Cr.A.No.257-DB of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.A.No.257-DB of 2005 Date of Decision : 18-8-2011 Amarjit Singh ...Appellant Versus. State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr.P.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms.Gurveen H.Singh, Addl. AG, Punjab ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 4.3.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby in case FIR No.227 dated 6.1.2001 registered under Section 302 IPC at Police Station Basti Jodhewal, Ludhiana, the present appellant-accused Amarjit Singh has been convicted under Section 302 IPC for committing the murder of his wife Darshna Kumari and her son Mandip Kumar @ Ashu and sentenced on both the counts to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for six months. Both the sentences were, however, ordered to run consecutively one after the other. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 6.10.2001, Cr.A.No.257-DB of 2005 2 complainant Raj Rani got recorded her statement to the police stating that her son Vinod Kumar was married to Darshna Kumari (since deceased). Out of their wed-lock, two sons, namely, Gangandeep @ Neelu and Mandip Kumar @ Ashu were born. About four years back, her son Vinod Kumar expired. Her daughter-in-law, Darshna Kumari of her own will and without permission and consent of the relatives, married Amarjit Singh, the present appellant-accused. According to the complainant , both her grand- sons did not like Amarjit Singh and used to stop him from coming to their house but Amarjit Singh used to beat them and on account of said harassment, her grand-son Gagandeep Singh @ Neelu started residing in Bassi Pathana in the maternal house. On the fateful day, i.e. 6.10.2001, at about 7.30 AM in the morning, when the complainant was about to leave for place of her work, accused Amarjit Singh came to their house and on being stopped by her and her grand-son, he replied as to who were they to stop him and saying so, he picked up a bat and while hurling abuses, told that he will kill Mandeep Kumar @ Ashu and Darshna Kumari. Darshna Kumari also stopped him. Thereafter, the complainant went to the factory and on reaching there, she asked her another son Satish Kumar to go to the house and persuade Amarjit Singh but he told that at that time, he was busy and he will go only after finishing the work. At about 4 PM, when the complainant came back to her house, she found that the outer door of the house was closed. On opening the door, she went inside and in the last room, saw her daugher-in-law Darshna Kumari and grand-son Mandip Kumar @ Ashu lying in a pool of blood on the floor. According to the complainant, she is certain that both of them had been killed by accused Amarjit Singh with the bat and the motive for the same was that they did not like Amarjit Singh coming to their house. This led to the registration of the present case against the accused-appellant. Later, accused Amarjit Singh made extra-judicial confession before Guldeep Kumar of having committed the crime. He was arrested and he pursuant to his disclosure statement, got recovered the weapon of offence, i.e. the cricket bat. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and on completion of investigation and other formalities, challan against the accused Amarjit Singh was presented in Court for an offence under Section 302 IPC for committing the murder of Darshna Kumari and Mandp Kumar Cr.A.No.257-DB of 2005 3 @ Ashu. Accused-appellant, however, pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Dr.Mohinder Singh, PW-2 HC Darbara Singh, PW-3 Smt.Raj Rani, PW-4 Guldeep Kumar, PW-5 DSP Santokh Singh, PW-6 Gagandeep Singh, PW-7 Satish Kumar, PW-8 Ashok Kumar, PW-9 ASI Surinder Singh, PW-10 Ashok Kumar Constable, PW-11 HC Parminder Singh, PW-12 ASI Gurbinder Singh, PW-13 HC Malkiat Singh, PW-14 Anil Kumar and PW- 15 Surat Singh, Sr.Assistant, and after tendering into evidence the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Exhibit PX, closed its evidence. Thereafter, the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded by putting him incriminating evidence qua him to which he pleaded innocence and false implication. He took up the plea that since deceased Darshna Kumari had contracted marriage with him against the wishes of complainant Raj Rani and other family members, they were annoyed with him. He pleaded that deceased Darshna Kumari being employed with Punjab State Electricity Board, the complainant and other family members in order to have the benefit of her service and to grab her house, falsely implicated him in the case so that he is not able to inherit the benefits of her service and the house. However, he did not lead any evidence in defence and closed his evidence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana upon appreciation of evidence adduced on record, vide the impugned judgment and order dated 4.3.2005 held the accused-appellant guilty and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him in the manner indicated above. Hence, the present appeal by him. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. There is no direct evidence in this case. The case rests upon circumstantial evidence. It is a settled rule of circumstantial evidence that every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established beyond doubt by reliable and clinching evidence and the evidence so proved must form a chain of events which was the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can safely be drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible. The first circumstance that the prosecution has relied upon is that the deceased persons were seen last in the company of the accused- Cr.A.No.257-DB of 2005 4 appellant. On the date of occurrence, i.e. 6.10.2001, accused-appellant Amarjit Singh had come to the house of Raj Rani when Darshna Kumari was present with her son Mandeep Kumar and Raj Rani, the mother-in-law, and started hurling abuses at them. In this context, the statement of PW-3 Raj Rani, mother-in-law of the deceased Darshna Kumari and grand-mother of Mandeep Kumar is very relevant. Her statement suggests that after the death of her son Vinod Kumar who left behind widow Darshna Kumari and two sons, namely, Mandeep Kumar @ Ashu and Gagandeep @ Neelu, her daughter-in-law Darshna Kumari contracted marriage with accused- appellant Amarjit Singh of her own accord. Said Amarjit Singh whose wife had already died, used to reside in their neighbourhood and visited their house which was not liked by Mandeep Kumar @ Ashu and Gagandeep @ Neelu. Even on the fateful day, when deceased Darshna Kumari along with her son Mandeep Kumar @ Ashu and mother-in-law Raj Rani , the complainant, was present in their house, accused-appellant came there and started hurling abuses at them and also picked up a cricket bat while saying that he will kill them. Darshna Kumari had then suggested the complainant to go to the factory for work and that she will persuade the accused not to behave in this manner. At about 4/4.30 PM, when Raj Rani reached her house, she saw Darshna Kumari and Mandeep Kumar @ Ashu lying on the floor in a pool of blood. According to her, accused-appellant had killed Darshna Kumari and her son Mandeep Kumar @ Ashu since they used to object when he visited their house and in turn, he used to threaten them of dire consequences. This aspect also stands corroborated by PW-6 Gagandeep, another son of the deceased, that accused-appellant used to beat them on small matters and on one occasion, he even picked up a scissors and tried to give its blow to him but was saved when her mother came in front of him but he as well as his mother were given slaps and kick blows and were threatened that he would kill them. This behaviour of the accused- appellant led Gagandeep @ Neelu to shift from his house and to live with her maternal grand-parents but he is very categoric that accused-appellant used to give beatings to his mother and brother Mandeep Kumar @ Ashu on very small matters. Even on the day of occurrence, when Raj Rani had left the house since she was working as labourer in a Hosiery, the accused- appellant had been quarrelling with the deceased persons. The presence of Cr.A.No.257-DB of 2005 5 this witness at that point of time and so as the deceased persons was also natural. Darshna Kumari who was working in the Punjab State Electricity Board was also to remain in the house as that day was a holiday in her Office being a Saturday. The statement of PW-3 Raj Rani has been questioned on account of relationship with the deceased. But mere relationship by itself cannot be said to be suffice to discard the statement. There is no absolute law that evidence of a relation witness is not entitled to any weight. As discussed above, her presence at that point of time in the house was quite natural. When she left the house for work, accused-appellant Amarjit Singh was quarrelling with Darshna Kumari and her son Mandeep Kumar @ Ashu and threatened to kill them. The medical evidence indicates that the crime had been committed immediately after Raj Rani left the house. PW-1 Dr. Mohinder Singh who had conducted the post-mortem examination on 7.10.2001 at 11.45 AM and 12.30 PM on the dead-bodies of Darshna Kumari and Mandeep Kumar respectively has opined that the probable time that elapsed between death and injuries was found to be immediate while between death and post-mortem it was about 30 hours, which leads to the conclusion that the murders had been committed in the morning after Raj Rani had left the house for work. There is another circumstance of extra-judicial confession having been made by accused-appellant before PW-4 Guldeep Kumar who in turn produced the accused-appellant before the police whereafter he was arrested. The statement of PW-4 Guldeep Kumar suggests that he was a transporter and the accused-appellant had known him since he had worked as a carpenter. On 6.10.2001, in the evening, accused-appellant approached him and stated that about 8 months back he had contracted second marriage with Darshna Kumari widow of Vinod Kumar but her two sons, Mandeep Kumar @ Ashu and Gagandeep @ Neelu were not liking him and on the date of occurrence, i.e. 6.10.2001 in the morning, he slapped Mandeep Kumar and when Darshna Kumari intervened, he picket up a cricket bat and killed both Darshna Kumari and Mandeep Kumar @ Ashu. The statement of PW-4 Guldeep Kumar has been assailed on the ground that he was not holding any post and as such, there was no occasion for the accused-appellant to make an extra-judicial confession before him. This Cr.A.No.257-DB of 2005 6 argument does not convince us for variety of reasons; firstly, he was a transporter and accused-appellant had known him as having worked as a carpenter with him. This witness had acquaintance with the police since the police used to take his trucks. Further, since the accused-appellant had known this witness, even if he was not holding any post, even then it was his choice that before whom he thinks proper to make an extra-judicial confession. There is also no evidence on the record if this witness was a stock witness of the police or while deposing against the accused, he would be benefitted in any way. Though a suggestion had been put to him that he was related to deceased Darshna Kumari but he emphatically denied it. He has no axe to grind. He has also no animus against the accused. He was subjected to length cross-examination but nothing could be extracted from his mouth which could benefit the defence. There is no error in his statement. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve his statement. The medical evidence also supports the case of the prosecution. The bat, Exhibit P1, so recovered from the accused-appellant, was shown to PW-1 Dr. Mohinder Singh who categorically has opined that injuries on the person of both the deceased could be the result of blows of this bat, Exhibit P-1. Further, at the time of recovery of the bat, it was stained with blood. It was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis. The report, Exhibit PX, indicates that the cricket bat is stained with human blood. The last contention that has been raised by the counsel for the appellant is that under sub-section(2) of Section 427 Cr.P.C., both sentences of imprisonment are to run concurrently and not consecutively as has been held by the trial Court. This argument convinces us. A person having only one life span which is to be spent in jail, the other sentence of imprisonment of life can only be super-imposed to the earlier life sentence and certainly not added to it since extending the life span of the offender or for that matter anyone is beyond human might. In other words, sentence of life imprisonment imposed on the same person in two different convictions would converge into one and thereafter, it would flow through one stream alone. Therefore, the impugned judgment/order of sentence stands modified to the extent that both sentences of imprisonment for life shall run concurrently. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has been able Cr.A.No.257-DB of 2005 7 to adequately prove guilt against the accused-appellant beyond doubt and thus, he has been rightly convicted. No interference is called for. Therefore, except with the above modification that both the sentences of life imprisonment shall run concurrently, the present appeal stands dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JUDGE JUDGE August 18, 2011. JS