Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.Appeal No.268 of 2006 Dated of Decision : September 15th, 2009. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Gurcharan Singh. …… Appellant. Versus State of H.P. …... Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellant : Mr. D.P. Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr.P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. Surinder Singh, J (oral): The challenge has been made by the appellant, to the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court, whereby the appellant has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence of murder of his wife, punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and also to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for destroying the evidence under Section 201 I.P.C. with defaulting clauses. The above sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. was also given. - 2 - 2. The prosecution story, as emerges from the evidence on record can be stated thus. Smt. Daljeet Kaur (deceased) was younger sister of PW1 Darshan Singh, resident of village Dehlan in district Una. She was married to appellant Gurcharan Singh in the same district, in village Baliwal. From this wedlock, she gave birth to two sons. The eldest son DW1 Tarlochan Singh, was aged about 11 years at the time of alleged incident. 3. Appellant had been working in Greece, a foreign country and occasionally visited his family in his village Baliwal. In the month of February, 2005, appellant had come to India and resided with his family. It is alleged that the deceased questioned the fidelity of her husband, as she suspected that he was carrying illicit relation with his sister-in- law. On having raised objections, the appellant hacked Daljeet Kaur during the night on 9th February, 2005, to death with a Takua Ex.P5 and caused serious injuries with a wooden Bat Ex.P4. He then removed her dead body to the verandah of the house, changed his blood stained shirt and also removed the blood stained Shawl and Sweater of his wife from her dead body and concealed under the stair case of his house. 4. Next day, i.e. on 10th February, 2005, Mohinder Singh, cousin of appellant, informed PW1 Darshan Singh, the brother of the deceased that during the previous night Daljeet Kaur had died of some attack. On hearing this news, PW1 - 3 - Darshan Singh along with his wife PW3 Nirmal Kaur rushed to village Baliwal. He saw the dead body of his sister Daljeet Kaur lying in the verandah. Many people had gathered there. Both of them inspected the dead body and noticed some bleeding injuries on her head, neck, chest and left eye. They suspected a foul play and their suspicion fell on the appellant. 5. The police was informed by someone. PW13 S.I. Bidhi Chand recorded the report in his daily diary Ex.PW13/A and proceeded to the spot where he found many villagers present near the dead body, which was covered with a blanket. He got examined the dead body of Daljeet Kaur from Paramjit Kaur and Rajinder Kaur in the presence of Up- Pradhan Updesh Singh, Ramesh Singh, PW1 Darshan Singh and his wife PW3 Nirmal Kaur. All of them noticed and confirmed the injuries present on the dead body. 6. PW13 S.I. Bidhi Chand recorded the statement Ex.PA of PW1 Darshan Singh under Section 154 Cr.P.C., wherein he stated that the appellant used to beat his sister Daljeet Kaur whenever she used to object, his continuing illicit relations with his sister-in-law. He alleged that on 9th February, 2005, the appellant along with Daljeet Kaur visited his village and on the same day returned to their village. She had complained to him and his wife about the mal-treatment, which she used to receive from the appellant, but he did not report the matter to the Panchayat or to the police with a view that their relation may not deteriorate - 4 - further. Next morning, Mohinder Singh aforesaid informed him that during the previous night at about 10 p.m., i.e. on 9th February, 2005, Daljeet Kaur had died of attack and told him to reach the village of the appellant. On the basis of his statement Ex.PA, FIR Ex.PW1/A was formally registered. 7. The photographs Exts.PJ/1 to 11 were taken. Police completed inquest report forms Exts.PB & PC and prepared site plan Ex.PW13/B. The appellant was arrested on the same date and the dead body was sent for autopsy to the zonal hospital Una. 8. PW9 Dr.M.K. Kapoor along with Dr. Indu Bhardwaj, a Surgical Specialist, conducted postmortem of the dead body on 11th February, 2005. They noticed the postmortem staining on the different parts of the dead body and found the following ante mortem injuries:- (i) There was black eye (right side); (ii) On the right side of the chest, there were irregular purplish bruises; (iii) There was a lacerated wound over the fronto- parietal region of the scalp. The size of this wound was 5 cm x bone deep with zig-zag margins; (iv) There was about 7” long fracture placed obliquely extending from the frontal part of the head towards occipital region with underlying - 5 - brain tissue damage. Altered blood was found present in cranial cavity. In the opinion of the doctor, cause of death of Daljeet Kaur was head injury i.e. fracture of her skull with damage of the underlying brain tissues. The probable time that elapsed between the injury and death was within half an hour and between death and postmortem within 48 hours. The postmortem report is Ex.PW9/A and in the opinion of the Doctor, the Takua (small axe) Ex.P5 could cause the head injury and the other injuries were possibly caused with the Bat Ex.P4. 9. While in custody, on 10th February, 205, the appellant got identified the place of alleged incident in the presence of the witnesses. To this effect, Police prepared a memo Ex.PE. Thereafter the appellant made a disclosure statement Ex.PF under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, in the presence of Up-Pradhan Updesh Singh and PW4 Ramesh Singh that he had kept hidden Takua Ex.P5 under his pajama hung on the peg on the wall of his newly constructed house, and also a blood stained Shawl, Sweater of his wife and his clothes beneath the stair case, pursuant to which he got discovered the aforesaid clothes along with a Bat Ex.P4 and his blood stained shirt Ex.P1 from a corner of his house from beneath the stairs, which were taken into possession vide memos Exts. PH & PG respectively. The sketch maps of Takua and wooden Bat were prepared and the said weapons - 6 - were sealed on the spot with seal impression ‘H’. All the aforesaid articles after taking into possession were deposited in the Malkhana and later sent for forensic examination along with viscera and blood sample of the deceased. 10. As per report of Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.PW11/A, Shirt Ex.P1 of the appellant, Shawl Ex.P2, Sweater Ex.P3 of the deceased and Takua Ex.P5 contained human blood of Group ‘A’ of the deceased. After completing the investigation, case was presented in the court for the trial of the appellant. 11. The appellant was charge-sheeted by the learned trial court for the offences aforesaid. He abjured the guilt and claimed trial. To prove its case, prosecution examined its witnesses and mainly relied upon the statements of Darshan Singh (PW1), a brother of deceased Daljeet Kaur and his wife Nirmal Kaur (PW3), Rajinder Kaur (PW4) Ward Member and the recovery witness, Photographer Mohd. Anwar (PW5), Dr. M.K. Kapoor (PW9), Investigating Officer ASI Raghubir Singh (PW12) and SI/SHO Bidhi Chand (PW13). 12. The appellant was also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He stated that he was doing some business in Greece, for the last about 7/8 years and had been visiting his family in village Baliwal, who were living separately from his brothers. But denied the beatings and ill-treatment, as alleged and also denied any - 7 - illicit relations with his sister-in-law. He further denied the recoveries having been made pursuant to his statement. However he took up the stand that during the night at about 10 p.m., when the occurrence took place, he was guarding the maize crop at some distance from his house in his field. His brother came to him and informed that some unidentified persons, who had come to commit the robbery, caused injuries to his wife and when the hue and cries (hulla-baloo) were raised, they ran away from the spot. He alongwith his brother immediately rushed to his house and saw that his wife was lying injured in the verandah. She was dead. His children were also present there. They were weeping. His son DW1 Tarlochan Singh disclosed that some unidentified persons had come to commit robbery and caused the injuries to her. Thereafter he informed police and also his brother-in-law. He alleged his false implication in the case. According to him, his brother-in-law Darshan Singh (PW1) used to demand money from him, for the construction of his house, but he could not oblige him. 13. The appellant was called upon to enter into defence. He examined his son Tarlochan Singh as DW1. 14. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully reappraised the evidence on record. 15. It is pertinent to note that neither the appellant examined his brother, who allegedly came to inform him - 8 - about the alleged assault by robbers to elicit the truthfulness of the information, from whom he came to know about it nor he had examined Mohinder Singh to probablise his defense. DW-1 Tarlochan Singh is the son of the appellant and is residing in his house, his version is not confidence inspiring nor he could probablise the defense. 16. Admittedly Smt. Daljeet Kaur, wife of the appellant had met with a homicidal death. During that time, she was in the company of the appellant. There is nothing on record to show that at the relevant time, the appellant had gone to the field to guard his maize crop. The story as propounded by him with respect to the assault by the robbers does not inspire confidence for more than one reason firstly, all the ornaments on the person of the deceased, were found intact shown in the photographs Exts.PJ/3, 4 and 6. There was also no allegation that the robbers had taken away her ornaments or anything else from his house or that any hue and cry was raised by villagers or any villager had challenged them so as to avert the attack or nab them. Secondly, as to how, the brother of the appellant who had informed the appellant came to know about the attack by robbers; thirdly, Rajinder Kaur (PW2) is a Ward Panch of the same village did not know anything about the assault by the robbers. Had this story been true, she would have been the first person to know about it but in her testimony she expressed total ignorance about it and stated that she did not know about the cause of - 9 - death of Daljeet Kaur. Pertinently, this story was never suggested in defence either to her or any other witness. 17. A perusal of statements of PW1 Darshan Singh and his wife PW3 Nirmal Kaur reveal that on 9th February, 2005, the appellant along with his wife Daljeet Kaur visited his house in village Dehlan. The deceased had also complained to them about the harassment being meted out by her husband. Thinking that if they would report the matter to the Panchayat or police, their relations may be further deteriorate, thus, the deceased was exhorted by her brother and sister-in-law to look after her children well. On the same day, the facts on record establish that both of them returned to their home and on the same night she was done to death by the appellant. It was only on 10th February, 2005 around 9 a.m., the information was given by Mohinder Singh, cousin of the appellant that Daljeet Kaur that she had died on account of attack on the previous night at 10 p.m. and asked them to go to village Baliwal. The doctor, who conducted the postmortem noticed the serious ante-mortem injuries on the dead body, which resulted into her death and he categorically stated that the head injury could be caused by Takua Ex.P5 and other injuries by the Bat Ex.P4, which were having blood group of the deceased and these items were got discovered by the appellant pursuant to his disclosure statement as stated above. Even the shirt of the deceased, which was found concealed by him and got discovered also contained - 10 - the blood group of the deceased and this clearly connects the appellant with the offence of murder of his wife. PW2 Rajinder Kaur Ward-Punch came to know about the death of Daljeet Kaur on the previous night. She went to condole her death to the house of the appellant. The dead body was lying in the varandah. After about 15 minutes of her arrival, the complainant and his wife had also arrived there and they also noticed the injuries on the dead body and after about 15-20 minutes, the police reached the spot. No complaint was made by any of the persons present there including the appellant that the deceased was assaulted by the robbers. The record does not show that the appellant did take any step himself to inform the police/ complainant or villagers and also the Ward Member etc., by any means with respect to the incident which according to him was committed by robbers. 18. Also, we find the conduct of the appellant is quite unnatural, the appellant had taken the police to the place where the alleged incident had taken place and got the recoveries effected as aforesaid. 19 . Further, we find it improbable that the appellant, who was doing his business in Greece, on his visit to his village, was guarding the maize crop in his field during the night time. His plea that he was informed by his brother about the assault on his wife by the robbers remains unsubstantiated. As already stated above, he did not substantiate the plea by examining his brother in - 11 - defence as a witness to probablize the defense. He only chose his minor son Tarlochan Singh (DW-1) aged about 12 years, to examine him in defence for the obvious reasons. Tarlochan Singh had lost his mother, he willingly or unwillingly wanted to save his father from the clutches of law, without realizing much as to what would be the impact of suppressing the truth, on his life. Even the appellant did not take any further steps to consign the dead body to the flame despite the fact that Daljeet Kaur had died at 10 p.m. on the previous night and the police reached the spot next day at 11 a.m. He even did not inform about the alleged assault to any co-villager and also to S.I. Bidhi Chand PW13, when he had arrived at the spot and even that his son Tarlochan Singh has seen the alleged incident. On the top of it, no such defence was even suggested to the Investigating Officer during his cross-examination. 20. Therefore, on the close scrutiny of the evidence, we do not find that the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court is unreasonable and unsustainable, as canvassed. We find the appeal devoid of any merit, thus dismissed. (Surjit Singh), J. September 15, 2009. (Surinder Singh), J. (Pds)