IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.55 of 2007 Decided on : November 24, 2009 Surjeet 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?1 Yes. For the Appellant : Mr. Anoop Chitkara and Ms Nidhi Chawla, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General, and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, J(Oral) Appellant Surjeet Singh, hereinafter called accused, has appealed against the judgment, dated 20th February, 2007, of learned Sessions Court, whereby he has been convicted of offence of murder, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-; in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two years. 2. Case was registered against the accused at Police Station, Paonta Sahib, vide FIR Ex. PW-1/B, at the instance of PW-1 Narinder Singh, a brother of deceased Satwinder Kaur. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 3. As per testimony of PW-1 Narinder Singh, deceased Satwinder Kaur was married to PW-2 Charanjeet Singh, a brother of the accused, about 14-15 years back. Three-four years prior to the occurrence (occurrence took place on 30th September, 2000), accused and PW-2 Charanjeet Singh separated from each other. They started living in the same building, but in two separate portions. Their mother, DW-1 Naginder Kaur, started living with the accused in one portion. PW-2 Charanjeet Singh alongwith his wife deceased Satwinder Kaur and two children started living in the other portion. Sometime prior to 30th September, 2000, relations between the two brothers turned acrimonious. They even stopped talking to each other. About a week prior to her death, Satwinder Kaur went to her brother PW-1 Narinder Singh and told him that the accused and her mother-in-law DW-1 Naginder Kaur had been harassing her and putting pressure on her to vacate one of the rooms of the joint house and that her box, which she had kept in that room, had also been shifted to open verandah. 4. On 30th September, 2000, PW-1 Narinder Singh received a telephonic call from his nephew Tejinder Singh, son of his another sister, named Balwant Kaur (PW-4), that dead body of Satwinder Kaur had been found in a sugarcane field. On getting that information, PW-1 …3… Narinder Singh went to village Taruwala, where the deceased used to live with her husband. He also went to Police Station, Paonta Sahib, where he reported about the death of his sister. The report was entered in the Rojnamcha and copy of the same is Ex. PW-1/A. 5. By the time PW-1 Narinder Singh reached Taruwala, the dead body had been shifted from the sugarcane field to her house and placed in the verandah. Police reached the spot and conducted inquest. Inquest form Ex. PW-8/A was filled-in by PW-8 Inspector O.P. Yadav, SHO Police Station, Paonta Sahib. Dead body was sent to the Hospital for postmortem examination. 6. Postmortem was conducted by PW-10 Dr. Amitabh Jain, who noticed that there were deep red (maroonish) contusions/abrasions on forehead and both lips. There was a bruise 2.5cm x 0.5cm on the right side of the nasal bridge near eye and its colour was deep red. He also noticed clotted blood in and around both nostrils. Also, he noticed a contusion 2cm x 0.5cm, shaped like a seed of bean, in epigastric area, deep red in colour. There was also a bruise 3cm x 2cm on the left thigh. There were multiple small abrasions present on right leg, located anteriorly and laterally and they were also deep red. Also, he noticed a few pinkish abrasions on the right leg below the knee. Deep Red contusions/abrasions on the leg were also seen …4… above the foot. On opening the dead body, liver, lungs and kidneys were found congested. Trachea was found filled with froth and was congested. Right chamber of the heart was full of blood and left side was empty. Cause of death was opined to be asphyxia by smothering, but sign of interrogation was also put, indicating that it was not certain if asphyxia had been caused by smothering. Time lag between the injuries and the death was opined to be about 30 minutes. 7. Postmortem report was issued by PW-10 Dr. Amitabh Jain, on 3rd October, 2000. After this report was issued, PW-1 Narinder Singh was informed by the police, per his own testimony, that it was a case of death caused by smothering. So, he lodged FIR Ex. PW-1/B, per which the deceased had been killed and request was made for investigating the matter. He did not name anybody as suspect. 8. Before the registration of the case, police visited the sugarcane field and found a sickle Ex. P-1, lying on the site where the dead body had been spotted. The same was taken into possession vide Memo Ex. PW-1/D. Some vomited matter was also found on the spot, which too was taken into possession by the same Memo, i.e. Ex. PW-1/D, and made into a parcel. It was then sealed. That vomited …5… substance was sent to the Chemical Examiner, but no poison was found therein. 9. On 4th October, 2000, accused was arrested. He was interrogated. On 9th October, 2000, he allegedly made a disclosure statement that he had kept concealed one pillow (Ex. P-4) in his house and could get the same recovered. Statement was reduced into writing and its record is Ex. PW-1/C. On the basis of this disclosure statement, pillow was recovered, which was taken into possession vide Memo Ex. PW-2/A and made into a parcel. It was sent to the Chemical Examiner, who vide report Ex. PW-10/C, gave the opinion that there was human blood on the pillow. 10. During investigation, PW-3 Hardev Singh, a resident of village Haripur, told the police that on 30th September, 2000, he had gone to village Taruwala to offer milk of his buffalo, which had delivered a calf on that very day, at the temple of Gareeb Nath and that around 2 p.m., when he was returning and passed by the house of the accused and the deceased, he saw one Lakha Singh dragging the deceased inside the house and she was crying, but he did not intervene, because of Lakha Singh being a dangerous man, he apprehended danger to his own life, at his hands. …6… 11. PW-2 Charanjeet Singh, husband of the deceased, told the police that when he returned to his house on 30th September, 2000, around 6.30 p.m., and did not find his wife at home, he went to the house of his wife’s sister PW-4 Balwant Kaur, thinking that his wife might have gone there and that when he did not find her there and was returning home alongwith PW-4 Balwant Kaur, accused met him on the way and told that his wife had died of snake bite and her dead body had been found in the sugarcane field and that thereafter he, Balwant Kaur and the accused went to the sugarcane field, where, in the light of the torch, which he was carrying and the head-light of the scooter of the accused, dead body was spotted and was taken to his house. PW-4 Balwant Kaur, however, stated that when the dead body was spotted, accused disappeared from the spot. 12. During the course of trial, PW-3 Hardev Singh did not support the prosecution version. He was confronted with his statement, under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by the prosecution with the leave of the Court. He admitted that he made a statement before the Magistrate, under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, during investigation, but denied that what he testified before the Magistrate was true and stated that he testified the version tutored to him by the police, under police pressure. …7… 13. Accused took the plea that the deceased had gone to mow grass from the fields, around 3 or 3.30 p.m., but did not return. 14. Learned trial Court held the accused guilty of the offence of murder and convicted and sentenced him, as aforesaid. 15. We have heard the learned counsel for the accused as also the learned Deputy Advocate General representing the State and gone through the evidence. 16. There is no direct evidence, suggesting that on the fateful day the deceased had been assaulted or manhandled or dragged inside the house. PW-3 Hardev Singh, as already noticed, turned hostile. He admitted having made the statement that he saw the deceased being dragged by Lakha Singh inside the house, but stated that the said statement was not true and that he had been forced and pressurized by the police to make the said statement. Prosecution has not clarified who this Lakha Singh is, leave alone proving that Lakha Singh is the other name of the accused. Furthermore, PW-3 Hardev Singh was a chance witness, he being a resident of another village. It has come in the evidence that adjacent to the house of the accused and the deceased there is house of one Kamaljit Singh. Nobody from the house of said Kamaljit Singh was examined to prove the allegation that …8… the deceased was dragged and assaulted by the accused at his house, on the fateful day. 17. Accused examined his mother, DW-1 Naginder Kaur, who testified that the deceased used to take care of the children of the accused, because his wife is polio affected. PW-2 Charanjeet Singh also admitted this fact, to some extent, when he stated that the deceased used to love accused’s children. DW-1 Naginder Kaur further stated that on 30th September, 2000, the deceased had gone to the fields, with a sickle, to fetch grass for her buffalo and that when around 6.30 p.m. her husband PW-2 Charanjeet Singh returned home and enquired about the deceased she told him that she had gone to the fields to collect grass. Her statement was not seriously challenged in the cross- examination by the prosecution. Recovery of sickle Ex. P-1 from the sugarcane field and also the recovery of vomited matter from the field lend credibility to the testimony of DW-1 Naginder Kaur. 18. Prosecution’s story appears to be that the deceased was done to death in the house and then her dead body was thrown into the field. The story is belied by the fact of the recovery of vomited matter from the spot. A dead body cannot vomit. That means the deceased was atleast alive in the sugarcane field, where her dead body was found, before her death. Otherwise also, it was not …9… safe to carry the dead body from the house to the field during day time, as the people would have come to know about the crime, especially when the distance between the house and the field is 300 metres, per evidence on record. 19. Sickle and vomited matter were recovered on 1st October, 2000. PW-2 Charanjeet Singh, brother of the deceased, at the time of the recovery of the sickle did not say that it did not belong to the deceased or to PW-2 Charanjeet Singh, meaning thereby that the sickle was impliedly admitted to belong to the deceased. However, during trial, PW-2 Charanjeet Singh disowned the sickle, with a view to creating a circumstance against the accused that sickle had been planted in the fields, after throwing the dead body there. It may be stated that both, PW-2 Charanjeet Singh, husband of the deceased, and PW-1 Narinder Singh, brother of the deceased, are witnesses to the recovery Memo of sickle Ex. PW-1/D. In the inquest report Ex. PW-8/A also there is a mention of recovery of sickle from the sugarcane field. This report is also attested by PW-1 Narinder Singh and PW-2 Charanjeet Singh. In the said report also there is no mention that sickle was stated by PW-2 Charanjeet Singh or PW-1 Narinder Singh not to belong to the deceased. 20. Cause of death was opined to be asphyxia. However, no definite opinion was expressed as to what …10… could have caused the asphyxia. Smothering was mentioned as doubtful cause of asphyxia. Probably the doctor wanted to convey that it could have been the cause of asphyxia. While in the witness-box as PW-10, Dr. Amitabh Jain, who conducted the postmortem, admitted that poisoning can also be a cause of asphyxia, if the person poisoned starts vomiting and the vomiting causes choking of trachea. 21. In the present case, the first suspicion was that the deceased had been bitten by a snake, while in the sugarcane field. Vomited matter was found on the spot, on the next following day and taken into possession. The postmortem showed that the trachea was filled with froth and was congested, meaning thereby that choking of trachea took place. 22. It has come in the evidence that when the dead body of the deceased was being carried from the sugarcane field to the house of PW-2 Charanjeet Singh, a pet dog of the deceased and PW-2 Charanjeet Singh bit the deceased on her knee. Normally, a pet would not bite his master or mistress, unless he notices something abnormal. It is quite likely that the deceased was bitten by a snake on or around the knee and some traces of venom of the snake were there on the leg, which the pet smelt and apprehended danger to the life of the deceased, on account of the presence of …11… venom and bit the deceased at the site of the venom. It is mentioned in the inquest report Ex. PW-8/A that there were tooth bite marks on the right leg of the deceased, below the knee. 23. Prosecution, by recovery of a pillow, allegedly at the instance of the accused, tried to show that the smothering had been done by means of pillow Ex. P-4. Though the Chemical Examiner, vide report Ex. PW-10/C, reported that there were stains of human blood on the pillow, but the blood does not stand connected with the blood of the deceased. Moreover, the witnesses of the alleged disclosure statement and the recovery of pillow are not independent persons. One of the witnesses, namely PW-1 Narinder Singh, is a brother of the deceased and PW-11 Tarun Singh, the second witness of disclosure statement, is a cousin of the deceased, being the son of a sister of the mother of the deceased. 24. Testimony of PW-4 Balwant Kaur that after showing the dead body lying in sugarcane field, the accused decamped is not correct. PW-2 Charanjeet Singh, husband of the deceased, very categorically testified that the accused remained present throughout till cremation of the dead body and he sat besides the dead body throughout the night and accompanied it to the Hospital, when it was taken for postmortem. …12… 25. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that the charge against the accused does not stand established, beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the appeal is accepted, judgment of the trial Court, convicting and sentencing the accused, is set aside and he is acquitted. He being in jail, serving out the sentence awarded by the trial Court, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, in case his detention is not required in any other case. Release warrant be prepared accordingly. Appeal stands disposed of. ( Surjit Singh ), J November 24, 2009(sd) ( Surinder Singh ), J