Criminal Appeal No. 495-DB of 1999 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Criminal Appeal No. 495-DB of 1999 Date of decision : 4.7.2008 Mukhtiar Singh .....Appellant Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent **** 2. Criminal Appeal No. 512-DB of 1999 Jeeto .....Appellant Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent **** CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND **** Present: Mr. J.S. Bains, Advocate as Amicus Curiae for the appellants Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab S. D. ANAND, J. These two appeals at the hands of Mukhtiar Singh son of Sohan Lal and Jeeto wife of Mukhtiar Singh (Criminal Appeal Nos. 495-DB of 1999 and 512-DB of 1999 respectively) are directed against their conviction by the learned Trial Judge. While acquitting the third accused Lakhbir Singh, the learned Trial Judge convicted the appellants for offences under Section 302 read with Criminal Appeal No. 495-DB of 1999 -2- **** Section 34 IPC and also Section 201 IPC. For the former offence, they were sentenced to undergo rigourous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-each; In default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo further rigourous imprisonment for six months. For the latter offence, appllants were directed to undergo rigourous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-each; In default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo further rigourous imprisonment for one month. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The prosecution allegations, upheld at the trial, were as under:- First informant Gurcharan Singh was residing in a Behak located in his fields and towards the South of the village Kakkar Kalan alongwith other members of his family including his mother Gurdip Kaur. Gurdip Kaur used to run the business of 'committees'. In that context, Jeeto appellant owed a sum of Rs.8,000/- to her i.e. Gurdip Kaur. It was a routine for Gurdip Kaur to accompany appellant Jeeto for visit out of the house. In routine, Jeeto would go to visit her relations in village Khyala while leaving Gurdip Kaur in village Thatha enroute. It is in the latter village that Mohinder Kaur, sister of first informant and daughter of Gurdip Kaur, was married. There was, thus, nothing unusual when the appellant fetched Gurdip Kaur from her house on 10.2.1998. At the time the trio left the Behak belonging to first informant, Swinder kaur wife of first informant was also present over there. Gurdip Kaur was fetched on Criminal Appeal No. 495-DB of 1999 -3- **** a representation by appellant Jeeto that the latter was go to village Khhyala and if the former wanted, she could accompany her to meet her daughter Mohinder Kaur enroute. The parties left the village on the following day in the presence of Gurmail Singh a nephew of the first informant. The trio left after having had tea at the Behak of first informant. While leaving, Gurdip Kaur promised to return on the polling day. At the time Gurdip Kaur left in the company of appellant Jeeto and Mukhtiar Singh, she was dressed in a Bootidar suit and had also wrapped a while cloth around her and was also wearing golden bangle and ear rings too. When she did not return on the polling day, the first informant went to the house of Mohinder Kaur to find out the whereabouts of their mother. Mohinder Kaur informed the first informant that their mother did not at all come to her house. Thereupon, first informant went to village Kakkar Kalan in the company of his nephew Gurmail Singh and found that house of appellant Mukhtiar Singh was lying locked. He could not establish contact with the appellants. It gave rise to suspicion in his mind that the appellants had kidnapped his mother with a view to evade the amount Jeeto owed and also with a view to devour the golden ornaments worn by Gurdip Kaur at that time. He notified the offence to the Police vide FIR No. 31 dated 17.2.1998. On 17.2.1998, ASI Rajbir Singh was present in the village and in the company of first informant when both the appellants were arrested near the path leading to the drain. They were interrogated and they made a disclosure statement offering to point out the place Criminal Appeal No. 495-DB of 1999 -4- **** where the dead body of Mst. Gurdip Kaur had been concealed and to get the recovery thereof effected. That place was pointed out and the dead body dug out by the appellants Mukhtiar Kaur and Jeeto with the help of a Kassi and a Ramba respectively in the presence of Sh. Bhupinder Singh, Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Ajnala. Thereafter, appellant Jeeto made a disclosure statement ((Ex. PF) that she had kept concealed one spectacle and one pair of ladies shoes under the heap of straw near the Behak of Kuldip Singh Lambardar and offered to get it recovered. Thereafter, in pursuance of her disclosure statement ( Ex. PF), she led the police to the indicated place and got recovery of one spectacle and one pair of ladies shoes effected. Those were identified by the first informant to be that of his mother Gurdip Kaur. The appellants denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication in the case. Both the appellants denied having any idea about the circumstances leading to the death of deceased Gurdip Kaur. The appellants did not adduce any evidence in defence. Learned Trial Judge, relying upon the last seen evidence and also the fact of recovery of dead body at the instance of the appellants upheld the prosecution allegations in the context. The impugned finding is buttressed by the fact of recovery of one spectacle and one pair of ladies shoes in pursuance of a disclosure statement made by appellant Jeeto. Learned Amicus Curiae, in a bid to get the finding of Criminal Appeal No. 495-DB of 1999 -5- **** indictment negatived, argues that the last seen evidence cannot be said to be adequate by itself to base the conviction of the appellants particularly when the prosecution presentation is supported by only relation witnesses. It is also the argument that the recovery of dead body also cannot be used against the appellants as place of concealment was accessible to all and sundry. We do not find any merit in the criticism levelled by the learned Amicus Curiae. The reasons therefor are as under:- The present is a case which is not based solely upon the last seen evidence. Apart from the fact that the evidence in the context has been presented in a very natural fashion, it is adequately cemented by the recovery of dead body of the deceased at the instance of the appellants in pursuance of their disclosure statement. It would be pertinent to notice that the recovery was effected in the presence of a Executive Magistrate who had, obviously, no axe to grind by falsely owning any part of the prosecution presentation. It is not a case in which the dead body was lying upon the ground. It had to be dug out by the appellants with the help of a Kassi and Ramba from under the ground. The fact, thus, that the place was as such open to all and sundry does not affect the validity of the recovery of dead body at the instance of the appellants. Further, it also cannot be ignored that the above evidence is further buttressed by the fact of recovery of one spectacle and one pair of ladies shoes belonging to the deceased. If the appellants had not committed the impugned crime, there is not reason why they would have been privy to the Criminal Appeal No. 495-DB of 1999 -6- **** place of concealment (of dead body and other belongings of the deceased). Though it cannot be denied that the present case is based upon circumstantial evidence, we cannot be oblivious of the fact that circumstantial evidence collected by the investigating agency is of a character which has no missing link in it and which conclusively lays the blame at the door of the appellants. The further fact that their house was found locked, that they were not available at their house and that they remained incommunicado for a number of days would also indicate guilty intention in their mind. Further, there is no reason why the prosecution witnesses would have falsely accused the appellants in the context. Though they are relation witnesses, we find no reason whatsoever to disbelieve their statements because they would be most interested quarters to get the appellants convicted for having eliminated the mother of the first informant. In the light of the foregoing discussion, both the appeals are dismissed. ( S. D. ANAND ) JUDGE July 04, 2008 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) Pka JUDGE