Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nazar Singh vs State Of Pb on 13 November, 2014
CRA-D No.794-DB of 2002 -:1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CRA-D No.794-DB of 2002
DATE OF DECISION: November 13, 2014.
Nazar Singh son of Bachan Singh, resident of Village Purkhali, Police
Station Ropar, District Ropar, Punjab.
....APPELLANT.
VERSUS
State of Punjab
....RESPONDENT.
AND
CRA-D No.806-DB of 2002
Sohan Singh son of Gurdit Singh son of Harnam Singh, Electric Shop,
resident of Village Mataure, Tehsil Mohali, District Ropar.
....APPELLANT.
VERSUS
State of Punjab
....RESPONDENT.
AND
CRA-D No.951-DB of 2002
Meena wife of Bhup Singh son of Karora Singh, resident of House village
Bhaku Majra, Tehsil and District Ropar.
....APPELLANT.
VERSUS
State of Punjab
....RESPONDENT.
JITENDER
2014.12.22 16:36
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRA-D No.794-DB of 2002 -:2 :-
AND
CRA-D No.952-DB of 2002
Baljinder Pal alias Bhao son of Sant Ram son of Jai Kishan, resident of
Mohalla Gopal Nagar, Ajnala, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar.
....APPELLANT.
VERSUS
State of Punjab
....RESPONDENT.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SNEH PRASHAR
Present: Mr. J.S. Bhatia, Advocate
for the appellant (in CRA-D No.951-DB of 2002)
Mr. Saravpreet Singh, Advocate as Legal Aid Counsel
for the appellants (in CRA-D No.794-DB of 2002,
CRA-D No.806-DB of 2002 and
CRA-D No.952-DB of 2002)
Mr. P.P.S. Thethi, Addl. AG Punjab.
****
SNEH PRASHAR, J.
1. This judgment shall dispose of four appeals bearing CRA-D No.974-DB of 2002 filed by appellant Nazar Singh, CRA-D No.806-DB of 2002 filed by appellant Sohan Singh, CRA-D No.951-DB of 2002 filed by appellant Meena and CRA-D No.952-DB of 2002 filed by appellant Baljinder Pal alias Bhao, as all these four appellants have been held guilty, convicted and sentenced by a common judgment of conviction and order of sentence, in one First Information Report.
2. Appellant-accused Baljinder Pal alias Bhau was held guilty JITENDER 2014.12.22 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D No.794-DB of 2002 -:3 :- and was convicted for the commission of offence under Sections 120-B, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P.C.") and was sentenced as under:-
"Under Section 302 I.P.C.--to undergo imprisonment for life; under Section 120-B I.P.C.--to undergo imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of `1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month; under Section 201 I.P.C.--to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of `1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months vide judgment and order of sentence dated 12.10.2002.
Appellants-accused Meena, Nazar Singh and Sohan Singh were held guilty and were convicted for the commission of offence under Sections 120-B, 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and 201 of I.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C.; to undergo imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of `1000/- each under Section 120-B I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of `1000/- each under Section 201 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months vide judgment and order of sentence dated 12.10.2002.
It was ordered that all the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.
3. On the statement made by Beant Singh son of Karora Singh, JITENDER 2014.12.22 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D No.794-DB of 2002 -:4 :- resident of Village Bhaku Majra before Pritam Singh, S.H.O., Police Station Central Phase-8, Mohali on 31.07.2000, First Information Report No.218 dated 31.07.2000 under Sections 302/201 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. was registered. It was stated by Shri Beant Singh that at the relevant time he was residing in House No.1317, Khalsa Colony, Chamkaur Sahib and was working as a Works Inspector in P.W.D. Department. They were three brothers among whom Kehar Singh was eldest and Bhoop Singh was employed as Junior Engineer, Horticulture in the Department of PUDA, Mohali and alongwith his children was residing in House No.2631, Sector-71, Mohali. Their mother Smt. Khushal Kaur who was very old, was also living with Bhoop Singh for the last about 1/1½ months prior to the occurrence.
On 02.07.2000, he (Beant Singh) received a telephonic call from Meena wife of Bhoop Singh, who told him that Bhoop Singh had left the house a day before i.e. on 01.07.2000 at 5:30 a.m. and had not returned since then. On receipt of information, he went to the house of his brother at Mohali where he was informed by Meena that in the morning on 01.07.2000, at about 5/ 5:30 a.m., a Maruti Car, in which three persons were travelling, had stopped in front of their house and given horn and her husband Beant Singh, who was already ready, had gone and sat in the Car telling her that he will return by 11 a.m. but he never came back. They searched for Bhoop Singh but he could not be found. Some applications were given to some authorities, but to no result.
It was further stated by complainant Beant Singh that on that JITENDER 2014.12.22 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D No.794-DB of 2002 -:5 :- day i.e. 30.07.2000, he alongwith Sucha Singh son of Kartar Singh had come to Mohali to enquire the whereabouts of his brother. When they were standing in the market of Sector-71, Mohali, Sohan Singh alias Pappu son of Gurdit Singh, resident of Mataur (accused-appellant) came and took them aside and after confirming that Beant Singh was brother of Bhoop Singh, disclosed to them that he and Baljinder Pal alias Bhau son of Sant Ram, resident of Ajnala and Nazar Singh Sandhu son of Bachan Singh, resident of Purkhali (both accused-appellants) on the night of 30.06.2000 were sleeping in a quarter in Sector-70, Mohali, when at about 10 p.m. Mr. Shukla of Public Call Office, that was being run on the ground floor of the house, came and told Baljinder Pal that there was a telephone call for him. Baljinder Pal went to attend the call and after 5-7 minutes he came back and told them that the telephone call was from his beloved Meena (accused-appellant). He also told them that they were having love affair for the last 2-2½ years and wanted to live together separately. Meena had informed him on telephone that all her children were out of the house that night and her husband was alone sleeping in the house and that they should avail the opportunity and kill him. Baljinder Pal also told that as per the arrangement, he had purchased sleeping pills from a shop that day and had sent to Meena and he had been informed on telephone by Meena that the pills had been mixed in milk by her and given to Bhoop Singh due to which he was in deep sleep and that he (Baljinder Pal) should come and finish him. Baljinder Pal disclosed that Bhoop Singh had come to know about their love affair and had started JITENDER 2014.12.22 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D No.794-DB of 2002 -:6 :- restraining and beating Meena almost daily.
Sohan Singh further told Beant Singh and Sucha Singh that Baljinder Pal asked him and Nazar Singh to accompany him. He was little hesitant, but on being pressed, he accompanied Baljinder Pal and Nazar Singh and all three of them went to the house of Meena by means of Scooter no.CH-01L-4080 arranged by Nazar Singh. While leaving the house Baljinder Pal took a small Kirpan with him. At about 12'O clock/12:30 during midnight, they reached the house of Meena. As pre- planned, Meena had opened the door of the house and had tied the dog and she met them at the gate. She told that Bhoop Singh was sleeping in rear room on the first floor (Chobara). Baljinder Pal and Nazar Singh went upstairs while he (Sohan Singh) kept standing outside the house. After sometime, he heard shirks of "Mar Ditta - Mar Ditta" of Bhoop Singh. Thereafter, both Baljinder Pal and Nazar Singh came out of the house and told that Bhoop Singh had been killed by giving Kirpan blows and his dead body was to be disposed of. Taking him along, they went upstairs and brought down the dead body. While Baljinder Pal sat on the driver seat of the Scooter, the dead body of Bhoop Singh was placed in between him and Nazar Singh who sat on the pillion seat. They went and threw the dead body in the bushes near the rivulet in the area of Village Bariali and then came back. The wrist watch removed from the dead body of Bhoop Singh was kept by Nazar Singh and the silver bracelet was taken and put in his pocket by Baljinder Pal. The Kirpan was thrown by Baljinder Pal in the pond.
JITENDER 2014.12.22 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D No.794-DB of 2002 -:7 :-
Sohan Singh continued that out of fear he did not disclose the incident to anybody. Admitting that he had committed a mistake, he prayed to Beant Singh that he be saved.
4. Beant Singh and Sucha Singh then took Sohan Singh to the police station to lodge a report. Narrating the incident in detail Beant Singh stated that his brother Bhoop Singh had been murdered by his sister-in-law (Bhabhi Meena), in collusion with Baljinder Pal, Nazar Singh and Sohan Singh.
5. Based on the statement of Beant Singh, formal First Information Report was recorded. Sohan Singh was arrested and interrogated. Statement of Sucha Singh Panch under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Raid was conducted at the house of Meena and she was arrested. Baljinder Pal and Nazar Singh, who had in their possession Scooter bearing registration No.CH-01L-4080, were arrested from near the market of Sector-71, Mohali. On personal search of Nazar Singh, the wrist watch worn by him was taken in possession. On interrogation, Baljinder Pal made a disclosure statement regarding concealment of the dead body as well as of Kirpan used in the commission of crime.
On 01.08.2000, in the presence of Beant Singh, Sucha Singh and ASI Balwant Singh, accused Baljinder Pal led the police party headed by SI Satnam Singh towards the rivulet and got recovered from the bushes the dead body of Bhoop Singh which had reduced in the shape of skeleton. It was identified to be of Bhoop Singh from his teeth, cloths and Driving Licence, recovered from near the dead body, by Beant Singh and JITENDER 2014.12.22 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D No.794-DB of 2002 -:8 :- Sucha Singh. An underwear and Pajama also lying nearby were recovered.
One sealed parcel of skeleton, another sealed parcel containing cloths etc. were prepared and were taken in possession by preparing a memo. The site of recovery was got photographed.
Inquest proceedings were conducted during which statements of Beant Singh and Sucha Singh were recorded. The skeleton was sent for postmortem examination.
On 03.08.2000, in pursuance of his disclosure statement, accused Baljinder Pal got recovered the Kirpan which was taken in possession by preparing a memo.
On 10.08.2000, a Board of Doctors of Forensic Medical Department, Government Medical College, Patiala conducted examination of skeleton remains of the deceased and opined that the cause of death could not be ascertained from the material available. However, they mentioned that a sharp cut of size 4 cm x 0.1 cm, 4 cm away from midline on right side of skull was apparent. A rib containing bone narrow was separated and handed over to the police for DNA testing.
6. On completion of investigation, inquiry report as envisaged under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C.") was presented by the prosecution against all the four accused. The case was committed and on the basis of the material available the accused were charge sheeted for the commission of offence under Section 120-B of I.P.C. Accused Baljinder Pal was charge sheeted under Section 302 of I.P.C. for having committed murder of Bhoop Singh and accused Meena, JITENDER 2014.12.22 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D No.794-DB of 2002 -:9 :- Nazar Singh and Sohan Singh were charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. All the four accused were also charge sheeted under Section 201 of I.P.C. They pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial.
7. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined PW1 Dr. Jaswinder Singh, PW2 C-I Kashmiri Lal, PW3 Sucha Singh, PW4 Dr. Nilu Arora, PW5 Beant Singh, PW6 Sukhchain Singh, PW7 Gian Chand, PW8 Head Constable Pal Singh, PW9 Inspector Pritam Singh, PW10 SI Satnam Singh and PW11 Amarjit Sood.
Statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. All the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to them which they denied and pleaded innocence. They alleged that the police in order to take the credit of solving a blind murder case and save themselves from media criticism, had falsely implicated them.
During her statement, appellant Meena raised a plea in defence that she is a Mohammedan by birth. Her husband never opposed retention of religion by her whereas Beant Singh was totally against that and was compelling her to convert her religion and that in order to grab the property of her husband, he in connivance with the police had falsely implicated her.
8. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel representing the accused, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused (appellants) as JITENDER 2014.12.22 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D No.794-DB of 2002 - : 10 : -
indicated above.
9. Feeling aggrieved, the convicts-appellants, Nazar Singh, Sohan Singh, Meena and Baljinder Pal preferred separate appeals.
10. The submissions made by Mr. J.S. Bhatia, Advocate, Amicus Curiae and Mr. Saravpreet Singh, Advocate representing the appellants and Mr. P.P.S. Thethi, Addl. AG Punjab have been considered and record perused.
11. It is evident from the aforesaid facts garnered from the record that the case of the prosecution rested mainly on (i) extra-judicial confession made by appellant Sohan Singh before Beant Singh and Sucha Singh, who stepped into the witness box as PW5 and PW3 respectively;
(ii) recovery of the dead body of Bhoop Singh in the shape of skeleton as well as the Kirpan, used in the commission of crime, in pursuance of the disclosure statement of appellant Baljinder Pal; (iii) recovery of wrist watch of the deceased from Nazar Singh and sliver bracelet, having name Bhoop Singh incised upon it in English, from Baljinder Pal; and (iv) recovery of Scooter used by the appellants during the occurrence from Baljinder Pal and Nazar Singh, at the time of their arrest.
All the witnesses examined for proving the above facts have fully supported the prosecution story.
12. At the very outset, learned counsel representing accused- appellant Meena argued with vehemence that except for the fact proved by the prosecution that Meena was arrested from her house, no evidence worth in its name could be produced to show her involvement in the JITENDER 2014.12.22 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D No.794-DB of 2002 - : 11 : -
murder of her husband Bhoop Singh. She was indicted just by believing the imaginative story narrated by PW5 complainant Beant Singh. It has come in evidence that there were three children born from the wedlock of Bhoop Singh and Meena. It appears improbable that being mother of three children she had extra marital relations with another person and to live with him separately she agreed and conspired to kill her husband. No evidence, not even a single witness either out of the relatives or from the neighbourhood was examined by the prosecution to prove that Meena had extra marital affair with Baljinder Pal. PW5 complainant Beant Singh admitted that the alleged affair was not in his knowledge, whereas according to the extra-judicial confession with which PW5 come out, the extra marital affair between Meena and Baljinder Pal was going on for the last 2/2½ years. The allegation was that Bhoop Singh knew about the affair. Had it been true, Bhoop Singh would have certainly shared the information with his brothers. It could not be that Baljinder Pal, as stated by PW5 Beant Singh, was not even known to him prior to the occurrence. More so, PW5 admitted that his brother Bhoop Singh had never talked to him about the character of Meena, which means that none of them ever suspected that Meena had any extra marital relations. In absence of evidence on the aforesaid facts, Meena had no motive to get her husband killed.
13. The learned counsel representing the other accused emphatically asserted that a number of important facts constituted the story of the prosecution. Instead of examining the relevant witnesses for JITENDER 2014.12.22 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D No.794-DB of 2002 - : 12 : -
proving the said facts the prosecution opted to just rely on the statement of complainant Beant Singh PW5 and his companion Sucha Singh PW3, who undoubtedly were interested witnesses.
Elaborating his argument, learned counsel urged that according to the prosecution story Sohan Singh made an extra-judicial confession before PW5 Beant Singh and PW3 Sucha Singh that on the night of 30.06.2000, when he, Baljinder Pal and Nazar Singh were sleeping in a quarter in Sector-70, Mohali, the owner of Public Call Office, which was being run in the same house on the ground floor, had come and told Baljinder Pal that there was a telephone call for him. Allegedly during that telephone call Baljinder Pal and Meena had a talk and she called him to come to her house and finish her husband to whom she had already administered sleeping pills. The occurrence having originated from that telephone call, the owner of the Public Call Office was a material witness, but for the reason best known to the prosecution, he was not examined. Even the record of Public Call Office relating to calls received was not produced.
14. Similarly, it is an admitted case of the prosecution that the mother of the deceased was present in the house on the night of occurrence. She was the most important witness as she only could have told whether she had heard any shirks/other noise in the house during the relevant night.
Referring to the site plan Ex.PT prepared by the Investigating Officer, showing the place where the murder had taken place, learned JITENDER 2014.12.22 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D No.794-DB of 2002 - : 13 : -
counsel pointed out that point 'D' was shown in the site plan as the place where Meena putting the head down of the mother had compelled her to continue to sleep. Such an act of Meena would have been a reason for suspicion to the mother when his son Bhoop Singh did not return home for so many days. She could not have remained silent for such long time. Her absence from the witness box is certainly a dent in the prosecution case.
15. Also, it was the allegation of the prosecution that some sleeping pills were purchased by accused Baljinder Pal and sent to Meena, who mixing the pills in the milk had administered the same to her husband. Neither the shopkeeper from whom the sleeping pills were purchased nor the person through whom the pills were sent to Meena was examined.
16. Leaned counsel further argued that PW5 Beant Singh stated that he identified the skeleton from the tooth which was coming out. But the forensic science doctors did not state that they had noticed any tooth in the face of the skeleton. It could not be proved through substantive and reliable evidence that the skeleton was of the dead body of Bhoop Singh. The doctors stated that they had separated a piece of rib of the skeleton and handed over to the police for DNA testing. However, the police did not chose to get the DNA test done. In absence of the said test, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said with surety that the skeleton was of deceased Bhoop Singh. When the said basic factum could not be proved, the entire story of the prosecution gets shattered. JITENDER 2014.12.22 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRA-D No.794-DB of 2002 - : 14 : -
17. Assailing the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the investigation conducted, learned counsel argued that recovery of Driving Licence of the deceased from near the dead body was apparently a manufactured piece of evidence. It does not appeal to a prudent mind that a person was sleeping at night with a Driving Licence in the pocket of his shirt/Kurta or Pajama. By no means the Driving Licence of the deceased could have reached the place where the dead body was thrown. The story of its recovery from near the dead body was a well considered and planned factum introduced to create evidence.
18. Last but not least the learned counsel emphatically argued that the story of the extra-judicial confession made by appellant Sohan Singh before complainant Beant Singh was an unbelieveable part of the story of the prosecution. Appellant Sohan Singh could not have gone to complainant, the brother of deceased Bhoop Singh, for making an extra- judicial confession. Right from the day, Beant Singh was informed by Meena that her husband Bhoop Singh had left with some unknown persons and had not returned home, the version of Beant Singh was that he had been searching for his brother. In such circumstances, appellant Sohan Singh could not have thought of going to and revealing to Beant Singh that he participated in the incident during which Bhoop Singh was murdered. He could not have expected any concession from the complainant. Therefore, it was improbable that he could have made a confessional statement before him.
19. Learned counsel contended that extra judicial confession is a JITENDER 2014.12.22 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D No.794-DB of 2002 - : 15 : -
very weak piece of evidence which is required to be proved like any other fact and its value thereof would be upon the veracity of the witness to whom it was made. Since it does not appeal to a prudent mind that a culprit could have gone and made an extra judicial confession before the complainant from whom he could expect no protection, it is quite obvious that the story of inculpatory statement in the nature of extra judicial confession was nothing but a concoction.
Relying on the judgments rendered in the cases of State of Gujarat v. Kishanbhai etc., 2014(1) RCR 549 (SC); Tejinder Singh @ Kaka v. State of Punjab, 2013(3) RCR 572 (SC); Keshav v. State of Maharashtra, 2008(1) RCR 570 (SC); Karan Bhadur v. State of Haryana, 2014(3) RCR 303 (DB) (P&H); State of Haryana v. Sajjan, 2011(7) RCR 562 (DB) (P&H); Tara Shankar v. State (Delhi), 2013(6) RCR 2322 (DB) (Delhi); Naveen Chauhan @ Chussi v. State, 2010(7) RCR (Crl.) 1550 (DB) (Delhi); Mahabir v. State of Haryana, 2005(4) RCR (Crl.) 996 (DB) (P&H); and Teka @ Tek Chand v. State of Haryana, 2002(2) CurLJ 28 (DB) (P&H), learned counsel for the appellants argued that the facts established by the prosecution by leading evidence should have been consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused were guilty. The circumstances so established should have been conclusive in nature and chain of evidence should have been so complete as to leave no reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. When the case of JITENDER 2014.12.22 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D No.794-DB of 2002 - : 16 : -
the prosecution tested on the said yardstick is proved to be completely lacking and inconsistent in itself, it cannot be used as basis for conviction of the accused.
20. Indeed, the case in hand is based upon circumstantial evidence. There are no two thoughts that circumstances so established should be conclusive in nature and the chain of evidence should be so complete that it becomes consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused leaving no ground tilting towards innocence of the accused. It is also true that the onus to prove the prosecution version and to establish the guilt of the accused lies squarely on the prosecution. In the instant case, scrutiny of the evidence adduced by the prosecution would show that there is a complete chain of events having link so strong that the facts established irresistibly are found to be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and nothing else.
21. No doubt, PW5 complainant Beant Singh was not a Lamberdar, Panch or an authoritative person who could derive some benfit for Sohan Singh from the police. He was also not well acquainted with appellant Sohan Singh. However, the fact remains that he was the brother of the deceased Bhoop Singh. Because of relationship with the accused it was natural for Sohan Singh to assume that in case he confided in Beant Singh and disclosed to him the complete occurrence, Beant Singh will be in a position to save and provide him protection considering that he had not murdered his brother and had also under compelled circumstances hesitatingly accompanied the actual culprit Baljinder Pal. JITENDER 2014.12.22 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRA-D No.794-DB of 2002 - : 17 : -
He also felt that having disclosed how Meena, wife of Bhoop Singh, in conspiracy and with the help of her paramour Baljinder Pal and with the active assistance of Nazar Singh, had eliminated his brother Bhoop Singh and disposed of the dead body, the complainant exercising his influence on the police would excuse him for his minimal participation in the commission of crime. Apparently, for the said reasons, Sohan Singh confided in complainant Beant Singh.
It was not the case that immediately after the occurrence, Sohan Singh had approached Beant Singh and made the extra judicial confession before him. Rather, he concealed the occurrence and remained quiet for full one month. While the occurrence took place during the night intervening 30.06.2000/01.07.2000, he blotted out the inculpatory statement on 30.07.2000. The gap shows that his divulgence before the complainant Beant Singh was well considered and thought over and that makes it a believable and reliable statement.
22. In Ahmed Koya vs. State of Kerala, 1991(2) RCR (Crl.) 128, it was held that there is no law that confession constitutes in inferior category of evidence and the Court should discard it. The value of evidence depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it was made.
23. Reverting to the case in hand, the extra judicial confession was made by appellant Sohan Singh before complainant Beant Singh (PW5) and Sucha Singh (PW3). The deposition of both the said witnesses is very much consistent and uniformed on all material particulars. No variation or discrepancy having a bearing on their credibility in their JITENDER 2014.12.22 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D No.794-DB of 2002 - : 18 : -
statement could be pointed out by learned counsel for the accused. Beant Singh was related to the deceased but Sucha Singh had no direct relationship and also had no reason to implicate the appellants by way of a confessional statement made by appellant Sohan Singh before him.
24. The matter does not end with the extra judicial confession made by appellant Sohan Singh before PW3 Sucha Singh and PW5 Beant Singh. Since Sucha Singh had divulged the details of the conspiracy that was hatched to eliminate Bhoop Singh and had also narrated how in furtherance of the conspiracy and common intention the crime was committed, appellant Sohan Singh was produced before the police by the aforesaid witnesses after which the police arrested Meena and then Baljinder Pal and Nazar Singh. At the time of arrest of Baljinder Pal and Nazar Singh, the wrist watch Ex.P9 of deceased Bhoop Singh was recovered from Nazar Singh and the silver bracelet Ex.P8 worn by the deceased was recovered from Baljinder Pal. The Scooter bearing registration no.CH-01L-4080 in their possession was also the same that was used during the occurrence i.e. for coming to the house of Meena on being called by her and after the murder, for taking away the dead body for disposal.
25. During interrogation, appellant Baljinder Pal in the presence of PW10 Satnam Singh, Sub Inspector and PW3 Sucha Singh, suffered a disclosure statement that he had thrown the dead body of Bhoop Singh in the bushes in 'Bariali Nadi' (rivulet) and that he had concealed the Kirpan with which the murder was committed in a pond in Sector-71, Mohali and JITENDER 2014.12.22 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D No.794-DB of 2002 - : 19 : -
further that he can get both the dead body and the Kirpan recovered by demarcating the respective places. The disclosure statement of appellant Baljinder Pal is Ex.PF. On 01.08.2000, in pursuance of his disclosure statement, Baljinder Pal in the presence of PW5 Beant Singh and PW3 Sucha Singh led the police party to the bushes in the rivulet and by removing the grass got recovered the dead body of Bhoop Singh which by then had converted into a skeleton. The clothes of the deceased i.e. an underwear and a Pajama and the Driving Licence of the deceased were recovered from near the dead body. It is mentioned in the recovery memo Ex.PG and was stated by PW5 Beant Singh and PW3 Sucha Singh and also by PW9 Inspector Pritam Singh that at the spot itself the dead body in the shape of skeleton was identified as that of Bhoop Singh by complainant PW5 Beant Singh from his teeth, clothes and driving licence.
26. No doubt, as pointed out by learned counsel for the accused- appellants, PW1 Dr. Jaswinder Singh while conducting postmortem examination of the dead body/skeleton had not specifically mentioned that teeth were available in the jaw but it was there in his statement that the "skull with mandible" was there. During cross-examination, the appellants put no quarry to the witness to seek clarification whether the teeth were available in the 'mandible' or not. In fact, the presence of 'mandible', specifically mentioned by PW1 Dr. Jaswinder Singh, indicates that teeth were there in the lower jaw.
27. It does not appear to be improbable or unnatural that the Driving Licence of the deceased was found lying near the dead body. JITENDER 2014.12.22 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRA-D No.794-DB of 2002 - : 20 : -
Some people have the habit of keeping their documents like Driving Licence, Identity Card etc. in the pocket of their clothes. It is possible that Driving Licence of the deceased was left in the pocket of his Pajama when he fell deep asleep because of the sleeping pills mixed in milk administered to him by his wife Meena. The argument of learned counsel for the accused that the underwear and the Pajama produced in the Court were clean and were not dirty or bloodstained is of no importance. The place where the dead body was concealed was a rivulet. The wet mud if attached to the clothes might have fallen after they dried.
Certainly, as stated by PW1 Dr. Jaswinder Singh, no feature of the dead body was identifiable, yet the identification of the dead body/ skeleton by the brother of the deceased from the teeth and from the clothes and Driving Licence found near the dead body, could not be discarded.
28. Indeed, PW1 Dr. Jaswinder Singh stated that a rib containing bone narrow from the skeleton was removed and sealed separately and given to the police for DNA test, but the fact is that the police did not get the DNA test conducted. At the most it was a lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer. The inaction on his part would not adversely affect the merits of the case. Defective investigation by itself can never be made ground for acquittal of the accused. More so, scientific investigation especially DNA testing etc. was not so popular in the year 2000 to which this case pertains to.
29. In any case, the fact remains that the dead body/skeleton was JITENDER 2014.12.22 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D No.794-DB of 2002 - : 21 : -
discovered in pursuance of a disclosure statement made by accused Baljinder Pal. It is also established from the statement of PW1 Dr. Jaswinder Singh that the skeleton was remains of a human body that too of a male. In addition thereof in pursuance of disclosure statement of accused Baljinder Pal, the Kirpan used in the commission of crime was also recovered from the place i.e. a pond demarcated by him. The Kirpan recovered was taken in possession vide memo Ex.PD, which in addition to ASI Balwant Singh and Constable Kashmiri Lal, was attested by PW5 Beant Singh. The statement of the accused relating to recoveries and discoveries is intrinsically admissible in evidence under Section 27 of The Evidence Act.
30. As per extra judicial confession made by appellant Sohan Singh before PW3 Sucha Singh and PW5 Beant Singh, when Baljinder Pal armed with Kirpan and accompanied by Nazar Singh and Meena went upstairs and he kept standing downstairs, after sometime he heard shirks "mar ditta mar ditta" of the deceased. On examination of the dead body/skeleton by Board of Doctors of Forensic Medicine Department, a sharp cut of size 4 cm x 0.1 cm, 4 cm away from midline on the right side of skull was found, as was testified by PW1 Dr. Jaswinder Singh. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that in his cross-examination PW1 stated that the age of the injury on the person of the deceased could not be ascertained and that the injury could be six months old. Contrary to his statement, the case of the prosecution was that deceased Bhoop Singh was murdered only a month and 10 days prior to the date of postmortem JITENDER 2014.12.22 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D No.794-DB of 2002 - : 22 : -
examination.
The argument of the learned counsel is completely devoid of merit. It was not the statement of PW1 Dr. Jaswinder Singh that the injury was six months old. He was suggested by the accused that the injury could be six months old which he did not deny. However, it was his specific statement that the age of the injury could not be ascertained. Meaning thereby that if it could be six months old, it could also be one month and 10 days old. The injury found on skull of the deceased corroborated the story of the prosecution that Bhoop Singh was murdered with a Kirpan when he was in deep sleep.
31. All important and material witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The owner of the P.C.O., who had come to inform Baljinder Pal that there was a telephone call for him on the night of 30.06.2000 when Baljinder Pal with Nazar Singh and Sohan Singh were present in a quarter in Sector-70, Mohali, was not an important witness because he neither had any connection with the accused nor had anything to disclose about the call. It was Baljinder Pal, who attended the call and came and told about his conversation with Meena to Nazar Singh and Sohan Singh. As regards the shopkeeper, from whom Baljinder Pal had purchased/ arranged usleeping pills and given to Meena, he could not be examined by the prosecution because the place, from where the pills were arranged, was in exclusive knowledge of Baljinder Pal which he did not divulge.
32. Coming to the allegation against appellant Meena, it does not lie in her mouth to say that there was no evidence against her. The extra JITENDER 2014.12.22 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D No.794-DB of 2002 - : 23 : -
judicial confession made by accused Sohan Singh before PW3 Sucha Singh and PW5 complainant Beant Singh contained the details of conspiracy between her and Baljinder Pal to eliminate her husband Bhoop Singh. It was she who facilitated entry of accused Baljinder Pal, Nazar Singh and Sohan Singh into her house by keeping the door open and by tying the dog. It was not her version that she was not at home on the night of occurrence. Had she not been involved, she should have been in a position to state the whereabouts of her husband in a firm and crystal clear manner. But surprisingly, after Shri Bhoop Singh was murdered during the night intervening 30.06.2000/01.07.2000, she did not talk to anyone about her husband on 01.07.2000.
It was on 02.07.2000 that Meena rang up her brother-in-law Beant Singh and told him that her husband Bhoop Singh had left home at 5:30 a.m. on 01.07.2000 with 2-3 persons who came in a car. She stated that before leaving Bhoop Singh had told her that he will come back by 11 a.m. She had seen the car and the persons with whom her husband had left but she could mention nothing regarding the identity of the car or of the persons whom her husband accompanied.
33. In natural course, a wife would have certainly been in a position to tell something about the identity of the persons with whom her husband had gone early morning at 5:30 a.m. She would have come out with some clue relating to the car and the place where her husband could have gone. It is quite apparent that Meena was not just concealing the actual facts, rather she was trying to mislead her brother-in-law by JITENDER 2014.12.22 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D No.794-DB of 2002 - : 24 : -
concocting wrong story.
34. On the other hand, the deposition of Beant Singh whereby he narrated the extra judicial confession made before him by appellant Sohan Singh is quite natural, genuine and trustworthy. He stated that prior to the occurrence he had no knowledge about the illicit relationship between Meena and Baljinder Pal. He conceded that he had hardly seen Baljinder Pal in the house of his deceased brother and that he came to know about the illicit relationship only when Sohan Singh disclosed about it in his extra judicial confession. If complainant Beant Singh was to fabricate a story or was to manipulate evidence, he could have deposed that he knew or had been informed by his brother about the illicit relationship between Meena and Baljinder Pal. His fair admission that the said fact was not known to him shows that he had come out with the facts as were revealed to him.
There was nothing improbable in the statement of PW5 Beant Singh that his brother had not told him about the extramarital affair of his wife. No husband would made a propaganda of illicit relationship of his wife especially when he had three minor children. Be that as it may, the very fact that Meena tried to wrongly divert the complainant and the police to conceal the reality related to her husband, is a good reason to support the story of her illicit relationship with accused Baljinder Pal which led to conspiracy between them to murder Bhoop Singh and for doing that they took the help of Nazar Singh and Sohan Singh.
35. Thus, we conclude that the evidence produced by the JITENDER 2014.12.22 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D No.794-DB of 2002 - : 25 : -
prosecution is very much consistent, cogent and worth reliance. The prosecution established the charges against the appellant Baljinder Pal for the commission of offence under Sections 120-B, 302 and 201 I.P.C. and against appellants Meena, Nazar Singh and Sohan Singh for the commission of offence under Sections 120-B, 302, 201 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction recorded by the trial Court and the order of sentence passed are upheld. All the four appeals filed by the appellants are dismissed.
(SNEH PRASHAR) JUDGE (M. JEYAPAUL) JUDGE November 13, 2014.
jitender Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No JITENDER 2014.12.22 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document