IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. A. No. 457-DB of 2006 DATE OF DECISION : 17.08.2011 Shivraj Singh .... APPELLANT Versus State of Punjab ..... RESPONDENT CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. V.D. Sharma, Advocate (amicus curiae), for the appellant. Ms. Gurveen H. Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. 1. Accused Shivraj Singh (appellant), who is handicapped from his left leg, was tried by the court of Sessions for committing the murder of his 75 years old father Ram Kishan Singh. Vide judgment and order dated 2.4.2005, he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ` 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 302 IPC. 2. The prosecution version is based upon the statement (Ex.PA) of Kuldeep Kaur (PW.1), real sister of the accused. She, her husband Gurcharan Singh (PW.2) and mother Surjit Kaur had witnessed the occurrence. She stated that she has four brothers and four sisters. Her elder Crl. A. No. 457-DB of 2006 -2- brother is employed in PSEB, whereas her two other brothers are living separately in village Gobindgarh. She stated that her fourth brother, namely Shivraj Singh (accused), was unmarried and was living with her parents. She was married with Gurcharan Singh (PW.2) and was residing in her in- laws house at village Chand Bhan. She stated that her younger brother Shivraj Singh was addicted to intoxicants and he used to harass her father. He being addict to intoxicants, her father was not willing to transfer the house in his name. Due to that reason, he used to torture her father. According to her, on 24.8.2003, i.e. a day before the occurrence, her mother came to her village and asked her and her husband to reach village Gobindgarh and advise accused Shivraj Singh that he should not assault her father on the question of transferring the house in his name. Thereupon, she along with her husband and mother went to the house of her parents and tried to advise Shivraj Singh, who did not listen them and without caring their advise, he went out of the house, while murmuring. Then after taking the meals, they slept in the courtyard of the house, leaving the door unchained and lights on, for the return of Shivraj Singh. According to the complainant, at about 12.00/1.00 AM (mid-night), accused Shivraj Singh returned to the house and started abusing her father. Due to that, all of them woke up. In the meanwhile, within their sight, accused Shivraj Singh gave a gandasa blow from its sharp side in the head of her father, whereupon he fell down on the ground. While he was lying on the ground, accused gave 3/4 more gandasa blows from its sharp side on the right left side and the rear Crl. A. No. 457-DB of 2006 -3- side of his head. After causing injuries, the accused ran away from the spot along with the gandasa. Her father Ram Kishan Singh died at the spot due to the injuries caused by her brother Shivraj Singh. Due to the fear, at that time, they did not go out of the house to inform any one, but at day-dawn time, on 25.8.2003, after leaving her mother near the dead body, she and her husband went to the house of Sarpanch Satnam Singh (PW.3) and told him about the occurrence. Thereafter, they proceeded for Police Post Bajakhana to lodge the report. In the way, in chowk Bajakhana, they met the police and statement (Ex.PA) of complainant Kuldeep Kaur to the aforesaid effect was recorded by ASI Joginder Singh (PW.10) at 10.00 AM, on the basis of which the formal FIR Ex.PA/2 was recorded. Thereafter, the police inspected the spot and the rough site plan (Ex.PN) of the place of occurrence was prepared. The blood stained earth as well as the simple earth were lifted from the spot and put in two separate parcels, which were taken into possession vide recovery memos Ex.PO and Ex.PP, attested by Amarjit Singh Member Panchayat and HC Gurpreet Singh. The inquest report (Ex.PH) was prepared and the dead body was sent to GGS Medical College, Faridkot, for post mortem examination 3. On the same day, i.e. on 25.8.2003, at 2.30 PM, Dr. K.K. Aggarwal (PW.4) conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Ram Kishan Singh, which was identified by his son Raj Singh and Gurcharan Singh son of Prem Singh. Rigor mortis was present in all the four limbs. Post mortem staining was present on the back and clotted blood was Crl. A. No. 457-DB of 2006 -4- present in both the nostrils, head and face. Four incised wounds on the head of the deceased were found. On dissection of scalp, huge clotted blood was found present on the back, right and left side of the skull. On removal of the haemotoma, there was cut fracture of right parietal bone of skull, corresponding to injury No.1 found on the right side of head, vertically placed 10 cms above the right ear. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and were the result of heavy sharp edged weapon. The doctor opined that the cause of death in this case was haemorrhagic shock, as a result of injury No.1, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The time between the injuries and death was within few minutes to few hours and between death and the post mortem was within 24 hours. 4. On the same day, in the evening, accused went to Satnam Singh Sarpanch (PW.3) and suffered extra judicial confession before him, with a request to produce him before the police. Thereafter, Satnam Singh Sarpanch took Amarjit Singh, Member Panchayat, with him, and produced the accused before the police. He was arrested and during interrogation, he suffered disclosure statement (Ex.PC) and in pursuance of the same, he got recovered the blood stained gandasa, which was kept concealed by him in the Hadda Rorri in a group of bushes. The same was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PE, which was attested by HC Gurpreet Singh, Satnam Singh Sarpanch and Amarjit Singh, Member Panchayat. As per the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh (Ex.PU), the the gandasa, got recovered by the appellant, was stained with human blood. Crl. A. No. 457-DB of 2006 -5- 5. After completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the appellant and charge under Section 302 was framed, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses, out of whom PW.1 Kuldeep Kaur, PW.2 Gurcharan Singh, PW.3 Satnam Singh, PW.4 Dr. K.K. Aggarwal and PW.10 ASI Joginder Singh are the material witnesses. 7. PW.1 Kuldeep Kaur (complainant) and PW.2 Gurcharan Singh, who are the eye witnesses, have fully supported the case of the prosecution regarding the murder of Ram Kishan Singh, committed by the appellant. 8. PW.3 Satnam Singh, Sarpanch, has supported the case of the prosecution to the effect that on 25.8.2003, PW.1 Kuldeep Kaur and PW.2 Gurcharan Singh came to him and narrated the occurrence, witnessed by them, and thereafter, he along with them went to Police Post Bajakhana and thereafter, in the evening of the same day, the accused came to him and made extra judicial confession, with a request to produce him before the police. He has proved the disclosure statement (Ex.PC), suffered by the accused in his presence, and the recovery memo (Ex.PE), vide which the gandasa, which was got recovered by the accused, was taken into possession. 9. PW.4 Dr. K.K. Aggarwal, who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Ram Kishan Singh, has proved the Post Mortem Report (Ex.PF), the pictorial diagram (Ex.PF/1) showing the seats Crl. A. No. 457-DB of 2006 -6- of injuries, the police request (Ex.PG) for conducting the post mortem examination and the inquest report (Ex.PH). 10. PW.10 ASI Joginder Singh, the Investigating Officer, has proved all the documents, prepared by him during the investigation, conducted by him in this case. 11. Statements of all the remaining witnesses, examined by the prosecution, are formal in nature. 12. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. He pleaded his innocence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case at the behest of his sister Kuldeep Kaur and her husband Gurcharan Singh, from whom he was demanding his salary of about ten years and had pleaded them to lodge a case, if his salary was not paid. However, the appellant did not lead any evidence in his defence. 13. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, while relying upon the statements of both the eye witnesses, namely Kuldeep Kaur (PW.1) and her husband Gurcharan Singh (PW.2), having been corroborated by Satnam Singh, Sarpanch (PW.3), the extra judicial confession suffered by the appellant and the recovery of gandasa at his instance, and while disbelieving the defence version of the appellant, the trial court has convicted and sentenced him, as indicated in the first para of this judgment. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that in the present case, presence of both the eye witnesses at the time and place of the Crl. A. No. 457-DB of 2006 -7- occurrence is highly doubtful, as the prosecution has not examined Surjit Kaur (mother of the complainant and the accused), who according to the prosecution version had gone to the house of PW.1 Kuldeep Kaur and PW.2 Gurcharan Singh, a day prior to the occurrence, to call them and advise her son Shivraj Singh (accused) not to assault his father Ram Kishan Singh (deceased). The prosecution could have proved the presence of Kuldeep Kaur (PW.1) and her husband Gurcharan Singh (PW.2), by examining this witness, but on the pretext that she was won over, she was not examined. Learned counsel further argued that the other two sons of the deceased, who were also residing in the same village, were neither associated by the investigating agency nor examined by the prosecution in the court, in order to corroborate the version of PW.1 Kuldeep Kaur and PW.2 Gurcharan Singh that the appellant was addicted to intoxicants and was badly treating his parents. Learned counsel further argued that the statements of these two alleged eye witnesses, who are highly interested, having a motive to falsely implicate the appellant, are contradictory on some aspects, which further create doubt in the trustworthiness and reliability of their testimonies. Learned counsel further argued that in order to corroborate the testimony of PW.3 Satnam Singh, Sarpanch, another independent witness, namely Amarjit Singh, Member Panchayat, has not been examined by the prosecution. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the appellant and the trial court has erred in law, while convicting and sentencing the appellant. Crl. A. No. 457-DB of 2006 -8- 15. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, argued that on the basis of the statements of both the eye witnesses, who fully supported the case of prosecution on each and every material aspect of the case, as well as the testimony of PW.3 Satnam Singh, Sarpanch, to whom both the eye witnesses narrated the entire occurrence and who accompanied the complainant to the police to lodge the report, and before whom the appellant suffered extra judicial confession, and subsequently, during interrogation by the police, got recovered the gandasa, the trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. 16. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case carefully. 17. Unfortunately, in this case, 75 years old father has been murdered by his son, who was addicted to intoxicants, for getting the house transferred in his name. As per the Post Mortem Report (Ex.PF), the homicidal death of Ram Kishan Singh has been established. Four incised wounds were found on his head and injury No.1 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. As per the prosecution version, all the injuries on the body of the deceased were caused by the appellant. The occurrence was witnessed by PW.1 Kuldeep Kaur and PW.2 Gurcharan Singh. Both these witnesses, who are closely related to the deceased as well as the accused, have fully supported the prosecution case. Though at the time of the occurrence, Surjit Kaur (the mother of the complainant and the accused) was also present in the house and she had also seen the occurrence, Crl. A. No. 457-DB of 2006 -9- but she has not been examined by the prosecution on the pretext that she was won over. Learned counsel for the appellant questioned the reliability and trustworthiness of both the eye witnesses. His main contention is that the presence of both these witnesses at the time of the occurrence was highly improbable, as they are residents of a different village. It has also been argued that the non-examination of Surjit Kaur further leads to the conclusion that the fact of calling of these two alleged eye witnesses from their village to advise the accused not to harass his father, has not been proved. 18. On a careful examination of the statements of PW.1 Kuldeep Kaur, PW.2 Gurcharan Singh and PW.3 Satnam Singh, Sarpanch, we are of the opinion that the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is not acceptable. Both the eye witnesses, namely PW.1 Kuldeep Kaur and PW.2 Gurcharan Singh, have categorically stated that appellant Shivraj Singh used to badly treat his father on the pretext of demanding money and transferring the house in his name. They have also categorically stated that one day prior to the occurrence, the mother of complainant Kuldeep Kaur (PW.1) came to their village and requested them to advise her son Shivraj Singh not to assault and maltreat his father. Since the complainant was the elder sister of accused Shivraj Singh, it was quite probable that Surjit Kaur visited the complainant to seek her help to advise the accused, the spoiled son of Surjit Kaur and brother of the complainant, who was badly treating his parents. It has come in evidence that at one point of time, in order to Crl. A. No. 457-DB of 2006 -10- financially help the accused, complainant Kuldeep Kaur (PW.1) had kept him with her in her matrimonial house for some time. This may be one more reason for the mother to seek the help of her daughter, who was having close intimacy with the accused. Further, PW.3 Satnam Singh, Sarpanch of the village, has stated that on 25.8.2003, at about 6.00/7.00 AM, complainant Kuldeep Kaur (PW.1) and her husband Gurcharan Singh (PW.2) came to his house and told him that the accused had committed the murder of his father. This fact itself shows that both the eye witnesses were present in the house at the time of the occurrence and they could not have been planted in the early hours, when the matter was not even reported to the police. Merely because the matter was reported to the police at 10.00 AM, it cannot be inferred that both the eye witnesses were introduced later on by the prosecution. These witnesses, while appearing in the court, have categorically stated that in the night, due to fear they did not go out of the house to inform any one, but immediately in the early morning, they went to Satnam Singh, Sarpanch (PW.3) and informed him about the occurrence. This fact has been corroborated by PW.3 Satnam Singh, Sarpanch. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the presence of two eye witnesses in the house of the deceased is doubtful, cannot be accepted, because it was but natural that when the sister (PW.1 Kuldeep Kaur) came in the house of her parents to advise her younger brother, during the night, she stayed with her parents in the house. Thus, we are of the opinion that even if Surjit Kaur, who is mother of the accused, has Crl. A. No. 457-DB of 2006 -11- not stepped into the witness box, the presence of both the eye witnesses at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted. The presence of PW.2 Gurcharan Singh, who also came along with his wife Kuldeep Kaur to advise accused Shivraj Singh, cannot be said to be improbable and unbelievable. Both the witnesses have no motive to falsely implicate the accused, who is the real younger brother of PW.1 Kuldeep Kaur and real brother-in-law (wife's brother) of PW.2 Gurcharan Singh. A suggestion was put to both these eye witnesses and a defence was also taken by the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., that he was falsely implicated, because when he demanded his salary for the period during which he worked with PW.1 Kuldeep Kaur and PW.2 Gurcharan Singh, they falsely implicated him in this case. This defence is totally baseless and unreliable. No sister can implicate her younger brother for the murder of their father, particularly when she had kept his brother with her for a long time, in order to financially help him. In our opinion, statements of both the eye witnesses are reliable and trust-worthy. They have been cross-examined at length, but nothing adverse could be elicited. The contradictions in the statements of both the eye witnesses, pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant, are minor in nature. A perusal of their statements shows that on all the material aspects of the case, they are consistent. Further, their statements have been corroborated by the evidence of extra judicial confession, made by the appellant before PW.3 Satnam Singh, who is Sarpanch of the village. After the occurrence in the mid-night, in the evening, the appellant made extra Crl. A. No. 457-DB of 2006 -12- judicial confession before PW.3 Satnam Singh and requested him to produce him before the police. Thereupon, the appellant was produced before the police and during his interrogation by the police, blood stained gandasa was recovered and as per the report (Ex.PU) of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh, the gandasa was stained with human blood. Thus, the recovery of gandasa further corroborates the prosecution version, given by two eye witnesses. 19. PW.1 Kuldeep Kaur and PW.2 Gurcharan Singh have categorically stated that the accused, who was addicted to intoxicants, was used to treat his father Ram Kishan Singh badly for transferring the house in his name, to which his father was not willing. Thus, the motive of the crime has been proved. So far as non-examination of other two sons of the deceased, who were also residing in the same village, is concerned, it is not fatal to the prosecution case, because they reached at the spot much later and they neither witnessed the occurrence nor the recovery of the gandasa was effected in their presence. One of the sons only identified the dead body of his father in the Hospital. 20. The testimony of PW.3 Satnam Singh cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that Amarjit Singh, Member Panchayat, who was also present at the time of the extra judicial confession made by the accused, and in whose presence, the accused was produced before the police and the blood stained gandasa was recovered at the instance of the accused, was not examined. The extra judicial confession and the recovery of gandasa have Crl. A. No. 457-DB of 2006 -13- been duly proved by the prosecution by leading sufficient evidence. 21. For the reasons recorded above, we are of the opinion that in the present case, the trial court has not committed any illegality in convicting the appellant for the offence of murder of his father. Consequently, the instant appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order, passed by the trial court, is upheld. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE August 17, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) ndj JUDGE