Case: State of Punjab &amp; Another Vs. Suraj Prakash &amp; Another

3. The prosecution was set in motion in the wee hours of 23rd June, 2000 when accused No.2 Suraj laid an information with, Mohinder Kumar, the Station House Officer Police Station Kotwali, Bhatinda, while he was along with his team on patrol duty at Sirki Bazaar, near Neemwala Chowk. The informant i.e. accused No. 2 Suraj stated before the Police Officer that he, Dharminder, accused No. 1 and accused No. 3 Bhalla Ram were brothers, youngest of them being Dharminder. He stated that they along with their mother Rani lived in Kartar Basi and that his mother was a Priestess in the Kali Mata Mandir, situated in the same locality. The informant further disclosed that his brother accused No.1 Dharminder was blindly in love with one Ms. Ranju, daughter of a neighbour of theirs and being infatuated by her he used to write her names in his books and kites. According to the informant, this was known to the family but brother Dharminder was so captivated by the girl he loved, that he was uncontrollable in his attachment and feelings. It was further informed that in the previous evening at about 8:00p.m.after his mother had retired from the temple, the entire family took their dinner together and had gone to sleep. It was mentioned as well that Dharminder who was usually late in returning home was not back till then. It was disclosed that at about 1:00a.m. one of the persons who was a resident in the neighbourhood of the temple came and reported to them that dense smoke was coming out from the chowbara of the temple. On receiving this information, the mother of the informant, Rani, had gone to the temple and found that his brother Dharminder Singh was lying dead inside in a burnt condition. It was also seen that there was a writing by him, on the wall with blood, "Ranju, I love you". The informant expressed his conviction that his brother Dharminder being mad with love for the girl, overpowered by the feeling of deprivation first injured himself with a sharp edged iron weapon and then had put himself on fire by sprinkling kerosene oil and had burnt him to death. In specific terms, the informant opined that no one was to be faulted for the death of Dharminder Singh and that it was a case of voluntary self immolation. He expressed his opinion that in the circumstances, no legal action need be taken and that the information was being lodged so as to apprise the police of the incident.4. As the records reveal, after the above information was recorded, the SHO P.S. Kotwali, Bhatinda, Mohinder Kumar along with his team, after forwarding the statement to the P.S. Kotwali for registration, set out for the spot at about 3:30a.m. In the proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. that followed, the investigating officer conducted the inquest over the dead body which was found lying inside the Kali Mata Mandir. The report, Exhibit PC dated 23rd June, 2000 discloses that the date and hour of discovery of the body was at 1:15a.m.on 23rd June, 2000 and that the same was identified by Suraj Prakash and Bhallaram, accused Nos. 2 and 3 respectively, to be that of their brother Dharminder aged 18 years. It was mentioned in the Report that the body was burnt, the eyes were semi open, mouth was open, however, the limbs were stiffened. It also recorded that rigor mortis had set in. Injuries on the right and left legs were noticed as well. The blood that was found at the spot was related to the wound sustained by the body. The sketch map of the place of occurrence was also set out in the enclosed Report and a match box, a sharp iron file (reti) and a blood stained piece of cloth were also seized. The Inquest Report was signed by the Investigating Officer and also Bhalla Ram and Suraj Prakash accused Nos. 2 and 3. It is a matter of record that in the course of inquest proceedings, statements of accused Nos. 2 and 3 Suraj and Bhalla Ram were also recorded who amongst others in substance had corroborated the version as set out in the information that was lodged by Suraj accused No. 2 with the S.H.O., P.S. Kotwali Bhatinda and pursuant to which the investigating team had visited the temple in the early hours of 23rd June, 2000. The sequence of events from the receipt of information from Suraj till the completion of the inquest was set out as well by the Investigating Officer in his note appended to the Inquest Report whereafter the dead body was forwarded for post mortem examination. The autopsy on the dead body was conducted on the same day i.e. 23.6.2000 at 11:00a.m.5. A perusal of the said Report available on record in original would reveal that the body was burnt except the lower abdomen and the thighs varying from superficial to deep burns. The examination also recorded incised wound on the right lower leg front and middle of the size 5cm X 2cm with clotted blood oozing therefrom. Burnt pieces of cloth, the undergarment and the leather belt of the deceased were seized. The doctor opined that the cause of death was due to neurogenic shock from burnt injuries which was ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.6. It is not disputed that soon after the post mortem examination was over, the dead body was handed over to the family of the accused persons whereafter it was cremated on the very same day i.e. 23rd June, 2000.7. When the matter rested on that, the episode took a `U turn in view of the FIR lodged by Gurmeet Singh with the Police Station Kotwali, Bhatinda to the effect that one Jagjit had informed him that very day, that he had met Dharminder Singh, the brother of Suraj and Bhalla accused Nos.2 and 3, claimed to be dead in the incident in the intervening night of 22nd June, 2000 and 23rd June, 2000 and the dead body of whom had been cremated on 23rd June, 2000 on the completion of the post mortem examination and that Dharminder Singh had requested Jagjit Singh not to disclose the fact, that he was alive. It was laid in the Report, that Jagjit Singh did also convey to the informant i.e. Gurmeet Singh that Dharminder had confided in him that he along with Nazar Singh accused No. 5 had committed the murder of Gurdip Singh, the brother of Gurmeet Singh in the Kali Mata Mandir, in order to eliminate him from the way of Dharminder as one of the contenders in love. The informant Gurmeet Singh further revealed that Jagjit Singh had disclosed to him that Suraj and Bhalla Ram, accused Nos.2 and 3 had conspired to undertake the operation to eliminate Gurdip Singh and pass it off as a suicide committed by their brother Dharminder Singh, amongst others by inscribing on the wall of the temple, a parting message for Ranju, as if he had immolated himself for her.8. As the F.I.R. would disclose, Gurmeet Singh thereafter along with his uncle Harbhajan Singh and Gurjit Singh came to the Police Station lodged the above information alleging that it was accused No. 1 Dharminder as well as accused No. 5. Nazar Singh who had conspired with the other accused persons, and had committed the murder of his brother Gurdip Singh and had disposed of the dead body by effacing the trial of their crime. This information was registered as FIR NO. 283 dated 24th August, 2000 under Sections 302/201/419/420/465/506/120B/34 IPC of P.S. Kotwali, Bhatinda and in due course the accused persons were arrested and on the completion of the investigation charge sheet was submitted against them. Charge was framed by the trial Court under Section 302/404/419/201/120B of the IPC against all the accused persons who pleaded "not guilty" and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined several witnesses including the doctor who had conducted the post mortem examination as well as the investigating officer.The accused persons denied the correctness of the incriminating materials brought on record during the trial, in their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They, however, examined two witnesses in defence.9. The trial Court on a consideration of the materials on record as a whole and after due analysis thereof convicted all the accused persons under the above provisions of the I.P.C. and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC and other sentences for the accompanying offences. In the appeal preferred by all the accused persons, as referred to hereinabove, the High Court acquitted Suraj and Bhalla Ram accused Nos. 2 and 3 of the charge under Sections 302 and 120B IPC while maintaining their conviction for the other offences.the other accused person, it however, sustained the conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial Court. To reiterate, the State being aggrieved by the acquittal of accused No. 2 Suraj and accused No.3 Bhalla Ram, of the charge of murder has impugned the decision of the High Court. On the other hand Rani being dissatisfied with the sustenance of her conviction and sentence seeks redress in her appeal.

Reasoning: Though an attempt was made by the learned counsel to rely on a letter dated 1st July, 2000 addressed on behalf of the accused person to the concerned police authority to plead that their association was only with regard to the identification of the dead body which was wrongly done to be that of accused Dharminder, as the said document does not form a part of the record of the trial, we are not inclined to either refer thereto or rely thereon.The evidence on record when analysed provides the following incriminating circumstances(i) On 22nd June, 2000, at about 6/7 p.m., the evening before the discovery of the dead body of the deceased later that night, accused Dharminder and Nazar Singh had visited the house of Gurdip and had taken him along with them whereafter the deceased did not return.(ii) The fact that Gurdip was in the company of Dharminder and Nazar Singh was confirmed by accused No. 2 Suraj, accused no. 3 Bhalla Ram, accused No. 4 Rani and accused No. 5 Nazar to the informant along with Harbhajan had gone to their house to enquire about the whereabouts of Gurdip Singh, the very same evening.(iii) On 23rd June, 2000, when P.W. 6 Harbhajan Singh had visited the house of Rani, accused No. 4 she disclosed to her that her son Dharminder, accused No. 1 had committed suicide and had also requested him to search for Gurdip Singh whose whereabouts were not known till then.(iv) On the basis of disclosures made by accused No. 5 Nazar Singh, hisshirt which he was wearing at the time of offence and also the gold kara belonging Gurdip was recovered. The gold kara was identified to be that of Gurdip by P.W. 7.(v) No explanation has been provided by accused No. 4 as to how his shirt got stained with blood.(vi) Acting on the disclosures of Dharminder, accused No. 1, the personal belongings of the deceased were recovered from the place which he had indicated. There was no explanation from the side of the accused Dharmender as to how these personal belongings came into his possession or got recovered from the place shown by him.(vii) Theconfession made by accused Dharminder to Jagjit Singh who conveyed it to Gurmeet, the informant that he (Dharminder) along with his brothers, mother and friend Nazar Singh had conspired and murdered Gurdip in the temple and had endeavoured to pass on the incident as one of suicide by Dharminder.(viii) Suraj, accused No.2 had informed the Police between 1:15A.M. and 3:30A.M. on 23rd June, 2000, that his brother accused No. 1 Dharminder had committed suicide by immolating himself in the temple and expressing at the same time that no legal action was called for.(ix) The dead body was found about 1:15a.m inside the temple and Suraj and his mother Rani had gone to the place of occurrence. They seemed to be certain about the death of the person concerned and did not attempt to provide any medical attention and had waited for a sufficient long time to inform the Police only to apprise them of the incident and not for any legal action in connection therewith. Such a conduct is incomprehensible if the body was really that of Dharminder.(x) The visible haste on the part of the accused persons to get the Inquest anddone and have the dead body cremated before the real identification would surface so as to destroy the corpus of the offence.(xi) The testimony of P.W. 4 Rajender Kumar, testifying about the disclosures made by accused Dharminder to him about the conspiracy and the execution thereof to murder Gurdip.(xii) A failed attempt on the part of Bhalla Ram to show that he was on duty that night from 9:00p.m. to 5:00a.m in the face of his presence at the time of Inquest that was conducted after 3:30a.m. by the Police and his signature on the Inquest report.True it is, that a conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence alone would demand that the circumstances be such so as to form a complete chain so much so that every possible hypothesis of the innocence of the accused person(s) is ruled out. The test would depend on the facts of each case and the circumstances presented thereby. On an assessment of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the incriminating circumstances noted hereinabove, we are of the unhesitant opinion that the same unmistakably establish the culpability of all the accused persons in the charges framed against them. To start with, not only accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are members of the same family and were fully aware that accused No. 1 Dharminder was uncontrollably enamoured by Ranju and that Gurdip was also a contender for her, which in our opinion is a motive for the perpetration of the crime for which they have been charged with, the materials on record establish that in order to facilitate the commission of the offence they took along with them accused No. 4 Nazar Singh so that the deceased could be trapped in their design, taken to the temple, first injured in the leg so as to maim him and then over power him to be doused with kerosene and put on fire and ensure that he was dead by the time, the report was made to the Police posing as if their brother accused No. 1 Dharminder had committed suicide. The criminal intent of the accused persons, according to us is writ large and the circumstances enumerated hereinabove do not permit any other view. The circumstances fit in with the version of the witnesses and present a complete and a clear picture of the incident and the manner of commission of the offence. Had the accused persons not conspired to commit the offence, the family members would have endeavored at first to procure medical help than letting the body lie in the temple and take enough time to inform the Police to be sure that death had taken place. The very fact that after having participated in the crime and also having ensured that Gurdip had died, a false information was lodged with the Police to the effect that it was accused No. 1 Dharminder, who had committed suicide demonstrates the mens rea of the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt. There was a criminal intent to mislead the Police and cover up the incident of murder of Gurdip to be that of suicide of Dharminder and had not Jagjit met this accused at the railway station, the episode might have ended in this fashion.22. Though an attempt has been made to contend that the witnesses are all relatives of the deceased and, therefore, partisan having regard to the substance and the coherence of their testimony, we are of the view that this factor perse cannot discredit them or adversely affect the probative worth of their statements on oath. The recovery of the personal belongings of Gurdip from the place as shown by Dharminder and that of the blood stained shirt of Suraj worn by him at the time of commission of the offence, at their instance, also in our opinion furnishes a fool proof evidence of nexus between the accused persons and the crime. There is no dispute with regard to the identity of the dead body as well. Not only the post mortem indicates that the body was identifiable as the face was not burnt which is also a fact supported by the findings recorded in the Inquest Report, the witnesses as referred to hereinabove on being shown the photographs of the dead body have identified the same to be that of Gurdip. There is no plea on behalf of the defence and rightly so, that accused No. 1 Dharminder is not alive. In that view of the matter on a consideration of the evidence as a whole, we are of the opinion that there is no room for any reasonable doubt about the culpability of the accused persons in a body to have conspired to murder Gurdip by first assaulting him with an iron reti in the leg and then set him ablaze alive by over powering him in the temple in the dead of light. The situs of the occurrence, being a temple of which accused No. 4 Rani was the Priestess, in our opinion, overwhelmingly prove her knowledge, collaboration and participation in the same.23. In all, therefore, the incriminating circumstances established by the prosecution form a complete chain of events which do not permit any confusion or doubt with regard to the involvement of all the accused persons in this heinous crime of murder. What makes this offence abhorrent is the fact that not only the murder was committed in a deceitful manner, the same was designed to be a case of suicide by one of their sons, thereby trying to mislead the investigating agency and abuse the process of law. In the above view of the matter, we are constrained to hold that the learned appellate Court grossly erred in assessing the evidence on record in acquitting accused Nos. 2 and 3 Suraj and Bhalla Ram. We, therefore, reverse the order of acquittal of these two accused persons into one of conviction under Sections 302, 419, 404, 201, 120B of the I.P.C.24. Further, we find no persuasive reason to differ from or interfere with the findings recorded by the trial Court.