1IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Appeal No. 1523 of 2001 Old Number (Criminal Appeal No. 2125 of 1999) Daljeet Singh Bhandari Son of Beer Singh, resident of Village-Tatik District Almora. ………. Accused/Appellant. Versus State of U.P. (Now State of Uttarakhand) ……. Respondent. Present : Sri G.K. Verma, Advocate (Amicus Curiae) present for the appellant. Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. with Sri B.S. Parihar, Brief holder present for the State / respondent. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble Nirmal Yadav, J. [Oral : Hon’ble Praffulla C. Pant,J. ] This appeal, preferred under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.) is directed against judgment and order dated 12.08.1999 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Almora in Sessions Trial No. 36 of 1994, whereby the accused/appellant Daljeet Singh Bhandari has been convicted under section 302, 412 of Indian Penal Court, 1860 (for short IPC). The convict has been sentenced to imprisonment for life under section 302 IPC. He has been further sentenced to 2 undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of 10 years under section 412 IPC. 2. Heard learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent, and perused the lower court record. 3. It is a case of “DOUBLE MURDER”. Prosecution story, in brief, is that Bhagirathi Devi and her youngest son Ravindra alias Chhotu (both deceased) used to live in village Tatik in district Almora. PW3 Balwant Singh (husband of Bhagirathi Devi and father of the Ravindra alias Chhotu) was serving in Indian Army, and posted at Bareilly. His three children were studying in Almora. In November, 1993, PW3 Balwant Singh had come for about a week to meet his children. He had brought some jewellery for his wife, and left it with her. Also, he gave some money for her monthly expenses. He left Almora on 18.11.1993. PW1 Smt. Govindi Devi, who had common cowshed with Bhagirathi Devi, on 23.11.1993 went in the morning to the cowshed to take out her cattle for grazing. At that time, she called out Bhagirathi Devi, who used to live in the first floor of the cowshed, but nobody responded. On this, PW1 Godvindi Devi took her cattle and after grazing them came back. In the afternoon again, she called 3 out Bhagirathi Devi (deceased), but once again there was no response from the first floor. On this she informed the other villagers as to the fact that nobody was responding from the house of Bhagirathi Devi. Thereafter, the villagers namely Narain Singh, Hari Singh, Veer Singh and Kesar Singh went inside the house of Bhagirathi Devi, and saw that not only Bhagirathi Devi but also her youngest son Ravindra alias Chhotu had been killed and lying dead. Three villagers namely Devendra Singh, Balwant Singh and Kundan Singh went to Almora to inform the Village Pradhan (PW2 Mohan Singh), who used to live there, about the murder of the mother and son, in the village. On receiving the said information, PW2 Mohan Singh, Village Pradhan, lodged first information report (exhibit A-1) at police station Kotwali, Almora on 23.11.1993 at about 21.20 hours. On the basis of said report, crime No. 648/1993 was registered against unknown persons relating to offence punishable under section 460 IPC, and check report (exhibit A-9) was prepared at the police station and necessary entry was made in General Diary (exhibit A-9/1). The investigation was taken up by PW7 Sub Inspector J.P. Bansala. He along with necessary force, went to village Tatik and took both the dead bodies in possession and prepared inquest reports (exhibit A-2 and 4 exhibit A-3). After sealing the dead bodies and preparing other necessary papers, the dead bodies were sent for post mortem examination. PW6 Dr. N. S. Jangpangi conducted post mortem examination on two dead bodies on 24.11.1993. He recorded three incised wounds and one lacerated wound on the dead body of Ravindra alias Chhotu, and three incised wounds and two abraded contusions on the dead body of Bhagirathi Devi. The medical officer prepared autopsy reports (exhibit A-7 and exhibit A-8). He opined that both have died due to shock and haemorrhage, as a result of ante mortem injuries. During investigation, the Investigating Officer came to know of the fact that accused appellant Daljeet Singh Bhanadari had made a extra judicial confession to PW4 Deewan Singh, Home Guard, and PW5 Soban Singh. Report exhibit A-4 was got submitted by PW5 Soban Singh through PW2 Mohan Singh to the police about the said extra judicial confession made on 11.02.1994. On this, the Investigating Officer made prayer to Chief Judicial Magistrate, for police remand of accused Daljeet Singh, who was already in jail since 17.01.1994 (in connection with case relating to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985). During interrogation, accused/appellant Daljeet Singh disclosed that he can get recovered the looted 5 jewellery, which he had robbed from the house of Bhagirathi (deceased). On 19.02.1994, on the pointing out of accused Daljeet Singh Bhandari recovery of looted jewellery was made and recovery memo (exhibit A-6) was prepared by the police, which was signed not only by the witnesses but also by accused appellant Daljeet Singh Bhandari. After completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against accused Daljeet Singh for his trial in respect of offence punishable under section 460, 412 IPC. 4. The Magistrate, on receipt of the chargesheet, after giving necessary copies to the accused as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C., appears to have committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial. Learned Sessions Judge, Almora on 29.08.1995, after hearing the parties, framed the charge of offence punishable under section 392 IPC, in alternative, relating to the offence punishable under section 302 IPC, and also relating to the offence punishable under section 412 IPC against accused Daljeet Singh Bhandari to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, prosecution got examined PW1 Govindi Devi, PW2 Mohan Singh (complainant), PW3 Balwant Singh (husband of the deceased Bhagirathi and father of the deceased Ravindra alias Chhotu), PW4 Deewan Singh, before whom extra judicial 6 confession was made by accused appellant Daljeet Singh Bhandari, PW5 Soban Singh, PW6 Dr. N. S. Jangpangi, who conducted post mortem examination and PW7 Sub Inspector J.P. Bansala who investigated the crime. 5. The oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C. in reply to which he alleged the same to be false. He pleaded that he has been falsely implicated due to enmity. However, no evidence, in defence, was adduced. The trial court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, found that accused Daljeet Singh Bhandari is guilty of charge of offences punishable under section 302, 412 IPC. After hearing on sentence, the convict was sentenced to imprisonment for life under section 302 IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years under section 412 IPC. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 12.08.1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Almora in sessions trial no. 36 of 1994, this appeal was filed by the convict before Allahabad High Court on 01.09.1999 where it was admitted on 02.09.1999. The appeal was received by this court under section 35 of U.P. Reorganization Act, (Central Act 29 of 2000), for its disposal. 7 6. Before further discussion, we think it just and proper to mention the ante mortem injuries recorded by PW6 Dr. N.S. Jangpangi on the dead bodies of Bhagirathi Devi and Ravindra alias Chotu. Autopsy report (exhibit A-7), which pertains to the dead body of Bhagirathi Devi, discloses following ante mortem injuries. “i. Incised wound on back of neck, midline, 4 cm X 1 cm X ½ cm. tailing towards left shoulder. Wound was 5 cm above the first thoracic spine. ii. Incised wound in the midline back neck base 12 cm X 6 cm X 5 cm tailing towards left shoulder. Wound was 8 cm below the occipital prominence. iii. Incised wound on the back of right shoulder 5 cm X 2 cm X 2 cm, tailing towards left side. Wound is 4 cm. away from mid line and 3 cm. below the shoulder. iv. Abraded contusion on the front of right leg 6 cm. X 5 cm. just below of patella. v. Abraded contusion on the front of left leg 4 cm. X 4 cm. just below the patella.” There was fracture in the second vertebra cervical. The medical officer opined in his report (exhibit A-7) that Bhagirathi Devi had died due to 8 shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries. Postmortem examination report (exhibit A-8), which relates to Ravindra alias Chhotu, discloses following ante mortem injuries recorded by PW6 Dr. N.S. Jangpangi: “i. Incised wound 8 cm X 4 cm X 4 cm on the back of base of neck, mid line, tailing towards left ear and wound is 7 cm. below occipital region. ii. Incised would 10 cm X 3 cm X bone deep on the right occipital line of scalp. Obliquely extending, 4 cm below occipit and 3 cm away from right ear tailing towards right ear. iii. Incised wound 10 cm X 6 cm X 4 thoracic cavity deep on front of left side of neck and upper chest extending from thyroid cartilages to 4 cm. above the left nipple tailing toward nipple left side. iv. Lacerated wound 6 cm. X 4 cm. X 15 cm on the right side of face towards right mandible.” On internal examination, fracture was found on the right occipital bone. 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th ribs were also found fractured. Dr. N. S. Jangpangi 9 opined in his report (exhibit A-8) that deceased (Ravindra alias Chhotu) had died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries. The postmortem examination reports clearly establish that both Bhagirathi Devi and her son Ravindra alias Chhotu had suffered homicidal death. Now, this court has to see as to whether accused Daljeet Singh Bhandari committed murder of the two, and has he looted the jewellery and other items from the house Bhagirathi Devi or not. 7. PW1 Govindi Devi has stated that Balwant Singh (PW3) serves in the Army. He had four children. The witness further told that Bhagirathi Devi (deceased) was wife of Balwant Singh. PW1 Govindi Devi further told that Bhagirathi Devi used to live with her youngest son Ravindra alias Chhotu in village Tatik. The witness further narrates that about two years and one month ago (prior to making statement before the Court), she had gone at about 8.00 a.m. to take out her cattle from cowshed. The witness says that she gave a call to Bhagirathi Devi so that she may also take out her cattle from the cowshed but nobody responded from the house of Bhagirathi Devi. She (PW1) further narrates that when she came back after grazing the cattle, she once again called out Bhagirathi Devi but again there was no response. After tethering her cattle, Govindi Devi told to 10 other villagers namely Narayan Singh, Hari Singh and Kesar Singh that nobody is replying from the house of Bhagirathi Devi. On this, villagers went inside the house of Bhagirathi Devi and told that Bhagirathi Devi and her son Ravindra alias Chhotu are lying dead with their necks cut. The witness further stated that the villagers went to the Village Pradhan, to get the report lodged with the police. 8. The statement of PW1 Govindi Devi gets corroborated from the statement of PW2 Mohan Singh, Village Pradhan, who runs a shop in Pokharkhali in Almora. PW2 Mohan Singh states that on 23.11.1993 villagers namely Devendra Singh, Kundan Singh and Balwant Singh came to him at about 05.45 p.m. and told that wife and son of Balwant Singh have been killed, and their dead bodies were lying in their house. The witness states that the villagers also told that goods inside the house are lying scattered. PW2 Mohan Singh further states that he lodged first information report (exhibit A-1) at police station Kotwali, Almora. The witness further states that he accompanied the police to the village and in his presence dead bodies were sealed and inquest reports (exhibits A-2 and A-3) were prepared. This witness has further stated that two months after the report was made, Soban Singh (PW5) came to 11 him and gave a report (exhibit A-5), which he gave at police station, Almora. 9. PW3 Balwant Singh is husband of Bhagirathi Devi and father of Ravindra alias Chhotu. This witness states that he got married to Bhagirathi Devi in the year 1971. He had four children. The eldest son namely Harendra Singh, aged about 19 years, daughter Ms. Kiran, aged about 17 year, and Virendra Singh, aged about 9 years, used to live in Almora while his wife Bhagirathi Devi and youngest son Ravindra alias Chhotu aged about 5 years used to live in village Tatik. PW3 Balwant Singh further states that in November, 1993 he was posted in Bareilly. He further told that he came for about a week to his house on 11.11.1993. Firstly, he met his three children at Almora, who used to study there. On 12.11.1993, he went to village Tatik and met his wife Bhagirathi Devi. He further states that he had brought for his wife on that day two gold big nose rings (NATHS), one MANGALSUTRA, two gold ear rings. He further states that he had 21 silver coins in his house. PW3 Balwant Singh further states that on 18.11.1993, he returned back from his village after giving ` 1000/- cash to his wife for her expenses. The witness further told that he had left two bottles of ‘Superstar Rum’ and one bottle of ‘Honeybee Brandy’ at his house. The witness further states 12 that in the intervening night of 23rd /24th of November, 1993, he received information through his nephew that his wife and youngest son have been murdered. On this, he proceeded on 24.11.1993 to his village. By then, the villagers and the police, were already on their way, along with the dead bodies of the two deceased, for their postmortem examination. The witness further narrates that when he reached his house, he found that locks of the boxes were broken and locks of almirah were also broken. The clothes were lying scattered. Two nose rings, one MANGALSUTRA, one pair of rings, 21 silver coins, cash of ` 1000/-, two bottles of Superstar Rums, one bottle of Honeybee Brandy were found missing. PW3 Balwant Singh further told that he knew Daljeet Singh Bhandari, as he happens to be cousin of the witness (PW3). Accused Daljeet Singh Bhandari was not unknown to his wife and the son. Regarding recovery from accused Daljeet Singh Bhandari, the witness states that on 19.02.1994, police along with Daljeet Singh Bhandari came to the village Tatik and in the presence of the villagers accused Daljeet Singh Bhandari led the police to the place near river where he had concealed the stolen articles. The witness further states that in his presence one NATH (Big nose ring), one MANGALSUTRA, two ear rings, were recovered 13 which were identified by him as belonging to his wife. His son Harendra was also there, he also identified his mother’s jewellery. The looted articles, which were recovered on the pointing out of accused Daljeet Singh Bhandari, were opened from the sealed cover in the court before the witness. He identified nose ring (material exhibit 1), MANGALSUTRA (material exhibit 2), ear rings (material exhibit 3 & 4). This witness proved the recovery memo (exhibit A-6) on the record. 10. PW4 Deewan Singh and PW5 Soban Singh are the witnesses, who have stated that in their presence separately accused Daljeet Singh Bhandari made extra judicial confession, as to the fact that he committed murder of Bhagirathi Devi and her son Ravindra alias Chhotu. Out of the two witnesses, statement of PW5 Soban Singh does not appear to be much convincing but statement of PW4 Deewan Singh appears to be natural and trustworthy. PW4 Deewan Singh has stated that he is a Home Guard, who was on duty in district jail, Almora. The witness further states that when accused Daljeet Singh Bhandari was in district jail, Almora, since both of them belong to the same village Tatik, the accused disclosed him that he had committed murder of Bhagirathi Devi and Ravindra alias Chhotu. PW5 Soban Singh states that on 11.02.1994 accused Daljeet Singh Bhandari 14 had come from district jail, Almora to the court for the purpose of remand, and at that point of time when he asked for ` 10 for bidi, and obliged by the witness (PW5) the accused told him about commission of murder of Bhagirathi Devi and Ravindra alias Chotu and robbery committed by him in their house. The witness has further stated that thereafter, he prepared a report exhibit A-4 and gave it to village Pradhan Mohan Singh (PW2). (We have already discussed that Mohan Singh gave that report to the police). It has also come on the record from the statement of PW7 Sub Inspector J.P. Bansala, Investigating Officer, that since 17.01.1994 Daljeet Singh Bhandari was in jail in connection with a case relating to Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. This fact corroborates the testimony given by PW4 Deewan Singh and PW5 Soban Singh. 11. PW7 Sub Inspector J.P. Bansala has further stated that after coming to know about the fact that accused Daljeet Singh Bhandari has confessed the guilt to above two witnesses, for interrogation accused Daljeet Singh Bhandari was taken on police remand in connection with the present crime. PW7 Sub Inspector J.P. Bansala further states that on the pointing out of accused, recovery of the stolen jewellery was made on 19.02.1994 and recovery memo (exhibit A-6) was prepared. 15 12. On behalf of the appellant, it is argued that extra judicial confession made to the witnesses is not natural nor is the alleged recovery can be said to be reliable piece of evidence. Having gone through the evidence on record, we find that there is nothing unnatural in the testimony of PW4 Deewan Singh, who happens to be a person belonging to the village of accused Daljeet Singh Bhandari. When accused was in jail, it was natural that witness Deewan Singh (PW4), being Home Guard on security duty in jail, came in close contact with the accused and accused had voluntarily disclosed that he had committed the crime. Since accused was in jail in connection with other crime he might not be aware that by this disclosure he would be inviting trouble for himself. As far as recovery is concerned, the recovery memo (exhibit A-6) is signed by the accused himself. The recovery memo is not only signed by the police officials but also by the villagers and recovered articles were identified by PW3 Balwant Singh and by his son Harendra Singh. 13. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find the evidence of the witnesses as doubtful. The disclosure made in the extra judicial confession and recovery of the looted articles gets corroboration, if read with the other circumstantial evidence on record. Statements of 16 PW1 Govindi Devi, PW2 Mohan Singh, PW6 Dr. N.S. Jangpangi, further completes the chain of circumstances and leads to the only conclusion that the offence was committed by the accused Daljeet Singh Bhandari and none else. 14. For the reasons as discussed above, we do not find merits in the appeal, which is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is dismissed. Conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court against the accused Daljeet Singh Bhandari in connection with offence punishable under section 302 and 412 IPC is hereby affirmed. Let the copy of this judgment be sent to the Superintendent of District Jail concerned. Lower court record be sent back. (Nirmal Yadav, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 21.09.2010 SKS