IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No.77-DB of 2006 Date of Decision: 3.02.2009 Pavittar Singh Appellant Versus State of Punjab Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Ms.Harpreet Kaur Dhillon, Advocate for the appellant Ms.Manjari Nehru Kaul, DAG Punjab for the respondent-State …. Jasbir Singh, J. By filing this appeal, the appellant – Pavittar Singh son of Gurdev Singh has laid challenge to the judgment dated 10.1.2005, vide which, he was convicted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 364, 302 and 201 IPC. He has further laid challenge to the order dated 12.1.2005, vide which, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- with a default clause for commission of an offence under Section 302 IPC. Some minor punishments were also awarded to him for commission of other offences as found mentioned above. Criminal Appeal No.77-DB of 2006 2 It was allegation against the appellant that with a view to grab huge amount of money, he had committed murder of Dalo son of Hari Singh, who was last seen with him on 21.5.2002. Facts of the case, as noticed by the trial Court in paragraph Nos.3 to 5 read thus:- “3. The facts, in brief, are that Bikker Singh, complainant is an agriculturist. He had five brothers, out of whom, one had died. Dalo and Sucha Singh, brothers of Bikker Singh, were having joint land, at village Mauli. Sucha Singh had gone abroad. Dalo (now deceased) used to cultivate the said land. Dalo (now deceased) had sold 22 kanals of land, jointly held by him and his brother Sucha Singh, about 10 months, before 5.6.2002 in the sum of Rs.28 lacs. Dalo (now deceased) was unmarried and was residing all alone in the village. He used to prepare his meals himself. Pavittar Singh son of Gurdev Singh, brother of the daughter-in-law of Sucha Singh, aforesaid, resident of village Sudana P.S. Bhogpur Distt. Jalandhar used to come to meet Dalo at village Mauli quite often. He had been residing continuously with Dalo since 14/15th May 2002. Dalo and Pavittar Singh aforesaid used to go outside the house together. 4. On 21.5.2002 at about 7/7.15 p.m. Bikker Singh was coming towards the house from his tube-well and when he reached on the turning of temple (Mandir) in the area of village Mauli he saw his brother Dalo, sitting in between Criminal Appeal No.77-DB of 2006 3 the rider and the pillion rider on a scooter. Pavittar Singh was also seen by him riding his motor-cycle. Pavittar Singh had kept a bag each on the front and back side of the motor-cycle. The scooter and the motor-cycle were proceeding towards the habitation of Adarmis. Thereafter, Dalo, aforesaid was not seen by Bikker Singh in the village. Later on Bikker Singh came to know that Dalo had withdrawn the amount with regard to the sale proceeds of the land, aforesaid, from the Bank. Bikker Singh then entertained a suspicion, that Pavittar Singh and his companions in greed of the amount of the sale proceeds of the land, had either committed the murder of Dalo or caused his disappearance. He then started for lodging the report. 5. On 5.6.2002 when Bhupinder Singh, Inspector/ SHO, P.S. Sadar, Phagwara, Ranjit Singh, ASI, Sukhraj Singh, ASI and other police officials were found present at the turning of village Mauli on the G.T. Road, where they held a picket, Bikker Singh complainant came there and made his statement Ex.PF regarding the disappearance of Dalo. It was read over and explained to him and he signed the same after admitting it to be correct. Endorsement Ex.PF/1 was appended on the same and the statement was sent to Police Station Sadar, Phagwara on the basis whereof FIR Ex.PF/2 was recorded by Criminal Appeal No.77-DB of 2006 4 Sukhwinder Singh, Sub Inspector Ex.PF/2 Special Report was delivered to the Illaqa Magistrate.” On registration of FIR, the investigating officer Inspector Bhupinder Singh (PW12) went to the spot in village Mauli, made enquiries from various people gathered at the spot and also got prepared a site plan. The appellant –accused also came there and on suspicion, he was arrested. He was taken to the police station, where on interrogation, he made a disclosure statement, which led to the recovery of dead body and cash amount of Rs.19,35,000/-. Dead body was dug out on 6.6.2002 in the presence of Daljit Singh Chhina (PW13) Tehsildar Phillaur and other witnesses. On 7.6.2002, the appellant was again interrogated by Inspector Bhupinder Singh (PW12), he made a disclosure statement stating that he has concealed the remaining cash amount in the area of village Nawan Pind Nechan and also weapon of offence (iron rod). In pursuant to his disclosure statement (Ex.PK), the appellant got recovered an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from a pre-disclosed place, on 10.6.2002. He also got recovered motor cycle, iron rod and a spade used at the time of crime. On completion of investigation, final report was put in Court for trial. The appellant was charge sheeted, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution produced 16 witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence to prove its case. Record reveals that post-mortem on the dead body was initially conducted by Dr.Gurdit Singh (PW3), Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Phagwara along with three other doctors. The body was badly mutilated and in advance stage of decomposition. In view of above, the dead body was Criminal Appeal No.77-DB of 2006 5 referred to Forensic Science Department, Government College, Amritsar for post-mortem. Thereafter, post-mortem was conducted by Dr.Gurmanjit Rai (PW15), Assistant Professor, Forensic Medicine Department, Government Medical College, Amritsar. He made the following observations:- “The length of the body was 5’-8”. It was putrified dead body of a male, wrapped in a white cloth and polythene sheets and a bed sheet. Body was foul smelling and was soiled by earth. Muscle mass was present at places. The bones were found joined by ligaments. Scalp and hair were found detached. Brownish coloured clotted blood was present on the right side of the head in the temporo-parietal region. Skull was found having a fracture of right temporal and parietal bone and base of skull bones. Adipocere was present on the limbs and front of chest and neck regions, where muscle tissue was present. On dissection: Internal organs of chest and abdomen were found in pultaceons mass having colliquative Putrifaction and were difficult to identify except heat and prostate. Penis and testies were found shrunken and dried up. Brain was found liquefied & brownish in colour and was found spilling out from the fracture side. Membrance of brain were found lecratted below the fracture side on right side. On cleaning and boiling the bones, and on examination, I found the right frontal, temporal, parietal and anterior cranial fossa found having fractures, Maxilla was found separated and had one right upper canine tooth intact. Margins of the Criminal Appeal No.77-DB of 2006 6 fractured ends were found having infiltration of blood. Vault of skull sutures were found fused. Upper limb and lower limb bones were found normal. Scapula of both sides were found normal. In the mandible, on left side, one molar and one canine tooth was found intact and on the right side, on canine tooth was found intact and angle of mandible was found everted. 24 ribs were found normal and 7 cervical, 12 thoracic and 5 lumbers and one sacrum were found normal. Sternum was found in three pieces. Both hip bones were found normal and right side clavicles was found normal and left side was found missing. The small bones of hands and feet were found normal. The injury on the right side of head and fore-head was ante-mortem in nature and was caused by heavy blunt weapon. The cause of death in this case in my opinion was laceration of brain as a result of injury to skull, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Probable time elapsed between injury and death was within about few minutes and between death and post mortem was about 2 weeks to one month.” Bikker Singh (PW16), the complainant has deposed that he had seen the deceased with the appellant on 21.5.2002. Inspector Bhupinder Singh (PW12), ASI Ranjit Singh (PW8) and Jasbir Singh (PW9) have deposed as to how, on disclosure statements made by the appellant, dead body, cash amount of Rs.24,35,000/- and weapon of offence etc. were Criminal Appeal No.77-DB of 2006 7 recovered. It has come on record that dead body was dug out in the presence of Daljit Singh Chhina (PW13) Tehsildar Phillaur. He has also witnessed recovery of huge cash amount from a place indicated by the appellant. The prosecution also brought on record evidence of the bank officials to show that cash amount was withdrawn by the deceased from the Bank and also that Rs.2 lacs were deposited by the appellant in his Bank Account on 23.5.2002. The trial Court, on appraisal of evidence led by the prosecution, found the appellant guilty and accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced, as found mentioned in earlier part of the judgment. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the dead body allegedly recovered at the instance of appellant, was in a mutilated condition and was not capable of identification. She further, by making reference to the statements made by Bikker Singh (PW16) and Sukhwinder Singh (PW7), argued that both were known to each other, however, when making deposition in Court, they tried to conceal their relationship, which casts doubt upon their truthfulness. She further stated that recovery of alleged weapon of offence was not effected in the presence of independent witness and further the weapon was not sent for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory. She, by showing that after registration of FIR, murder case was cracked within one hour, casts doubt on story of the prosecution. She prayed that conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant was not justified, as such, judgment under challenge be set aside and the appellant be acquitted of the charges framed against him. Prayer made has vehemently been opposed by the State counsel. She, by making reference to the photographs on record, argued that the dead Criminal Appeal No.77-DB of 2006 8 body was identifiable. She further argued that appellant was residing with the deceased and there was motive with him to kill the deceased so that he may grab huge amount lying with the deceased. By stating that the deceased was last seen with the appellant, counsel prayed that appeal having no substance, be dismissed. After hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the view that at the instance of the appellant, it is not possible for us to interfere in the judgment under challenge. It is proved on record by the prosecution that on 21.5.2002, the deceased Dalo was last seen with the appellant. Statement made by Sukhwinder Singh (PW7) and Bikker Singh (PW16) clearly deposes as to in what manner the deceased was taken away by the appellant from his house to the nearby village. Except minor discrepancies/ contradictions here and there, testimony of the above said witnesses is reliable. Lengthy cross- examination has failed to shatter testimony of the above named witnesses. It has also come on record that the appellant had been residing with the deceased for quite sometime before the day when deceased disappeared from his village. It has also come on record that the deceased had withdrawn huge amount from Banks. before the day of occurrence. An amount of Rs.24,35,000/- was recovered by the police at the instance of the appellant. It is not possible to plant such a huge amount, with a view to falsely implicate anyone. It has also come on record that on 23.5.2002, appellant-accused had deposited Rs.2 lacs in his Account in a Bank. He has failed to explain source of that amount. Amount of Rs.24,35,000/- was recovered and dead body was dug out in the presence of Daljit Singh Chhina (PW13) Tehsildar Phillaur. Criminal Appeal No.77-DB of 2006 9 Post-mortem on the dead body was conducted by Dr.Gurmanjit Rai (PW15). When in Court, during cross-examination, no question was put to this witness that identification of the dead body was not possible. The prosecution has produced Prince Gogna (PW6), the photographer. Photographs of the dead body are on record. A look at those photographs shows that identification of the dead body was possible. Operation of digging out the body and recovery of amount was also video-graphed. Merely because weapon of offence was not recovered in the presence of an eye witness and the same was not produced in Court, no relief can be given to the appellant-accused. The prosecution was successful in proving motive with the appellant to commit murder. Counsel for the appellant has failed to show any misreading of evidence by the trial Court, which may necessitate interference by us. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 3.02.2009 (Jora Singh) gk Judge