Murder Reference No.8 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of decision:30.5.2008 State of Punjab ... Appellant Versus Mohinder Singh ... Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Uma Nath Singh. Hon'ble Mr.Justice A.N.Jindal. Present: Mr.Manoj Bajaj, Sr.DAG, Punjab, for the appellant. Mr.K.S.Sidhu, Advocate, with Mr.Tarminder Singh, Advocate ... UMA NATH SINGH, J. This judgment shall also dispose of connected Criminal Appeal No.1033-DB of 2007, filed by the sole accused-appellant Mohinder Singh as both the matters arise out of the impugned judgment dated 22.11.2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, in Sessions Case No.32 of 19.4.2006, holding the accused-appellant guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to death for committing murder of his wife Veena Verma and his daughter Geetu Verma on 8.1.2006 in the area of Partap Singh Wala, Ludhiana. As per the prosecution case, on 8.1.2006, Sub Inspector Gurpreet Singh (PW15), S.H.O. Police Station Haibowal, Ludhiana, at about 7.00 P.M. received a telephonic information that a man has committed murder of two women in the area of Village Partap Singh Wala. Murder Reference No.8 of 2007 2 Pursuant thereto, the S.H.O. alongwith other police officials went to the scene of occurrence and recorded the statement (Exhibit PH) of complainant Shalu, daughter of the accused. Shalu (PW-2) disclosed in her statement that she was residing with her mother Veena Verma, sister Geetu Verma, and brother Malkiat Singh alias Vicky. Neetu Arora is her elder sister who is married at Khanna. Her father Mohinder Singh was staying separately. On the date of incident, i.e., 08-01-2006, her brother Malkiat Singh went out to leave his sister Neetu in her-in-laws' house at Village Allorah. As such, only she, her mother Veena Verma, and sister Geetu Verma were present in the house. At about 6.30 P.M., her sister Geetu Verma was paying obeisance in the worship room and her mother Veena Verma was lying in the bed room. She (complainant) was also present near her mother. In the meantime, her father Mohinder Singh came inside their house through the staircase while carrying a kulhara in his hand. She told her mother that her father has come. When her mother Veena Verma got up and came in the lobby of the house, her father accused Mohinder Singh threatened her saying that he would teach a lesson. He gave a kulhara blow on the head of Veena Verma who collapsed on the ground, and thereafter, the accused gave her two more blows with kulhara which struck on the finger of her hand,and second blow landed on her neck. After that, accused-appellant gave three kulhara blows to her sister on her head. As a result, both her mother and sister were laid in the pool of blood. The complainant, out of fear, went into the room and bolted it from inside. Afterwards, the accused appellant fled away from the spot throwing the kulhara there itself. The complainant raised hue and cry after coming out of the house saying that her father Mohinder Singh has murdered her mother Veena Verma and her sister Geetu Verma. It Murder Reference No.8 of 2007 3 attracted the attention of people around who gathered on the spot. Her mother Veena Verma and sister Geetu Verma had succumbed to the injuries at the spot itself. The complainant while disclosing the motive behind the occurrence narrated that her father Mohinder Singh had committed rape on her sister deceased Geetu Verma and on her statement, a case had been registered against him. Her mother Veena Verma was a witness in that case and on conclusion of the trial, the accused was convicted and sentenced. The accused had come out after serving out the sentence and wanted to oust them from the house. (However, it is told by learned counsel for the parties that the accused had been sentenced to 12 years rigorous imprisonment and he had come out only on parole). The statement of the complainant having been recorded, S.I. Gurpreet Singh (PW-15) vide his endorsement Exhibit PH/1 sent it to the Police Station and on that basis, a formal FIR Exhibit PH/2 was recorded by ASI Som Nath. Inquest proceedings of the dead body of Veena Verma vide Exhibit PC and that of Geetu Verma alias Gurmit Kaur vide Exhibit PF were completed. The Investigating Officer also drew the rough site plan Exhibit PCC of the scene of occurrence and lifted blood of both the dead bodies separately. He made the incriminating materials into parcel and sealed the same with his seal impression “GS”. The parcels were taken into possession vide memo Exhibit PL in respect of dead body of Veena Verma and Exhibit PM in regard to that of Gurmit Kaur alias Geetu Verma. The Finger Prints Expert-Pardeep Kumar (PW-9) was also summoned. He was shown the articles suspected to have been handled by the accused. The articles were examined after applying chemical powders and further, some impressions were also noticed on a window glass. Pardeep Kumar (PW-9), encircled and initialed the impressions on those Murder Reference No.8 of 2007 4 articles. ASI Jagjit Singh prepared the negatives of the chance prints at the spot. The positive prints thereof which were lateron prepared in finger print office, were sent to the Director, Finger Print Bureau, Phillaur, for necessary action. The report of the Bureau is Ex.PS. Constable Sucha Singh (PW4) an official photographer in CIA Staff, Ludhiana, also visited the spot and photographed both the dead bodies. He took the photographs Ex.P-2 to Ex.P-13 and their negatives are placed on record as Ex.P14 to Ex.P25. The photographs were taken into possession vide Exhibit PN by the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer, SI Gurpreet Singh (PW15) also prepared a rough sketch vide Ex.PK of the kulhara, weapon of offence, after recovery, which was converted into a parcel and sealed with his seal impression. The same was taken into possession by the police vide Ex.. PJ. During the course of investigation, SI Gurpreet Singh (PW15) received an information that the accused was hiding himself in a rented accommodation in Chhoti Haibowal, and pursuant thereto, he went to that place and arrested him vide memo (Ex.PU). On search of his bag which the accused was possessing, his blood stained pant and shirt were recovered which were also made into parcel and taken into possession vide Ex.PX. Personal search of the accused was conducted vide Memo (Ex.PV), and then he was lodged in police custody. The dead bodies, after inquest, were handed over to ASI Dalip Singh for post mortem examination. The post mortem of the dead body was conducted by Dr. U.S. Sooch (PW-1), Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ludhiana. with Dr. R.S. Garewal, on police request (Ex.PB) being accompanied by Inquest Report (Ex.PC) under the direction of Dr.Manjit Kaur, then SMO vide her endorsement Ex.PB/1, whose handwriting and signatures were identified by PW1. On examination Murder Reference No.8 of 2007 5 of dead body of Veena Verma, the Doctors noticed that post mortem staining was present on the back whereas rigor mortis was present all over the body. They also noticed the following injuries : “1. One incised wound 6-1/2” x 2” x 5” deep placed obliquely on the right lateral side and upper part of the neck with lobule of the right ear was cut through and through and the right mastoid bone was also cut. The soft tissues, muscles, blood vessels and second cervical vertebrae was also cut along with membrane and spinal cord. 2. Incised wound 4” x 1” x brain matter deep 1” right to the mid line on the top of vertex with underneath bone membrane and brain tissues were cut. 3. Incised wound 4-1/2” x 1/2” x bone deep horizontal on the nape of neck on its lower part. The underneath muscles, soft tissues and 6th cervical vertebrae was cut along with membrane and spinal cord. 4. The left index finger was partially amputated from its lower one third with clean cut margins. Stomach contained 250 CC of fluid mixed with blood. The intestines were pale and contained gases and faeces. All other viscera of chest and abdomen were found pale. The cause of death in this case in the opinion of Doctors was haemorrhage and shock as a result of multiple injuries which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The time between the injuries and death was Murder Reference No.8 of 2007 6 instantaneous and between death and post mortem examination was about 18 hours. After post mortem examination, the Doctor (PW1) handed over to the police stitched dead body, carbon copy of the post mortem report, police papers (1 to 20) duly signed by him, and the clothes of the deceased. Ex.PA is the carbon copy of the post mortem report and Ex.PA/1 is the carbon copy of the pictorial diagram showing the seats of injuries, on the person of deceased Veena Verma. The Doctor stated that the injuries noticed on the person of the deceased, as mentioned in Ex.PA, could result from the blows given by the Kulhari (Ex.P1).” Dr. Sooch (PW-1) and Dr. R.S. Garewal also conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Geetu Verma alias Gurmit Kaur at 3.00 p.m. on the same day vide police request (Ex.PE) being accompanied by inquest report (Ex.PE). In her case also, post mortem staining was found present on the back and rigor mortis was present all over the body. They found the following injuries on the dead body :- “1. Incised wound 5-1/2” x 1” x cranial cavity deep placed obliquely on the left temporal, parietal and occipital area with cut fracture of underneath bones and the membrane and brain tissue were also found cut. Clotted blood was present. 2. Incised wound 4” x 3/4” x bone deep on the mid line of the fronto parietal area with cut fracture of the underneath bones membrane and brain tissues were also cut. 3. Incised wound 2-1/2” x 1” scalp deep 1-1/2” right to the Murder Reference No.8 of 2007 7 injury No.2. 4. Incised wound 2” x 3/4” x bone deep on the left mastoid with cut fracture of left mastoid. 5. Incised wound 4” x 1-1/2” x bone deep with cut in the shirt on the lateral side of right elbow with cut fracture of right radius bone. 6. Incised wound 2” x 1/2” x bone deep on the medial side of right wrist, with cut fracture of underneath bones. 7. Incised wound 1” x1/4' x bone deep horizontal mid front of left middle finger. 8. Two abrasions 3” x 1” and 2” x 1” on the back and upper part of left fore arm. 9. Two abrasions 1/2” x 1/2” on the front of left elbow. The stomach was full of fluid and food articles. Intestines contained gases and faeces. Other organs were found healthy. The cause of death in this case in their opinion was coma and shock as a result of head injury which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and all injuries were ante mortem in nature.” Probable time between the injuries and death was instantaneous and the death and post mortem examination was about 18 hours. They handed over to police stitched dead body, carbon copy of post mortem report,police papers(numbers (1 to 18) duly signed by him and clothes of the deceased. Ex.PD is the carbon Murder Reference No.8 of 2007 8 copy of post mortem report and Ex.PD/1 is the pictorial diagrams showing the seats of injuries. The Doctor mentioned in his evidence that the injuries No.1 to 7 noted in the post mortem report (Ex.PD) could result from the blows caused with the sharp side of the Kulhari (Ex.P1), whereas, the injuries No.8 and 9 could be possible with a blow given by the wooden portion thereof.” After completing the investigation SI Gurpreet Singh laid a challan against the accused under Section 302 IPC. The trial Court accordingly framed the charge to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution produced as many as 16 witnesses namely: Dr.U.S.Sooch (PW1), Shalu (PW2), Sunil Kumar (PW3), Constable Sucha Singh (PW4), C-II Ram Saran (PW5), HC Chamkaur Singh (PW6), Malkiat Singh (PW7), HC Gurcharan Singh (PW8), Pardeep Kumar, Finger Prints Expert (PW9), Constable Rakesh Kumar (PW10), ASI Dalip Singh (PW11), HC Bant Singh (PW12), Gurnam Singh (PW13), ASI Gurmej Singh (PW14), SI Gurpreet Singh (PW15) and Ms.Palwinder Kaur, JMIC (PW16). Some of the witnesses were given up as unnecessary. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex.PDD) and the report of the Director, Finger Print Bureau, Phillaur (Ex.PEE) along with specimen seal impressions and photographs etc. were also tendered into evidence. The incriminating evidence and materials having been put to the accused during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., were denied as incorrect by him and then he pleaded his defence as under :- “I am innocent. I have not committed any offence as alleged, as Murder Reference No.8 of 2007 9 I was not present at the time of the alleged occurrence. I have litigation with deceased Veena Verma and I am demanding my claim in the house, which I own. Sunil Kumar my brother-in- law is keeping an eye on the property and he in connivance with Mehnga Singh Khair and some other persons who deposed against me and are cited as prosecution witnesses in the case have committed the crime and falsely implicated me in this case. Moreover, my finger prints were forcibly taken on the window panes of the house after arresting me and no other finger prints were traceable in the house. The weapon of offence used in this case also does not bear my finger prints. I was picked up from my house at night time in the presence of some other persons with whom I had spant the whole day and was present with them at the time when the alleged occurrence took place.” The accused also produced three defence witnesses namely: Saudagar Singh (DW1), Rattan Lal (DW2) and Harchand Singh (DW3), to prove that he is not involved in the offence and closed his evidence. After appreciation of evidence, learned Sessions Judge found the prosecution case established beyond reasonable doubt and the prosecution evidence worth inspiring confidence. As the manner and the gravity of the offence were found to be gruesome, abhorrent and aggravating, it was held to be falling in the category of the rarest of the rare cases and as such, has been visited with the extreme penalty of death sentence. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. Murder Reference No.8 of 2007 10 Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was a delay of 1-1/2 hours in lodging the FIR, which was recorded at 8.05 PM, although the distance between the police station and the spot of incident is only 3 Kms. The finger prints which were lifted from the window panes/glass are a piece of evidence which is fabricated and the investigating agency had enough opportunity to manufacture such incriminating evidence in the back ground of a sworn inimical relationship between the parties. Learned counsel also contended that there is no plausible explanation as to why the Finger Print Expert summoned on the spot did not collect the finger prints supposed to be available on the handle of kulhara, the weapon of offence, which was lying on the scene of occurrence. Recovery of blood stained clothes from the bag of the accused is also doubtful. The prosecution intentionally did not associate an independent witness with recovery proceedings. Further, one witness to the recovery of clothes has stated that the clothes were being stuffed in the bag whereas, the I.O. has mentioned that it was kept in the bag. Besides, the prosecution also delayed the despatch of blood stained articles to the FSL. Learned counsel referred to Ex.PT to contend that the case property including blood stained clothes of the deceased, as well as the accused, and the Kulhara were handed over to Constable Rakesh Kumar on 10.2.2006, after a gap of more than one month by MHC, for depositing the said articles in the office of the FSL, Chandigarh, after obtaining a docket to be issued from the office of the S.S.P., Ludhiana. Likewise, with further delay, on 20.3.2006, SI Gurpreet Singh (PW-15) handed over the finger prints of accused Mohinder Singh and the ones lifted from the spot of incident which were attested by the Court of Ms.Palwinderjit Kaur, JMIC, Ludhiana, along Murder Reference No.8 of 2007 11 with two photographs, to witness Constable Rakesh Kumar and sent him to the office of the S.S.P., Ludhiana, for obtaining a docket and depositing the articles thereafter in the office of the Finger Prints Bureau, Phillaur. According to learned counsel for the accused appellant, there is a dearth of explanation in the prosecution evidence about such delays and safe custody of those case properties during the interregnum period. Blood group of the blood stains of human origin as noticed in the report of the Chemical Examiner also could not be determined, nor was it sent for DNA test. As per the sketch of weapon of offence, the blade of kulhara was 7 fingers, therefore, injury No.1 was not possible from that weapon. Learned counsel placed reliance on the statements of defence witnesses, namely: Rattan Lal (DW2) and Harchand Singh (DW3) to show that witness Shalu was not present in the house at the time of offence. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, submitted that Pardeep Kumar, Finger Prints Expert (PW9), has stated that the finger prints on the handle of kulhara were not available being washed out and for the surface of handle of kulhara being uneven, it would not have been possible to lift the impressions, if any. Learned State counsel while answering the contention of learned counsel for the appellant on delay in lodging the FIR, argued that there was no such delay as the offence was committed at 6.30 PM and the statement of the complainant (PW2) was recorded within one hour at 7.30 PM itself and then sent to the police station for recording a formal FIR. The FIR No.6 on 8.1.2006 was registered at 8.05 PM, for the distance between the place of occurrence and the police station was 3 kms. The special report was received by JMIC in the intervening night of 8.1.2006 and 9.1.2006 at 3.30 AM. In the Chemical Murder Reference No.8 of 2007 12 Examiner's report, all the exhibits stained with blood were found to contain human blood. Thus, the articles so recovered by the police during investigation were found to be connected with the offence. There was a motive for commission of offence, inasmuch as, the accused appellant had earlier also caused injuries to his wife in 2005. Vide Ex.PAA, an FIR being No.58 dated 6.4.2005 under Sections 324, 323 and 506 IPC was lodged by deceased Veena Verma when the accused appellant had assaulted her after coming out from the jail on parole in the rape case. Thus, according to learned counsel, there are enough clinching incriminating materials to establish the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. On a careful scrutiny of rival evidence as well as rival submissions, we notice that out of 16 witnesses examined by the prosecution, testimonies of Dr.U.S.Sooch (PW1), complainant Shalu (PW2), Malkiat Singh son of the deceased (PW7), Pardeep Kumar, Finger Prints Expert (PW9), ASI Dalip Singh (PW11) and SI Gurpreet Singh, incharge of police station (PW15) are of special significance. Ex.PH is the statement of complainant Shalu (PW1) given to SI Gurpreet Singh at 7.30 PM on 8.1.2006, the day of occurrence. Ex.PH/2 is the formal FIR which was registered under Section 302 IPC at 8.05 PM. The special report under Section 157 Cr.P.C. was dispatched vide DDR No.21 at 9.05 PM, the same day, which was received at 3.30 AM in the intervening night of 8.1.2006 and 9.1.2006 by JMIC. In her statement to the police, complainant Shalu (PW2) has given a graphic description as to how the accused entered the house; the weapon which he was carrying and used in the commission of offence; the manner and the amount of brutality shown by him; and as to how she had escaped his wrath and her death by running into a room and Murder Reference No.8 of 2007 13 bolting it from inside. There was no delay in lodging the FIR as the statement of the complainant was recorded at 7.30 PM and even as per the statement of defence witness Rattan Lal (DW2), the police had reached the place within 20-25 minutes at the most. The complainant being a girl of tender age of about 15-16 years would have been in a state of utter shock when in her presence, her mother and elder sister of 20 years, who had earlier been subjected to rape by her accused father, were brutally murdered, and she would have regained some strength to give statement to the police only after a gap which was, however, recorded within half an hour of arrival of the police, that had swung into action on receipt of telephonic message from some unknown person. In the inquest reports (Ex.PC and Ex.PF) of the dead bodies of deceased Veena Verma and Geetu Verma @ Gurdip Kaur, the time of discovery of death has been mentioned as 7.00 P.M., which further fortifies the prosecution case that the police had arrived at the scene of occurrence within 20-25 minutes, as is also admitted by defence witness Rattan Lal (DW2). Thus, it would not be open to gainsay the prosecution assertion that complainant Shalu (PW2) was not present on the spot or under the attending circumstances, she could not have seen the occurrence. Moreover, in her cross-examinations, PW2 has stated about the incident as: “It is wrong to suggest that I was not present at the time of the occurrence. There are houses in our neighbourhood. I raised shrieks when my mother and sister were being murdered by my father. I did state in my police statement this fact. I raised shrieks twice or thrice, but I was silent by my father by showing kulhara to me. (confronted with Ex.PH where it is not so recorded). When I raised shrieks twice or thrice, Murder Reference No.8 of 2007 14 no body was attracted to the place of the occurrence. Accused after having entered the house through stair case, chained the door of the lobby from inside. I do not recollect whether this fact was got recorded by me or not in my police statement. (confronted with Ex.PH where this fact is not recorded). It is incorrect to suggest that I did not raise shrieks, nor I raised raula after coming out of the house nor the people had gathered at the spot. When my father gave kulhara blow towards my sister, she raised her arms asking him not to do so. I do not remember, as to whether or not this fact was got recorded by me in Ex.PH (confronted with Ex.PH where it is not so recorded). When I raised alarm, after having come out of the house, first of all our neighbour either by the name of Gurcharan or Gurjit came first and then came one Fauji, who is also running karyana shop near our house. I did not ask any one specifically to make a telephone call to the police, regarding this occurrence. The residents of the mohalla of their own made telephone call informing the police in relation to this occurrence. I do not know the person who made such telephone call to police. It is wrong to suggest that I was not present at the place of occurrence and due to that reason, I did not ask any attendant at the spot to make telephone call to the police. Police came at the spot