Crl. Appeal No.437-DB of 2004 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. Crl. Appeal No.437-DB of 2004 Date of Decision: 29.02.2008 Charanjit Kaur ....Appellant. Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent Coram:- Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S. Khehar. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sham Sunder. Present: Mr. G.S. Kaura, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.S. Bhinder, Addl. A.G., Punjab for the respondent. ... J.S. Khehar, J. The instant appeal has been filed against the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Faridkot, in Sessions Case No.16 of 2000, decided on 4.3.2004. By the impugned judgement, the accused/appellant Charanjit Kaur has been convicted under Sections 363, 364-A, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. By a separate order dated 4.3.2004, the accused/appellant Charanjit Kaur was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, it was ordered that she would further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. She was also ordered to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, under Section Crl. Appeal No.437-DB of 2004 2 364-A of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, it was ordered that she would further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. Additionally, she was required to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, it was ordered that she would further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Lastly, she was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, it was ordered that she would further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. The prosecution version of the incident is based on the complaint made by Makhan Singh PW3, resident of village Meenia, to ASI Paramjit Singh PW18, on 2.1.2001. A perusal of the statement of the complainant Makhan Singh PW3 would reveal, that he was married to Sarabjit Kaur in 1992. From the wedlock of Makhan Singh and Sarabjit Kaur, they had two children, first a daughter Rupinder Kaur aged about 8 years, and the second, a son Jaskaran Singh aged about 5 years. Both the children of the complainant Makhan Singh PW3 were students of Hargobind Public School, Loppo. While Rupinder Kaur, the complainant's daughter, was stated to be studying in the second class, his son Jaskaran Singh was stated to be studying in the nursery class. According to the complainant, in the morning (of the day when the complaint was made) on 2.1.2001, his son Jaskaran Singh had gone to Gurudwara Tibi Sahib to pay obeisance in connection with Gurpurab. Whereas, Makhan Singh, his wife Sarabjit Kaur and their daughter Rupinder Kaur had remained home. Later on, his daughter Rupinder Kaur had also gone with some children living in Crl. Appeal No.437-DB of 2004 3 the neighbourhood, to the same Gurudwara. After paying obeisance, the complainant's daughter Rupinder Kaur is stated to have returned home at about 11.00 AM, but his son Jaskaran Singh did not return home till 11.30 AM. Resultantly, the complainant's wife Sarabjit Kaur went out to make a search for her son Jaskaran Singh. The complainant himself made a search for his son in the neighbourhood, as also, at the Gurudwara, but could not find him. According to the complainant, he also arranged to make an announcement from the speaker of the Gurudwara. Despite the aforesaid announcement, his son could not be traced. Yet again, the respectables of the village collected together to search for Jaskaran Singh, but Jaskaran Singh could not be traced anywhere. At about 5.00 PM in the evening of 2.1.2001, the complainant Makhan Singh PW3 found a letter in the small door leading to his house, wherein it was alleged that his son Jaskaran Singh had been abducted. In the letter, 12 tolas of gold was demanded as ransom for his return. Whilst making his statement, the complainant Makhan Singh PW3 also handed over the aforesaid letter of ransom to the police. On the basis of the aforesaid complain, First Information Report bearing No.2 was registered at Police Station, Badhni Kalan in Police District Moga, on 2.1.2001 at 8.00 PM. The special report thereof was received by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga on 3.1.2001 at 4.00 AM. The complainant received another letter of ransom, wherein the complainant Makhan Singh PW3 was informed, that he should reach Amritsar on 6.1.2001 at 12.00 Noon with Rs.1,00,000/-. The aforesaid ransom letter was also delivered by the complainant Makhan Singh PW3 to the police. Since the letters of ransom were received from the side of the house of the accused/appellant Charanjit Kaur, the needle of suspicion Crl. Appeal No.437-DB of 2004 4 pointed towards her. On 16.4.2001, SI Gurcharan Singh PW6 joined the accused/appellant Charanjit Kaur in the investigation and interrogated her, but since nothing fruitful emerged out of her interrogation, she was let off on 17.4.2001. During the course of investigation, SI Gurcharan Singh PW6 produced the accused/appellant Charanjit Kaur in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga and took her specimen handwriting. Other specimen of her handwriting were also collected. ASI Shamsher Singh who was vested with the investigation of the case for sometime, sent the specimen handwritings of the accused/appellant Charanjit Kaur to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh, so that the same could be compared with the ransom letters received by the complainant Makhan Singh PW3. The Deputy Director of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh after comparing the specimen handwritings of the accused with the ransom letters, opined that the specimen handwritings and the letters in question were in the hand of one and the same person. In the meantime, on 24.5.2002, the accused/appellant Charanjit Kaur made an extra judicial confession to Lamberdar Hardev Singh PW5. Lamberdar Hardev Singh PW5 also facilitated the arrest of the accused/appellant Charanjit Kaur. She was produced before, DSP Baldev Singh PW7, who after arresting the accused/appellant Charanjit Kaur interrogated her. During the course of interrogation, the accused/appellant Charanjit Kaur made a disclosure statement Ex.P9 to the effect, that she had thrown the dead body in an uninhabited latrine of Bikkar Singh, resident of village Meenia, after putting the same in a gunny bag. The aforesaid disclosure statement was witnessed, inter-alia, by Resham Singh PW19, Naib Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Nihal Singh Wala and by the Crl. Appeal No.437-DB of 2004 5 complainant Makhan Singh PW3, and also, by Sukhdev Singh and SI Jagjit Singh. In order to determine the cause of the death, the dead body recovered on the pointing out of the accused/appellant Charanjit Kaur, was sent for postmortem examination, through Suraj Pal Singh PW10 and LC Resham Singh. Dr. K.K. Aggarwal, Assistant Professor, Forensic Medicine, Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital, conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Jaskaran Singh, on 25.5.2002. The postmortem examination conducted by Dr. K.K. Aggarwal revealed, that the bones were mud stained. One tuft of hair was present. In the opinion of Dr. K.K. Aggarwal PW1, the cause of death of the child could be given only after the examination of the bones, after boiling. The probable duration between the death and the postmortem examination conducted by him, was stated to be between 1-2 years. The bones were then boiled, dried and examined. Whereupon, Dr. K.K. Aggarwal PW1 opined, that they were human bones and further, that all the bones belonged to one individual. It was also opined, that the approximate age of the person was between 4-6 years. However, since the entire soft tissues were missing, no opinion could be given regarding the cause of death from the available bones. On the completion of the investigation, a challan dated 25.7.2002 was presented before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga, arrived at the prima-facie conclusion that offences punishable under Sections 302/365/201 of the Indian Penal Code were made out against the accused – Charanjit Kaur. Since the aforesaid offences are exclusively triable by a Court of Session, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga, by his order dated 8.8.2002 committed the case to the Crl. Appeal No.437-DB of 2004 6 Court of Session. The Sessions Judge, Faridkot, charged the accused/appellant Charanjit Kaur for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 364-A, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code by an order dated 2.9.2002. The accused was then confronted with the charges levelled against her. She pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined a number of witnesses. A brief description of the statements of the witnesses produced by the prosecution during the course of the trial, are being summarised hereinafter. The prosecution first of all, examined Dr. K.K. Aggarwal as PW1. Details in respect of the postmortem examination conducted by Dr. K.K. Aggarwal PW1 have already been narrated above. It would, however, be pertinent to mention, that Dr. K.K. Aggarwal PW1 during the course of his cross-examination, acknowledged that no DNA test was conducted. However, it was opined, that a DNA test is not the only manner of determining whether the bones are human bones or not. He also opined that a special laboratory was not required to determine the age and sex, with the aid of bones. He opined that all forensic experts are competent to determine age and sex from bones. The statement of Pritam Singh, Draftsman was recorded as PW2. As per his statement, he had visited the spot and prepared the scaled site plan Ex.P4, alongwith its marginal notes. The statement of Makhan Singh was recorded as PW3. He reiterated the factual position which he had narrated in his statement to the police on 2.1.2001. In addition to his aforesaid statement, he asserted that after he had recorded the aforesaid statement, he received another letter on 6.1.2001, wherein he was required to reach Amritsar with a ransom of Rs.1,00,000/- Crl. Appeal No.437-DB of 2004 7 if he desired to save the life of his son Jaskaran Singh. He affirmed having handed over the said ransom letter received by him on 6.1.2001, to the police authorities. In his cross-examination, he asserted that he had entertained a suspicion that the accused/appellant Charanjit Kaur may have committed the mischief on account of the fact, that both the letters were delivered from the side of her door i.e. from the side of the house of the accused/appellant Charanjit Kaur. He acknowledged that on 24.5.2002 the disclosure statement of the accused/appellant Charanjit Kaur, was recorded in his presence, wherein on police interrogation, the accused/appellant Charanjit Kaur stated that she had put the dead body of Jaskaran Singh in a gunny bag and had thrown the same in the pit of a dry latrine, in the uninhabited house of Bikkar Singh. Having recorded her disclosure statement, those accompanying the accused/appellant Charanjit Kaur proceeded towards the Dharamshala of village Meenia after having taken alongwith them a photographer Iqbal Singh and the Naib Tehsildar Resham Singh. According to Makhan Singh PW3, the accused/appellant Charanjit Kaur was allowed to lead the police party for the recovery of the dead body of Jaskaran Singh. Accordingly, the accused/appellant Charanjit Kaur got the dead body of Jaskaran Singh recovered from the latrine of the uninhabited house of Bikkar Singh. The dead body of Jaskaran Singh was identified on the basis of the shoes he was wearing and his hair, as also, from his clothing, by the complainant Makhan Singh PW3. A sealed parcel in possession of the police was permitted to be opened during the course of the deposition of the complainant Makhan Singh as PW3. Makhan Singh PW3 identified the shirt, pant, pair of shoes, socks and hair, produced from the parcel, as those of his son Jaskaran Singh, which were recovered when Crl. Appeal No.437-DB of 2004 8 his dead body was found in the latrine of the uninhabited house of Bikkar Singh. The prosecution then produced Gurdev Singh as PW4. Gurdev Singh PW4 is stated to be engaged in the work of digging pits of latrine in the area. He affirms in his statement that he had gone to the house of Bikkar Singh and climbed down into the well with a rope and brought out the skeleton of a child, as well as, some clothes lying in the latrine pit. The statement of Hardev Singh was recorded as PW5. Hardev Singh PW5 was earlier a Lamberdar and thereafter, a Sarpanch of village Matwani. He asserted that he had known the accused/appellant Charanjit Kaur as she was the daughter of Jaswant Singh a resident of village Meenia. He also asserted, that the accused/appellant Charanjit Kaur had made an extra judicial confession to him, that she had committed the murder of Jaskaran Singh on 2.1.2001. While giving details of her extra judicial confession, Hardev Singh PW5 stated, that the accused/appellant Charanjit Kaur had disclosed to him that Jaskaran Singh had come to her residence at 10.00 AM on 2.1.2001, whereupon, she had strangulated him and thereafter wrapped his dead body in a gunny bag and concealed the same in a deserted latrine located in the house of Bikkar Singh. Hardev Singh PW5 further asserted, that the accused/appellant Charanjit Kaur had confessed to him, that she had written a letter to the parents of the deceased Jaskaran Singh, demanding 12 tolas of gold as ransom. As per the statement of Hardev Singh PW5, the accused/appellant Charanjit Kaur had requested him to help her so that she may not be harassed by the police. She had also requested Hardev Singh PW5 to produce her before the police. In furtherance of her request, Hardev Singh PW5 facilitated the arrest of the accused/appellant Charanjit Kaur when he handed her over to Inspector Baldev Singh PW7. Crl. Appeal No.437-DB of 2004 9 Hardev Singh PW5 asserted that he was a witness on the personal search memo Ex.P12, prepared after the accused/appellant Charanjit Kaur was searched. He also affirms that he was the attesting witness of her arrest memo Ex.P13. The statement of SI Gurcharan Singh was recorded as PW6. In his statement, he affirmed that he had obtained the specimen handwritings of the accused/appellant Charanjit Kaur, after moving an application in the Court. He also asserted, that the Court delivered similar handwriting of the accused/appellant Charanjit Kaur to him. The statement of DSP Baldev Singh was recorded as PW7. According to the statement of Baldev Singh PW7, Lamberdar Hardev Singh PW5 produced the accused/appellant Charanjit Kaur, and that he formally arrested her on 24.5.2002. He also asserted, that during police interrogation, the accused/appellant Charanjit Kaur disclosed in the presence of the complainant Makhan Singh PW3, that she had put the dead body of Jaskaran Singh in a gunny bag and had thrown the same in an uninhabited latrine in the house of Bikkar Singh. He also asserted that the disclosure statement Ex.P9, after being signed by the accused/appellant Charanjit Kaur, was attested by the complainant Makhan Singh PW3. According to the DSP Baldev Singh PW7, he had gone to village Meenia after recording the disclosure statement Ex.P9, and had made a written request to the SDM, Nihal Singh Wala to depute an Executive Magistrate. In furtherance of the aforesaid request, Resham Singh PW19, Executive Magistrate-cum-Naib Tehsildar and Dr. Tarsem Lal came to the Dharamshala. From the Dharamshala, the accused/appellant Charanjit Kaur led the police party and others associated with it, to the uninhabited house of Bikkar Singh. At the house of Bikkar Singh, she pointed out towards the latrine pit, whereupon Crl. Appeal No.437-DB of 2004 10 Gurdev Singh PW4 was summoned. Gurdev Singh PW4 entered the pit and brought out bones, clothing, a pair of shoes, one tuft of hair, as well as, a badly decomposed gunny bag. On the basis of the articles recovered, the complainant Makhan Singh PW3 identified the dead body as that of his son Jaskaran Singh. Parcels of the recovered articles were prepared. The recovery memos Ex.P10, Ex.P15 and Ex.P17 were prepared and witnessed by Resham Singh PW19, Executive Magistrate-cum-Naib Tehsildar Nihal Singh Wala, as well as, by the complainant Makhan Singh PW3. He also asserted, that he had prepared the inquest report Ex.P11 upon the dead body of Jaskaran Singh, and that the inquest report besides the recovered bones, were sent for postmortem examination through ASI Suraj Pal Singh PW10. He also asserted that on 25.5.2002, ASI Suraj Pal Singh PW10 presented the postmortem report to him. The statement of Dr. Mrs. Neema Garg, Principal, SDS College for Women, Loppo, was recorded as PW8. She asserted that the police had contacted her and demanded the answer sheets attempted by the accused/appellant Charanjit Kaur. She asserted that in furtherance of the aforesaid demand, she had supplied the answer sheets of the accused/appellant Charanjit Kaur pertaining to the subjects of Punjabi (General) and Punjabi (Elective). She also asserted, that she had attested the answer sheets Ex.P18 and P19, furnished by her to the police. The statement of SI Tehal Singh was recorded as PW9. Besides having interrogated the accused/appellant Charanjit Kaur, he had also recorded the statement of the complainant Makhan Singh PW3. The statement of ASI Suraj Pal Singh was recorded as PW10. He tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.P21. A perusal of his affidavit reveals, that he had taken the bones and clothes handed over to him for postmortem examination on Crl. Appeal No.437-DB of 2004 11 24.5.2002. The statement of Constable Satnam Singh was recorded as PW11. He tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.P22. As per his affidavit, he had been handed over sealed envelops to be deposited at the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandgiarh, and that, he had duly executed the aforesaid responsibility. The statement of Iqbal Singh was recorded as PW12. As per his statement, he had gone to the place of occurrence on 24.5.2002 and had taken photographs, negatives whereof are Ex.P23 to P33, and the positives whereof are Ex.34 to P39. ASI Shamsher Singh appeared on behalf of the prosecution as PW13. In his statement, he asserted that he had sent the specimen handwritings of the accused/appellant Charanjit Kaur, as also, the ransom letters to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh, on 18.6.2001. The prosecution then produced Inspector Maninder Singh as PW14. As per his testimony, he had recorded the statements of Constable Harjinder Singh, Draftsman Pritam Singh, Photographer Iqbal Singh, MHC Sohan Singh and that of Kulwant Singh. He also asserted that on the completion of the investigation, he had presented the challan. The statement of MHC Kulwant Singh was recorded as PW15. He tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.P41. A perusal of his affidavit reveals, that on 24.5.2002, the provision of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added to the case. He also asserted, that he had handed over the special report to Constable Harjinder Singh for delivering the same to the Ilaqa Magistrate, Moga. The statement of Harjinder Singh was recorded as PW16. He tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.42. A perusal of his affidavit reveals, that he had delivered the special report of the case after the addition of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, to the Ilaqa Magistrate, Moga, and to the other higher authorities, on 24.5.2002. Crl. Appeal No.437-DB of 2004 12 The prosecution then produced Gulwant Kaur as PW17. Gulwant Kaur PW17 proved the orders passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga on 17.4.2001 and 11.6.2001. The prosecution then produced ASI Paramjit Singh as PW18. He affirmed having recorded the statement of the complainant Makhan Singh PW3, on 2.1.2001. He also acknowledged having taken into possession the ransom letters received by the complainant Makhan Singh PW3. He further revealed the action taken by him consequent upon the submission of the complaint at the hands of Makhan Singh PW3, on 2.1.2001. Resham Singh, Naib Tehsildar, Makhu, who was previously Naib Tehsildar, Nihal Singh Wala. He appeared on behalf of the prosecution as PW19. He asserted, that on 24.5.2002, he had accompanied the police party for the recovery of the dead body of Jaskaran Singh. He also asserted that he had first gone to the Dharamshala of village Meenia and then to the “bara” of Bikkar Singh where the accused/appellant Charanjit Kaur had pointed out towards an unused latrine where the dead body of Jaskaran Singh was disposed of by her. Thereafter, Gurdev Singh PW4 was summoned, who took out the dead body from the latrine pit. The dead body comprised of bones and hair. The recovery also included clothes, shoes and a gunny bag. The recovered articles were taken into police possession in sealed parcels. He asserted that he had attested the recovery memo Ex.P10, as also, the recovery memo Ex.P15. The statement of the accused/appellant Charanjit Kaur was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on 12.11.2003. After the incriminating evidence appearing on the record was put to her, she having denied the same, inter-alia, asserted as under:- “I am innocent. I have no connection with the crime. The Crl. Appeal No.437-DB of 2004 13 investigation of this case is not correct. No letter was written by me to any body. These letters have been fabricated. Hardev Singh PW is the close relation of the complainant. Neither I went to Hardev Singh nor suffered any extra-judicial- confession before him nor I got recovered the dead body or other articles. The recovery has been foisted upon me and I have been falsely implicated in this case.” The accused/appellant Charanjit Kaur was then called upon by the trial Court to lead evidence in her defence. The accused/appellant Charanjit Kaur, accordingly, produced three witnesses in her defence. She first examined Harbans Singh, Assistant DEO (Elementary), Moga as DW1. He had brought the summoned record i.e. the teachers attendance register of Government Primary School, Nangal, pertaining to Bikkar Singh, wherein Bikkar Singh was employed during that period. It was, however, pointed out by Harbans Singh DW1 that Bikkar Singh sought voluntary retirement from his employment w.e.f. 16.3.2003. Vipan Pal Singh, Revenue Patwari, Halqa Matwani in district Moga, was produced as DW2. He affirmed that he knew of Hardev Singh, Sarpanch/Lamberdar of village Matwani. He brought to the Court the summoned jamabandi registers for the year 2001- 02 of village Matwani. He also asserted that Hardev Singh PW5 was a resident of village Matwani, and further that, his brother Sukhdev Singh is married at village Meenia. Last of all, the accused/appellant Charanjit Kaur produced Gurmeet Singh as DW3. Gurmeet Singh DW3 is the brother of the accused/appellant Charanjit Kaur. In his statement, he affirmed that the police had arrested the accused/appellant Charanjit Kaur from his house. He also asserted that the aunt (father's sister) of the complainant Makhan Crl. Appeal No.437-DB of 2004 14 Singh PW3 was married in village Matwani, to Sukhdev Singh. He further stated that Sukhdev Singh is the real brother of Hardev Singh PW5. After recording the statement of the aforesaid witnesses in her defence, the defence evidence was closed by order. The Sessions Judge, Faridkot delivered the judgement in Sessions Case No.16 of 2000, on 4.3.2004. The accused/appellant Charanjit Kaur was held guilty of the offences under Sections 363, 364-A, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. On the same date, the accused/appellant Charanjit Kaur was afforded an opportunity of hearing on the question of sentence. Whereafter, by a separate order dated 4.3.2004, the accused/appellant Charanjit Kaur was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, she was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. She was also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, under Section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, she was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for