Criminal Appeal No. 633-DB of 2006 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Criminal Appeal No. 633-DB of 2006 Date of decision : 27.5.2008 Harcharan Singh .....Appellant Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent 2. Criminal Appeal No. 865-DB of 2007 Ramesh Kumar .....Appellant Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent **** CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND **** Present: Mr. S.S. Swaich, Advocate for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 633-DB of 2006. Mr. R.K.Rana, Advocate for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 865-DB of 2007. Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. S. D. ANAND, J. The appellants Harcharan Singh and Ramesh Kumar were convicted by the learned Trial Judge for the offences under Sections 302/ 34 and 120-B IPC on a charge that they, in conspiracy of each other, murdered former's parents namely Shamsher Singh, Surinder Kaur and brother Devinder Singh, on the night intervening Criminal Appeal No. 633-DB of 2006 -2- *** 2/3.8.2002. The motive was that Harcharan Singh appellant, who had been disinherited (by his parents) quite some time ago and had also been a party to the proceeding under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. with his parents, murdered his parents and a sibling as he apprehended that his father would give away all his property to his other named sibling(s) to his exclusion. It is beyond the pale of controversy that parents of the appellant-Harcharan Singh disinherited him from all immoveable property vide a public notice dated 17.2.1983. His mother also swore affidavit (Ex. P25) to that effect. There were security proceedings, as between the appellant and his mother, in which the appellant was bound down for good behaviour vide order dated 10.4.1986 (Ex. P24). On the own showing of first informant PW-2 Kamaljit Kaur a real sister of appellant Harcharan Singh, that appellant had been staying with his parents for the last about 15 days preceding the impugned occurrence. He was otherwise a resident of District Mukatsar where he used to cultivate the 7-1/2 killas of land which was in the name of and had been given to him by his father. Learned Trial Judge recorded a finding of indictment in view of the fact that appellant Harcharan Singh did have the motive to kill the deceased as he had been disinherited and he had valid reasons to entertain the apprehension that his father would give away the entire property to other sibling(s) to his exclusion. Reliance, in support of that finding, was also placed upon the fact that Harcharan Singh appellant got recovery of a blood stained shirt and Pyjama, which he was wearing at the time of impugned crime, Criminal Appeal No. 633-DB of 2006 -3- *** effected. Insofar as appellant Ramesh is concerned, he led the police party to the recovery of a dagger (which had been used in the commission of impugned offence). We have given our considered thought to the finding of indictment in its relatability to the record. We find that the finding is appropriate and sustainable. The reasons therefor are as under:- There was, obviously, no direct evidence of the impugned crime. The evidence pertaining to the extra judicial confession has also failed the prosecution inasmuch as PW-14A Rajinder Kumar did not own up the attribution. In spite thereof, it cannot be said that it is the end of the day for the prosecution presentation. Appellant Harcharan Singh is proved on record to have been disinherited by his parents vide public notice dated 17.2.1983. It is also in evidence that he and his mother were parties to security proceedings in the year 1986. Ex. P24 is the copy of the order dated 10.4.1986 vide which appellant Harcharan Singh was ordered to be bound down for breach of peace. It is further in the testimony of Kamaljit Kaur PW-2, who is a real sister of appellant Harcharan Singh, that though certain indicated properties had been given by her father to the appellant Harcharan Singh but the latter sold those of and devoure sale proceeds, being an addict. Though it is in evidence (PW-2 Kamaljit Kaur ) that appellant Harcharan Singh is cultivating 7-1/2 acres of land at Mukatsar which belongs to their father, we cannot be oblivious of the fact that he must be nourishing a life long grievance of having been disinherited by his parents. In any society all over the world, disinheritance stigmatises the affected individual who can Criminal Appeal No. 633-DB of 2006 -4- *** never get over that feeling of discard in the context. Appellant Harcharan Singh is not even averred to have ever visited his parents at any earlier point of time. It is in the statement of PW-2 Kamaljit Kaur that “my brother Harcharan Singh was residing in Mukatsar after about 8/9 years prior to the occurrence.” The fact that Harcharan Singh appellant is not even averred to have visited his parents for the last 8-9 years is proof adequate enough to justify the drawal of an inference that he was nourshing a grievance on account of his disinheritance. His coming over to stay with his parents and the murder of his parents and a sibling during that period of stay goes, a long way to point the accusing finger towards the appellant himself. In that context, it may be noticed that the house in the possession of the parents of the appellant consists of the ground floor and the first floor. The former was under the occupation of tenants including appellant Ramesh Kumar; while Shamsher Singh and his wife Surinder Kaur and their son Devinder Singh were residing on the first floor. It is Kamaljit Kaur PW-2, a separated woman, who was residing in the adjacent house which had been given to her by her parents. She used to provide food to her parents. It is in her categorical testimony that Harcharan Singh appellant was wearing a white Kurta Pyjama on the night preceding the impugned occurrence (“Accused Harcharan Singh was present in the house of my parents. He had worn white coloured Kurta Pyjama”) when she went over to deliver the food. It is also in her testimony that Harcharan Singh was only in an underwear when he came over to her house at 1.30 A.M. to inform that some unidentified person had Criminal Appeal No. 633-DB of 2006 -5- *** attacked their parents and brother (“He was wearing one Kachhera at that time”). When Kamaljit Kaur and her tenants reached the spot, they did not find any assailant over there. They found that my “mother was lying dead on the bed and her intestine had come out and further that her neck was tied with a flexible wire and her tongue was protruding out.” Qua her father Shamsher Singh, she testified that “similar was the position of my father Shamsher Singh” In respect of her brother Devinder Singh, she stated that his neck had been cut with some “sharp edged weapon”. Thus, it is evident that on the fateful night, the first floor was occupied by Harcharan Singh appellant, his brother Devinder Singh and their parents; while Kamaljit Kaur PW-2 was asleep in the adjacent house alongwith her daughter. Shamsher Singh, his wife Surinder Kaur and their son Devinder Singh were murdered. Appellant Harcharan Singh was the only person who was cognizant of the circumstances under which his parents and a sibling had been murdered. On his own showing, he was the only one available in the company of three persons which came to be murdered. If any unidentified assailant had murdered Shamsher Singh, his wife Surinder Kaur and their son Devinder Singh, there is no reason why they would have left appellant Harcharan Singh unhurt. In that eventuality, they could be expected to have done away with appellant Harcharan Singh as well in order to obliterate any evidence of crime. There is evidence on the file that it was Harcharan Singh who got the recovery of his shirt MO12 and MO 13 effected. That Criminal Appeal No. 633-DB of 2006 -6- *** recovery, at the instance of Harcharan Singh appellant, is in tandem with the testimony of Kamaljit Kaur PW-2 to the context that appellant Harcharan Singh was wearing a white Kurta Pyjama on the preceding night when she had gone over to deliver the food to her parents and that he was only in an underwear when he came over to her house to inform that some unidentified person had attacked their parents (and brother). It is not the averment on behalf of the Harcharan Singh appellant that shirt MO12 and Pyjama MO 13 do not belong to him. As it is a case of tripple murder, appellant Harcharan Singh could not have accomplished the act all by himself. In that context, it would be relevant to notice that it was appellant Ramesh Kumar who, in pursuance of a disclosure statement, got the recovery of a dagger effected from the house of her maternal aunt Dhuknai in the area of village Bulepur, Tehsil Khanna. He was arrested by PW-12 Inspector Harinder Singh on 11.8.2002 on the basis of a secret information about his availability at a particular place. By the very nature of things, none other than him could have knowledge of the place of concealment of the dagger Ex. P31 which was found wrapped in a poly-thene bag. That recovery got effected by the appellant accused Ramesh, in pursuance of a disclosure statement (Ex. P30) goes a long way to nail him, particularly in view, of the fact that the Investigating Officer is not even alleged to have any inimical inclination towards him. Learned counsel for the appellant Harcharan Singh argued that the entire prosecution presentation suffers from the blemish of being incredible in view of the fact that appellant Criminal Appeal No. 633-DB of 2006 -7- *** Harcharan Singh had no motive at all to extinguish his parents and a sibling because he had forgotten all the unpleasantness arising out of his disinheritance and he had come over to stay with his parents only in order to renew the blood ties. We find the plea advocated to be completely devoid of merit. In view of the fact that appellant Harcharan Singh had been disinherited and he had been residing at Mukatsar for the last 8-9 years, it is illogical to urge that he had to come all alone to renew the relationship with his parents. If a person was inclined to do so, he would be expected to bring along the entire family for resumption of family ties. We are clear in our mind that appellant Harcharan Singh did not have any holy motive in visiting his parents and staying over there for about a fortnight. Even in such circumstances, a 'goodwill' visit for a day or two could be understandable. The extended stay of about a fortnight is only indicative of the fact that the appellant Harcharan Singh was looking for an appropriate opportunity to kill his parents and brother, so that his way to inherit his father's property was cleared. Learned counsel for the appellant Ramesh Kumar argued that the appellant afore-mentioned could not have benefitted from the annihilation of the three deceased and that he had been falsely implicated in this case. By the very nature of things, three persons could not have been murdered all alone by appellant Harcharan Singh. The three deceased were found to have sustained a large number of injuries on their person. All those injuries could not have been caused by Criminal Appeal No. 633-DB of 2006 -8- *** Harcharan Singh appellant single handed. The other appellant was nailed by learned Trial Judge for appropriate reasons in view of the fact that he got the recovery of the weapon of offence effected. Learned counsel for the appellant, then, argued that appellant Harcharan Singh had been falsely implicated at the instance of Kamaljit Kaur PW-2 and her other sister (who is wife of Buta Singh PW-3) who would like to devour the entire ancestral property to his exclusion. The advocated plea deserves to be merely noticed to be discarded. There is evidence a plenty on the file to the effect that appellant Harcharan Singh had been disinherited by his parents. In that view of things, he was even otherwise, disqualified from inheriting any part of the ancestral property. His sibling or any other relation, qualified to inherit was not required to do any act to deny inheritance to him. Harcharan Singh stood disinherited by the public notice itself. We find that learned Trial Judge not only noticed the substantive evidence adduced by the prosecution against the appellants, it also dealt with each and every lacuna urged on behalf of the appellants to obtain invalidation of the prosecution presentation. It was on the basis of substantive evidence that the learned Trial Court recorded a finding ( in the course of para 38) of the impugned judgment that the presence of Harcharan Singh and also Ramesh Kumar appellants on the spot on the day of occurrence had been proved. The uneasy relationship between Harcharan Singh appellant and his parents was noticed in para Nos. 39,40 and Criminal Appeal No. 633-DB of 2006 -9- *** 41 of the judgment under challenge. In the course of paras 40 & 41, it also noticed abnormal conduct of appellant Harcharan Singh in having rushed to inform her about murders instead of staying over and taking steps to protect whomsoever he could. It also noticed that the fact of Ramesh Kumar having absconded from the tenanted portion for a number of days (before being apprehended by the Police on 11.8.2002, on the basis of a secret information) was also a pointer towards his guilt particularly when appreciated in the light of recovery of weapon of offence at his instance. The following reliable and clinching pieces of circumstantial evidence can be safely culled out from the above discussion:- 1. Appellant Harcharan Singh had been disinherited by his parents vide public notice Ex. P26. Mst. Surinder Kaur had also sworn an affidavit (Ex. P25) to that effect. 2. Appellant had been proceeded against in the security proceedings at the instance of his mother and, vide order dated 10.4.1986 (Ex. P24), he had been bound down for breach of peace. 3. Appellant Harcharan Singh had no understandable reason to visit his parents after 8/9 years, particularly when he was the lone visitor and he had stayed over for a fortnight, 4. He is proved to have been wearing a white Kurta Pyjama when he was last seen on the preceding Criminal Appeal No. 633-DB of 2006 -10- *** night by Kamaljit Kaur PW-2. However, he was only in an underwear when he went over to the adjacent house of Kamaljit Kaur PW-2 at 1-30 AM to intimate that some unknown person had attacked their parents. The blood stained cloths aforementioned were, later on, got recovered by appellant Harcharan Singh, in pursuance of a disclosure statement. 5. Appellant Ramesh Kumar got the recovery of the weapon of offence effected from the house of an aunt of his. Except him, none else could possibly have any inkling about that place of concealment, This circumstance connects appellant Ramesh Kumar with the crime for which he stands convicted. 6. The fact that two co-accused are absconding and did not face the trial is evident from the record. 7. The allegation of motive against Kamaljit Kaur-PW- 2, her sister and the husband of the latter is too fragile to be accepted. They had to, in any case, get the property of Shamsher Singh on account of the disinheritance of Harcharan Singh appellant by his parents. As a real sister, Kamaljit Kaur would be least interested in losing her only living brother after the murder of her parents and the other brother. Having separated from her husband, she is already distraught woman. Criminal Appeal No. 633-DB of 2006 -11- *** In the light of the fore-going discussion, we have no hesitation in affirming the findings recorded by the Trial Judge. The appeals (Criminal Appeal No. 633-DB of 2006 preferred by Harcharan Singh and also Criminal Appeal No. 865-DB of 2007 filed by Ramesh Kumar) are devoid of force and are ordered to be dismissed. ( S. D. ANAND ) JUDGE May 27, 2008 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) Pka JUDGE Criminal Appeal No. 633-DB of 2006 -12- ***