Criminal Appeal No. 766-DB of 2004 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH *** Criminal Appeal No. 766-DB of 2004 Date of decision: 21st December, 2007 Nishan Singh and others ... Appellants Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent ... CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHTAB S. GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL ... Present: Mr. S. C. Chhabra, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. A. S. Jattana, Addl.AG Punjab for the respondent-State. ... HARBANS LAL, J Rarely would the Courts have come across such a bizzare scenario as the present case has projected. The deceased is Satnam Kaur. Her death is accidental or uxoricide is a poser. The former is a version of the State under Section 304-A of IPC. The latter one is of Chand Kaur, mother of the deceased. The State case has been registered under Section 304-A/337 of IPC on the basis of the statement of Nishan Singh, husband of the deceased, Criminal Appeal No. 766-DB of 2004 -2- stating therein that he is resident of Village Bhuse and is employed as a Computer Inspector in Khalsa College, Amritsar for the last 4 years. He was married with Satnam Kaur, daughter of Gurbax Singh, resident of Jaswant Singh Mohalla, Tarn Taran in June, 1995. The estrangement never ensued between him and his wife. At one time, when his wife was away to her parental house in the month of Sawan, he learnt about her having gone with her neighbour Mohinder Singh on his motorcycle and in this regard he was satisfied, when his wife and mother-in-law took special oath that there was nothing wrong. As his mother-in-law had met with an accident, so his wife went again to her parental house. On 31.3.1996, he went to inquire about the health of his mother-in-law. She was found alright. He asked his wife to accompany him to her matrimonial home. She got ready. His mother-in-law offered to go with them to the house of her sister's house at Amritsar. They all three went on scooter to his mother-in-law's sister's house. There, he took liquor with the men-folk. Thereafter, he showed his willingness to his mother-in-law to go back to his village. His wife also got ready to go with him. On the way, he went to the house of his father's sister's son-in-law, who also served him liquor. Before their departure from the house of his mother-in-law's sister, she (mother-in-law's sister ) took off the ornaments of Satnam Kaur. He along with his wife started for Village Bhusse around 10.00 P.M, when he was under the influence of liquor. When they were 1 km. short of Village Bhakhna Kalan, meanwhile a speeding truck came from the side of Gurdwara Jhar Sahib. The front portion of the truck struck against his scooter. As a result of its impact, he and his wife fell down from the scooter. He raised alarm loudly. The truck driver sped away the truck. Some boys 6 or 7 in number working in O.C.M. Mill were returning back Criminal Appeal No. 766-DB of 2004 -3- from the Mill. They served him water. On regaining consciousness, he asked those boys to call his sister's husband Sukhdev Singh alias Bittu from village Bhakhna Kalan. Thereafter he being in the hospital remained unaware as to what had happened later on. On 4.4.1996, he came to know that his wife had succumbed to the injuries in the accident at the spot. His brother and his acquaintances were talking with each other in a hushed tone that till he ( Nishan Singh ) is not alright, he be not told about the death of his wife. When he learnt about it, he got mentally upset and could not have a wink of sleep for 3 days. He had all love and affection for his wife who was in the family way. On 10.4.1996, he was discharged from the hospital and then he got a wind that his mother-in-law has moved applications against him and his sister's husband at the instance of someone, though the dead body was cremated in their presence. She has moved these applications at the instance of someone. Chand Kaur, mother-in-law of the accused Nishan Singh lodged complaint, Exh. PA containing the allegations that her daughter Satnam Kaur was married to Nishan Singh son of Salwant Singh of Village Bhuse, P.S. Sarai Amanat Khan about 9/10 months before her death. She had given dowry including one Scooter to her daughter in her marriage according to her financial capacity but Nishan Singh and the members of his family including his father, Salwant Singh were unhappy with the dowry and they used to remark that inadequate dowry has been given. Right from the day of his marriage, Nishan Singh started saying that gold Kara has not been given to his father and as its consequence they have been humiliated in their brotherhood. Nishan Singh and the members of his family including his father Salwant Singh used to give beatings to Satnam Kaur, who while Criminal Appeal No. 766-DB of 2004 -4- coming to Amritsar, used to narrate all this to her (Chand Kaur) and Joginder Kaur ( sister of Chand Kaur ); they used to compel her to bring more dowry. Nishan Singh used to show the photograph of a girl to Satnam Kaur by saying that he would marry with her after liquidating her physically; Satnam Kaur was given beatings and turned out of her matrimonial home many a time. They ( Chand Kaur and her sister ) used to leave Satnam Kaur in the house of her in-laws by supplicating them. She used to apprehend danger to her life at the hands of her in-laws. To allay her fear, her brother Inderpal Singh was sent to stay in her in-laws' house at Village Bhuse. He started studying in Khasa School. On 27.3.1996, Chand Kaur's sister Joginder Kaur went to Village Bhuse to meet Satnam Kaur. On return, Joginder Kaur told Chand Kaur that Satnam Kaur was mentally upset as Nishan Singh and others were harassing. They often used to proclaim that after killing her, to get more dowry, he will contract second marriage. Joginder Kaur brought Satnam Kaur with her and left her in Chand Kaur's house. On 31.3.1996, Nishan Singh came to Chand Kaur's house on Scooter. On the same day, Chand Kaur, Nishan Singh and Satnam Kaur, went to the house of Joginder Kaur at Amritsar where Joginder Kaur counselled Nishan Singh not to maltreat her and that on the next morning, they will send her with him as it had grown dark by that time. Nishan Singh adopted a stiff posture insisting that he will take Satnam Kaur along. Nishan Singh, by hurling abuses upon them, took her with him at about 10.30 P.M. on Scooter. As per his pre-plan, he committed her murder by causing injuries and removed her dead body to Village Bhuse by putting the same in the Van of his sister's husband, Sukhdev Singh alias Bittu. Chand Kaur's son Inderpal Criminal Appeal No. 766-DB of 2004 -5- Singh being present in the house of Nishan Singh, disclosed to Chand Kaur that Nishan Singh, Sukhdev Singh alias Bittu and Salwant Singh, father of Nishan Singh, had consumed liquor by sitting in the room after having brought the dead body to their house and they were talking with each other that by killing her, they have removed the hurdle and now they will remarry Nishan Singh at the place of their choice. On 1.4.1996, in the morning, Sukhdev Singh alias Bittu, husband of Nishan Singh's sister came to Chand Kaur's house in his Van and narrated that on the previous night, Nishan Singh had met with an accident in which he sustained multiple injuries and that their daughter Satnam Kaur was alright. She, along with her sister Joginder Kaur, went to Village Bhuse with Sukhdev Singh alias Bittu in his Van. On reaching there, they found Satnam Kaur lying dead with injuries on her jugular vein and other parts of her body. They raised alarm that they have killed their daughter and the post-mortem on her dead body is to be got conducted. Sukhdev Singh alias Bittu, Nishan Singh and the members of his family thwarted their such attempt and forcibly cremated the dead body by pretending that there were serious injuries on the body of Nishan Singh and his condition being critical, he was to be removed to Ludhiana for his treatment. When Chand Kaur and her sister were on their way back, they examined the place of alleged accident. The blood was observed in the road side field of wheat crop, which lay trampled. They perceived that Nishan Singh has committed the murder of Satnam Kaur in the wheat crop field. Chand Kaur , along with her sister Joginder Kaur, went to Navpreet Nursing Home, Khandwala, P.S. Chheharta, where Nishan Singh was got admitted by his friend Jasbir Singh, an employee of this Nursing Home. It was also Criminal Appeal No. 766-DB of 2004 -6- noticed that no damage has been caused to the Scooter. Nishan Singh and Sukhdev Singh alias Bittu came to the house of her sister Joginder Kaur and confessed before her that on 31.3.1996, they put an end to the life of Satnam Kaur by inflicting injuries near Village Bhakhna and they, along with father of Nishan Singh, cremated the dead body to avoid post-mortem examination. As a measure of compensation, they offered to return the dowry articles along with a cash amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. They asked her to get the matter patched up with Chand Kaur. As is borne out from the record, on 19.3.2002, Mr. Baldev Singh, Additional PP assisted by Mr. A.P.S.Randhawa, Advocate, counsel for the complainant and Mr. R.M.Zakhmi, Advocate, counsel for the accused, made joint statement to the effect that we have no objection if Sessions Case No. 81 “ State v. Nishan Singh” is consolidated with Sessions Case No. 80 of 22.11.2001 titled as “Chand Kaur v. Nishan Singh etc.” and the evidence is recorded in the latter. In view of this statement, the State case as well as the complaint case, were consolidated vide order dated 19.3.2002 recorded in the order sheet. The accused Nishan Singh and Sukhdev Singh alias Bittu were charged under Section 302 as well as under Section 201 of IPC whereas their co-accused Salwant Singh,father of Nishan Singh was charged under Section 302/34 and Section 201 of IPC. They did not plead guilty and claimed trial. To bring home guilt against the accused, the prosecution examined Chand Kaur complainant, PW-1, her sister Joginder Kaur, PW-2, Inderpal Singh ( son of the complainant, Chand Kaur ) PW-3, ASI Tarsem Kumar, PW-4, Kabal Singh, PW-5, Sarabjit Kaur, Junior Assistant, DTO Criminal Appeal No. 766-DB of 2004 -7- Office, Amritsar, PW-6 and closed its evidence by giving up the remaining P.Ws. On close of the prosecution evidence, when examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C, the accused Nishan Singh denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against him and came up with the plea that it is a false case against him at the instance of my mother-in-law, Chand Kaur, who wants to harass me and my family members as she considers me responsible for the death of her daughter. It is wroth pointing out here that in his statutory statement, he has admitted that Satnam Kaur deceased was married to him about 7/8 months before the occurrence and that Salwant Singh accused is his father whereas Sukhdev Singh accused is his brother-in-law (sister's husband ); that his wife's brother, Inderpal Singh, PW used to study in a School in his (Nishan Singh) village. According to him, his wife died in the accident in which his Scooter suffered wear and tear; that the dead body of Satnam Kaur was cremated with consent of her parents without post-mortem examination; that the Scooter involved in the accident was registered in the name of his wife Satnam Kaur. Salwant Singh as well as Sukhdev Singh accused, when examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C, denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them. They adopted the plea taken up by their co-accused Nishan Singh. Having examined Dalbir Singh,DW-1, Kashmir Singh, DW-2 and Dr. Navpreet Singh, Navpreet Nurising Home, G.T. Road, Chheharta (Amritsar), DW-3, they closed their defence evidence. After hearing the learned Additional PP for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned Criminal Appeal No. 766-DB of 2004 -8- Additional Sessions Judge (Ad-hoc), Amritsar, convicted and sentenced Nishan Singh accused to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- or in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months under Section 302 of IPC and further convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- or in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 201 of IPC and also convicted and sentenced Salwant Singh and Sukhdev Singh accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each or in default thereof, the defaulter to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 201 of IPC, with the direction that both the sentences of Nishan Singh accused will run concurrently. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned judgment/order of sentence dated 21.8.2004, Nishan Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Salwant Singh have preferred this appeal. We have heard Mr. S.C.Chhabra, Advocate, counsel for the appellants as well as Mr.A.S.Jattana, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, besides going through the evidence with due care and circumspection. Mr. S.C.Chhabra, Advocate, on behalf of the appellants, strenuously urged before us that it is a case of the appellant Nishan Singh that in stead of taking action against the truck driver which probably could not be known by the Police, he has been challaned by the Police under Section 304-A of IPC. He further puts that the merger of the State as well as the complaint case being against law, the trial stands vitiated in view of the observations made in the case of Balbir v. State of Haryana, 1999 (4) Criminal Appeal No. 766-DB of 2004 -9- Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 839. To tide over these submissions, Mr.A.S.Jattana,learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, agitated at the bar that the material witnesses in both the cases being the same, the consolidation of both the cases does not suffer from any illegality. We have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. As per grounds of appeal, the State case under Section 304-A of IPC was registered on 17.5.1996 on the statement of Nishan Singh recorded during inquiry proceedings by the Superintendent of Police on 22.4.1996. As per the same, when he along with his wife Satnam Kaur deceased was returning to his village on the Scooter, a truck approaching from the opposite direction, dashed against his Scooter and in this accident his wife succumbed to the injuries. The truck driver sped away the truck. that meanwhile 6/7 employees of O.C.M.Mill came over there through whom, he called his sister's husband Sukhdev Singh alias Bittu accused, who got him admitted in the hospital. It is apt to be borne in mind that the occurrence took place on the night of 31.3.1996. The dead body of the deceased was cremated on the next day. His above statement became the basis of State case. If it was a case of accident, it was imperative upon Nishan Singh to have informed the Police. If he was removed to a private hospital by his sister's husband, Sukhdev Singh alias Bittu, the latter was obligated to inform the Police regarding this occurrence. Startlingly enough that Nishan Singh was taken to a private hospital instead of a government hospital. As per his statement dated 22.4.1996 ibid he had received very serious injuries on his body. Dr. Navpreet Singh, DW-3, has testified that he Criminal Appeal No. 766-DB of 2004 -10- has brought the Admission Register of his hospital and as per entry made in the same, Nishan Singh accused present in the Court was admitted in the hospital on 1.4.1996 and was discharged on 10.4.1996 and that it was a case of accidental injuries suffered by him as was disclosed by him and that it being an old case, bed-head ticket was not traceable as the same has since been destroyed. It is in his cross-examination that I do not remember about the injuries which were on his person when he was admitted in the hospital; I do not remember if there was any injury suffered by him; that I cannot say what was the problem since the record is destroyed; that entry of admission was made by the doctor, who was on duty at that time and he was Swinder Singh; that Jasbir Singh was employed at that time; Nishan Singh was not known to me earlier; even I cannot identify him at present; I do not remember if original bed head-ticket was taken by the Police; that the pages of the Register have not been numbered and that I do not recollect if any information about this case was given to the Police. Chand Kaur's case is that Jasbir Singh was on friendly terms with the accused and he was employed in Navpreet Nursing Home, G.T.Road, Chheharta, Amritsar and as per the pre-plan, after committing the murder of the deceased, Nishan Singh, by exercising the influence of his friend Jasbir Singh in the hospital being its employee, got himself admitted there. There appears to be substance in this plea. As per entry in the Register, Nishan Singh was admitted in the hospital on 1.4.1996 and it was a case of accidental injuries as was disclosed by him. The above mentioned doctor has no where stated that soon after admission of Nishan Singh, the Police of the concerned Police Station was informed regarding his admission with accidental injuries. Presumably, the bed-head ticket has been deliberately withheld. Criminal Appeal No. 766-DB of 2004 -11- This doctor, obviously, regretted his inability to tell about the injuries which were on the person of Nishan Singh at the time of his admission. As revealed by his cross-examination, the entry of admission of Nishan Singh was made by Swinder Singh as he was on duty at that time. Dr. Navpreet Singh, DW has not apportioned any reason for not sending Dr. Swinder Singh to give evidence. More to the point, pages of the Register have not been numbered which further cast a cloak of suspicion around the genuineness of the entries in this Register. As would be apparent from the record, the Police did not initiate any action against this Nursing Home for not informing about the admission of this appellant Nishan Singh in the hospital. There being no injuries, the doctor should have refused to admit this appellant. If there were superficial injuries he should have been discharged after giving preliminary medical aid. By no reason, there was any justification to keep him in the hospital for ten days. To mystify or confuse murder with accident, he remained hospitalized for a couple of days. Had there been some serious injuries, he might have been removed to the Civil Hospital or some other Medical Institute of repute. Nishan Singh would have informed the Police through his brother-in-law Sukhdev Singh alias Bittu. He put forth the version of accident before the Police for the first time on 22.4.1996 during inquiry proceedings initiated at the instance of Chand Kaur, complainant, who suspected it to be a foul play. If it was a case of an accident, Nishan Singh was obliged to inform the Police. If it was a case of hit and run, notwithstanding, it was his moral as well as legal duty to inform the Police. In all probabilities, it was his bounden duty. In his statement, which became the basis of the FIR, he has stated that it was on 4.4.1996 that he learnt about the death of his wife in the accident. This Criminal Appeal No. 766-DB of 2004 -12- again is a fabricated story. There is nothing in the evidence of Dr. Navpreet Singh, DW-3 that Nishan Singh remained unconscious right from his admission in the hospital till 4.4.1996. To us, it appears that to screen himself from the murder of his wife, he created evidence by getting himself admitted in the above mentioned Private Nursing Home. There was no cogent reason to cremate the dead body without autopsy. This is a glaring circumstance which nullifies the story of accident. Dalbir Singh,DW-1 has deposed that the dead body was brought to the village which was seen by him at 8.00 A.M. and that at the time of cremation, the in-laws of the accused including the complainant (referring to Chand Kaur ) were present and that Nishan Singh accused was not present and that wife of Nishan Singh died in the accident. Kashmir Singh, DW-2 has also stated in similar terms. This evidence has been produced to demonstrate that the dead body was cremated within the sight of the complainant party without there being any objection from their side. It is in the cross-examination of Chand Kaur, PW-1 “ that I did not attend the cremation of my daughter; that I left Village Bhuse after about one hour to see my son-in-law; that I was confident on seeing the dead body of my daughter that she had been killed; that I lodged the report with the Police at P.S. Gharinda on the same day; that I had given in writing to Incharge, P.S .Gharinda; that the Police did not accompany us to Village Bhuse. As per this evidence, she was not present at the time of cremation of the dead body and further the Police did not swing into action against the accused. It is also in her cross-examination that I had told the Police to visit Village Bhuse as my daughter had been murdered but the S.H.O. told me that he will come of his own and that P. S. Gharinda is at a distance of 3-4 kms. from Village Bhuse. This evidence goes to show that Criminal Appeal No. 766-DB of 2004 -13- she had brought to the notice of the Police that her daughter has been murdered but the Police did not initiate any action and meanwhile, the accused cremated the dead body. It is deducible from this evidence that Police was siding with the accused party to rescue the real murderer Nishan Singh. The examination-in-chief of Chand Kaur, PW-1 reads as under:- “ My daughter Satnam Kaur was married to Nishan Singh s/o Salwant Singh r/o village Bhuse, P.S Sarai Amanat Khan 7/8 months prior to her death. Dowry articles were given to my daughter. A scooter was also given in the dowry. Nishan Singh and Salwant Singh accused complained that no golden Karra was given and on that account, they are suffering humiliation in the society. Nishan Singh used to beat my daughter and used to turn her from the matrimonial house on the pretext of demand of television and fridge and other dowry articles. Nishan Singh used to say that after killing my daughter, he will remarry with a girl. Inderpal Singh, my son was got admitted in a school at village Bhuse. The accused used to collect the Panchayat and in that Panchayat I used to send my daughter back in the house of the accused. On 27.3.1996, my sister Joginder Kaur left my daughter Satnam Kaur to my house and she told that Criminal Appeal No. 766-DB of 2004 -14- she was given beatings and on that account, she is being left at my house. Nishan Singh accused came to my house on 31.3.1996 to bring back my daughter and scolded my daughter to accompany him. Thereafter, I alongwith Nishan Singh accused, my daugther Satnam Kaur and myself went to the house of Joginder Kaur, my