IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.318-DB of 2006 Date of Decision: 05.11.2009 Rupinder Kaur @ Rabi @ Raju Appellant Versus State of Punjab Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present: Mr.R.K.Gupta, Advocate for the appellant Mr.D.S.Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent …. Jasbir Singh, J. Appellant has filed this appeal against judgment and order dated 7.4.2006, vide which, she was convicted for commission of an offence under Section 302 IPC, sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with a default clause. Vide the above said judgment, her co-accused- Surinder Singh @ Shonki was acquitted of the charges framed against him. It was allegation against the appellant that she had illicit relations with Surinder Singh, above named. That relationship was being objected to by Mandeep Singh deceased (son of the appellant). With a view to remove obstacle from her way, on 24.12.2002 she committed murder of her son, named above. Criminal Appeal No.318-DB of 2006 Case of the prosecution, as noted by the trial Court in paragraph No.2 of the impugned judgment, reads thus:- “Briefly stated the prosecution story is that Gurdial Singh complainant had three sons. All his sons were married. His son Surinder Singh was married with Rupinder Kaur accused. He suspected illicit relations of Rupinder Kaur with one Soni and as a consequence of same Surinder Singh had left the house for the last about one year. Soni used to visit the house of the accused Rupinder Kaur and the complainant had protested a number of times due to which the accused Rupinder Kaur used to abuse him. Mandeep Singh son of Surinder Singh also protested the relations of applicant with Soni. On 24.12.02 at about 8.00 pm Rupinder Kaur alongwith said Soni were alleged to have come to the house. At about 10.00 pm accused Rupinder Kaur gave a beating to Mandeep Singh who was weeping and protested as to why Soni used to come to their house and asked him to go away. In the meantime, Soni left the house. But in the presence of the complainant as well as Ranjit Kaur, his other daughter-in-law Rupinder Kaur poured kerosene oil on Mandeep Singh and set him on fire. Later on Mandeep Singh died in the hospital. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that in fact Mandeep Singh on account of illicit relations of Rupinder Kaur with Soni had set himself ablaze. On the basis of the statement of complainant, FIR was recorded under Sections 307/ 506/34 IPC against the accused.” 2 Criminal Appeal No.318-DB of 2006 Mandeep Singh succumbed to the burn injuries on 26.12.2002. Thereafter, offence under Section 306/506 IPC was added in the FIR. After registration of FIR, ASI Kuldip Singh went to the spot, prepared rough site plan (Ex.PH) with correct marginal notes. He also took into possession a stove of kerosene oil, half burnt clothes of the deceased and one match box against recovery memos. It appears that investigation was then taken over by SI Gurpeet Singh (PW7), who recorded statements of the witnesses, including the supplementary statement of Gurdial Singh (PW2). This witness also recovered scissors, plukar, brush and one viol of oil lying in a bag in the courtyard of the house where occurrence had taken place against recovery memo (Ex.PJ). He arrested the appellant and his co-accused. On completion of investigation, final report was put in Court for trial. Vide order dated 9.6.2003, the appellant and her co-accused were charge sheeted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 306, 506/34 IPC. After recording statement of Gurdial Singh (PW2), grandfather of the deceased, the trial Court, vide order dated 19.11.2003, ordered that an alternative charge under Section 302 IPC be also framed against the appellant. The charge sheet was put to the appellant and her co-accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution, to prove its case, produced seven witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence. On conclusion of prosecution’s evidence, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating material, existing on record, was put to them. They pleaded innocence and false implication. In her deposition, the appellant-accused has taken up the following stand:- 3 Criminal Appeal No.318-DB of 2006 “My son Mandeep Singh deceased was a drug- adict. I was not present at the time of occurrence on the place of occurrence. Co-accused Soni is not known to me. Gurdial Singh my father in law and Ranjit Kaur my sister-in-law are inimical to me as there are dispute regarding the property. There were dispute with my husband also. Gurdial Singh and Ranjit Kaur along with Nirmal Singh were involved in disappearance of my husband and I had lodged an FIR No.32 dated 13.1.2002 u/s 364 IPC, PS Dakha against Gurdial Singh, Ranjit Kaur and Nirmal Singh. Earlier my husband had also filed a civil suit against Gurdial Singh at Ludhiana. Gurdial Singh also disowned his two sons including my husband on 10.10.1994 as per publication in daily Jagbani news paper Jalandhar. Gurdial Singh had also damaged my house for which I had filed a civil suit in 2003. By implicating me in this false case Gurdial Singh and Ranjit Kaur want to take revenge against me and also to grab the share of my husband Surinder Singh in property. I am innocent and witnesses have depose falsely being inimical towards me. False case has been planted upon me in connivance with complainant by the police.” Her co-accused completely denied his involvement in the alleged crime. The appellant-accused also led evidence in defence, to prove stand taken by her and further to prove that when crime had taken place, she was not available at the spot. On conclusion of prosecution’s evidence, the trial Court acquitted Surinder Singh @ Shonki, however, the appellant- 4 Criminal Appeal No.318-DB of 2006 accused was convicted and sentenced as mentioned in earlier part of this order. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove participation of the appellant – accused in the alleged crime. The trial Court has wrongly relied upon partisan witnesses without any independent corroboration. He further argued that there was about 16 hours delay in recording the FIR. The intervening period was used to concoct a false story against the appellant- accused. He further argued that son of the appellant (deceased) was a drug addict. When he failed to get money to purchase drug, out of frustration, he committed suicide. To strengthen his argument, he has referred to the deposition made by the defence witnesses, including another son of the appellant-accused. He by making reference to the discrepancies, in the statements made by the prosecution witnesses, argued that the appeal be allowed, judgment and order, under challenge, be set aside. Prayer made has vehemently been opposed by the State counsel. By indicating to the medical evidence on record and also deposition made by PW2 Gurdial Singh (grandfather of the deceased), PW3 Ranjit Kaur (aunt of the deceased) and the investigating officer, he argued that guilt of the appellant-accused was fully proved on record and the trial Court was justified in convicting and awarding sentence to her. He prayed that appeal, having no substance, be dismissed. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is convinced that the trial Court has treated the deposition made by Gurdial Singh and Ranjit Kaur as a gospel truth. When doing so, the trial Court has failed to appreciate a fact that both the witnesses were inimical towards the appellant’s family and there was possibility that they would make an 5 Criminal Appeal No.318-DB of 2006 attempt to settle scores with the appellant. The appellant is daughter-in-law of Gurdial Singh (PW2) and sister-in-law of Ranjit Kaur (PW3). PW3 is the wife of Nirmal Singh, against whom a criminal complaint filed by the appellant-accused was pending trial. It has come on record that on a complaint made by the appellant-accused, an FIR (Ex.DA) under Section 364 IPC was recorded against Nirmal Singh husband of PW3 on 13.1.2002. It was allegation of the appellant that Gurdial Singh (PW2), Ranjit Kaur (PW3) and Nirmal Singh husband of PW3 have taken away her husband Surinder Singh @ Bittu with an ulterior motive. The complaint was enquired into and ultimately an FIR was recorded against Nirmal Singh husband of PW3. It is necessary to mention here that whereabouts of the husband of the deceased were not known till evidence was recorded in this case. It has also come on record that PW2 and PW3 had very strained relations with the family of the appellant. Gurdial Singh (PW2) has deposed as under:- “It is correct that in the beginning of 2002 they had gone out with trucks but Surinder Singh did not come back while Nirmal Singh had returned. I had no worry when he did not come as he was married and living with the accused. I did not enquire from my son of Nirmal Singh as to why Surinder Singh had not come back.” This witness has admitted that he did not lodge any complaint with the police to search for his son Surinder Singh. This witness has further admitted that Nirmal Singh and his family members were not on visiting terms with the family of the appellant. It was further admitted by PW2 that Surinder Singh husband of the appellant filed a suit against him in 6 Criminal Appeal No.318-DB of 2006 the year 1994. It has further come on record that PW2 had disinherited Surinder Singh from his property. To the same effect is the deposition made by Ranjit Kaur (PW3). When the parties are at logger heads, there is every possibility that PW2 and PW3 may have made an attempt to falsely implicate the appellant- accused in this case. This fact is further corroborated on account of delay caused in recording the FIR. As per evidence on record, deceased was taken to the hospital by PW2. Vide ruqa (Ex.PC), intimation of admission of the deceased in the hospital, was sent to the police. In that note, it is not mentioned as to how burn injuries were received by the deceased. It has also come on record that on receipt of intimation, ASI Kuldip Singh (PW5) went to the hospital and moved an application to the doctor to know fitness of the deceased to make his statement. On getting negative opinion, he kept mum. No attempt was made by the investigating officer to record statements of PW2 and PW3 who were available in the hospital. In the same manner, both the witnesses named above, did not make any effort to intimate the investigating officer regarding the true facts. FIR was recorded after a delay of about 16 hours, for which, the prosecution has failed to give any plausible explanation. It appears that during this period, the witnesses mentioned above, concocted a story to falsely implicate the appellant- accused in this case of suicide by her son. By treating the deposition made by PW2 and PW3 as an absolute truth, the trial Court has said that the appellant-accused had illicit relations with co-accused Surinder Singh @ Shonki. This Court feels that there is no evidence on record to say so. PW2 Gurdial Singh has specifically admitted that at no time, he made any complaint regarding 7 Criminal Appeal No.318-DB of 2006 above said fact to the police or to anybody else. It was allegation in the FIR that at about 8 pm, the appellant and her co-accused came from outside, objection was raised by the deceased, at about 10 pm, he was beaten up by the appellant and her co-accused and thereafter, he was put to fire at about 10.30 pm. The trial Court has not believed presence of Surinder Singh at the spot and further at the time of medical examination, no injury was found on the person of the deceased, which may indicate that he was beaten up by the appellant and her co-accused. It was further allegation in the FIR that the appellant was holding a kerosene stove in her hands, lit it with the match stick and threw fire flame upon the deceased. This Court feels that as per injuries received by the deceased, this story appears to be a false one. Dr.Sanjiv Hans, Medical Officer (PW1), who conducted post-mortem on the dead body, found the following injuries on person of the deceased:- “There were present superficial to deep burn marks over face and front and back of neck, front and back of trucnk upto underwear level. Front and back of both upper limbs. Sparing dorsem of hands. A small part of upper left thigh in front also had burn marks in area of 5” x 3”. Face was oedumatous. Scalp hair, eye lashes and eye brow were seinged. Skin over the burnt area had peeled off leaving behind crythmatous denuded area. Skin over palmer surface had also started to peel off. The burn mark in front of left thigh shows blister formation. Pluree was congested, arynix and treachea was congested and black soot present. Both lungs were congested.” This Court feels that by throwing burning kerosene stove on a boy of 16 years of age, such like injuries may not be possible, rather it is 8 Criminal Appeal No.318-DB of 2006 coming out that these types of injuries are possible in case somebody poured kerosene oil on a person concerned and then set it ablaze. The medical evidence on record clearly indicates towards a fact that it was a case of suicide by the deceased, as projected by the defence. Second son of the appellant, namely, Sandeep Singh (DW3), Sukhwinder Singh (DW1) and Piara Singh (DW2) were added as prosecution witnesses, however, they were left over, having been won over by the appellant- accused. This Court feels that above said act at the part of the appellant was not possible. She belongs to poor strata of the society, she was in jail and there was none outside who could win over the witnesses. In defence, all the above named witnesses have specifically stated that when occurrence had taken place, the appellant-accused was not in her house. DW2 Sandeep Singh aged about 17 years (brother of the deceased) has specifically stated that the deceased has demanded money from his grandfather, namely, Gurdial Singh (PW2), on refusal, he poured kerosene oil and set himself on fire. Besides above named witnesses, other witnesses from the locality were also joined in the investigation, however, none was produced. In the absence of independent corroboration, coupled with medical evidence on record, this Court feels that it was a case of suicide by the deceased. In her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant- accused has stated that the deceased was prone to drugs and being frustrated, had committed suicide. The public prosecutor also put similar suggestion to DW2 Piara Singh at the time of cross-examination of that witness. It has also come on record that from the spot, the investigating officer has taken in possession the scissors, plukar, brush and one vial of oil lying in a bag. In recovery memo (Ex.PJ), it is stated that those were the stolen goods. There is no allegation that articles were stolen by the 9 Criminal Appeal No.318-DB of 2006 appellant-accused. Above said fact also indicates towards a fact that the deceased may have stolen those articles for the purpose of purchasing drugs. As per site plan, occurrence had taken place in open Courtyard. House of the appellant-accused is situated in a thickly populated area, such an act by a mother against her son probably is not possible, especially, at a place, where, there are chances that the neighbours will notice the same. It was allegation of the prosecution that the appellant-accused had killed her son with a view to clear her way to reside with Surinder Singh @ Shonki. In the presence of another son, namely, Sandeep Singh (DW3), this Court feels that, even after committing murder of her one son, she would not have been in a position to continue her alleged relationship with Surinder Singh. This fact also casts a doubt on the prosecution story. The appellant has already suffered imprisonment for a period of more than six years. In view of facts mentioned above, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the appellant-accused beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt, benefit of which, must go to her. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, judgment and order under challenge, are set aside and the appellant-accused is acquitted of the charges framed against her. She be released from jail forthwith, if not required in any other criminal case. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 05.11.2009 (Daya Chaudhary) gk Judge 10