time, no landlord insists for vacation of the premises, particularly when 6-7 other rooms in the same house were lying vacant and could have been easily occupied by Ram Singh deceased for his personal use. Undisputedly, Ram Singh did not file any ejectment application against the appellant. Further, in the first version, Sant Baldev Singh stated that when he and Ranjit Singh visited the shop, the appellant was sitting with Ram Singh. He does not state that they were altercating. If relations between the appellant and Ram Singh were strain on account of vacation of one room of the house, there was no reason for them to sit together at odd time. This further creates doubt about the alleged motive. The only witness of the motive is PW.2 Sant Baldev Singh. As per the defence evidence, on the basis of an unregistered oral Will, alleged to have been executed by Sewa Singh, father of deceased Ram Singh, only Crl. A. No. 300-DB of 2006 -15- three days prior to his death, PW.2 Sant Baldev Singh got mutated the property of Sewa Singh in his favour, only after the death of Ram Singh in this case. The conduct of this witness, after the death of Ram Singh, particularly with regard to moving of an application for impleading him as legal representative of Ram Singh in the ejectment application, filed by the landlord against Sewa Singh (father of deceased Ram Singh), regarding the shop, in which deceased Ram Singh was running his furniture repair shop, further indicates that he may have strong motive to falsely implicate the appellant, in order to throw him out of the room of the house, which he got mutated in his favour on the basis of the aforesaid unregistered oral Will. 28. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the uncorroborated version given by PW.2 Sant Baldev Singh does not appear to be reliable and trustworthy and merely on the basis of the statement of such witness, whose conduct is doubtful, the alleged motive does not stand established. Thus, the trial court, while appreciating the evidence, has wrongly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the motive. Last seen evidence 29. To establish that for the last time, the deceased was seen in the company of the appellant, the prosecution has examined three witnesses, namely PW.2 Sant Baldev Singh, PW.4 Bindu and PW.15 Prem Singh. 30. According to PW.2 Sant Baldev Singh, on 9.10.2003 at about 9.30 PM, i.e. he had seen Ram Singh and the appellant while sitting together in the shop. As already discussed above, in view of the improvement made Crl. A. No. 300-DB of 2006 -16- by this