Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sanjay Son Of Satya Narain vs State Of Haryana on 5 January, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1996CRILJ2659
Author: K.S. Kumaran
Bench: K.S. Kumaran
JUDGMENT V.K. Bali, J.
1. The appellant herein, Sanjay son of Shri Satya Narain, was tried under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code pertaining to F.I.R. No. 161, dated July 13,1991 on the basis of prosecution version that Ravinder deceased used to run a shop of T. V. at Bhiwani. On June 25, 1991, in the morning the appellant met Dinesh PW 3, brother of deceased Ravinder and told him that during the night Ravinder and Ramesh, both deceased, and appellant had taken liquor in his factory. They also took meals in the mill of the appellant at Bhiwani and that after taking meals Ravinder and Ramesh vomitted but the appellant remained perfectly fine. He further stated that all slept in the mill but in the morning he found Ravinder and Ramesh lying dead. Dinesh PW 3, in turn, informed his father, Manohar Lal, who was in service at Rohtak. Manohar Lal asked his son to take help of Sudesh Pal Jain and as such PW 3 Dinesh went to Sudesh Pal Jain. The matter was informed to Mr. Jain, who, on coming to know that no report had been lodged, went to the police Station. He met the police near octroi post, Devsar, where he made his statement Ex. PE to SI Subhash Chand, PW7, who, in turn, vide his endorsement, Ex. PE/1, sent it to the police station where a report in Daily Diary was recorded. He went to the spot where bodies of both the deceased were lying. Inquest reports, Ex. PA/2 with respect to Ramesh deceased and Ex. PB/1 with respect to Ravinder deceased, were prepared. Both the deadbodies were sent for post-mortem vide applications Ex. PA/1 and Ex. PB. The contents of vomit lying at two places in the factory were also lifted, sealed and taken into possession vide memo Ex. PJ. In the factory, a container having some traces of cooked vegetables, tea-spoon, tiffin box, two empty jugs of plastic, four empty bottles of Campa Cola were also found. These were also taken into possession vide memo Ex. PH. A half of liquor bottle which was found empty was also taken into possession. The dead bodies of Ravinder and Ramesh were subjected to post-mortem by board of doctors. On July 13, 1991 Manohar Lal PW 2, gave an application Ex. PB to the police suspecting that the appellant was responsible for the crime and as such FIR Ex. PB/1 was recorded. The appellant was arrested on July 21,1991 and tried under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, as mentioned above. After resultant trial, the learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani held that appellant guilty for an offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. for murder of deceased Ravinder and Ramesh by giving poison and convicted him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ -, in default whereof the appellant was to further undergo RI for one year. It is against this judgment of the learned Sessions Judge dated December 8, 1992 that the present appeal has been filed by Sanjay.
2. The prosecution version, in brief, is that on June 24, 1991, Sanjay, appellant herein, invited Ravinder Singh and Ramesh Kumar at his factory to serve them liquor and meals. As the appellant was to return an amount of Rs. 32,000/- to the deceased and was unable to repay the same, so he invited Ravinder Singh and Ramesh Kumar with an intention to kill them by administering poison in the liquor. As mentioned above, the FIR with regard to incident came to be lodged on July 13, 1991 at 8.20 p.m. Manohar Lal, in his application dated July 13,1991, addressed to the S.H.O., Police Station Sadar Bhiwani, requested registration of a case under Section 302, IPC against Sanjay, appellant herein on the basic allegations that his son Ravinder Singh and Ramesh Kumar son of Birbal, were residents of Bhiwani and the appellant, who was owner of an Oil Factory, were all good friends. They used to drink and were also having money transactions with each other. Sanjay had taken money from his son Ravinder Singh and Ramesh Kumar for purchase of goods for committees and shop. His son Ravinder had told him in this regard that Sanjay had borrowed a sum of Rs. 32,000/ - from him and had promised to return the said amount on June 24,1991. On June 25, 1991 he was present on his duty at Public Health, Rohtak. At about 8 a.m. when his another son Dinesh told him on telephone that Ravinder and Ramesh were lying dead in the factory of Sanjay, who had taken their meals and consumed liquor at night along with Sanjay. Thereupon, he rushed to Bhiwani and saw the dead bodies of Ravinder and Ramesh in the hospital. When he made enquiries, Parmod son of Gaja Nand, Nunsar Mohalla, Bhiwani, told him that on June 24,1991, he had seen Ravinder, Ramesh and Sanjay at about 8 p.m. sitting on the shop of Ramesh. Thereafter, all those three went away towards Sanjay Oil Factory on a scooter. He also told him that Sanjay was telling Ravinder and Ramesh that he would return their money after going to factory and that they would also take meals there. Sanjay had also asked Parmod to accompany them. He searched for Sanjay for a considerable extent but his whereabouts were not known. When he was confident that Sanjay had mixed some poisonous substance in liquor or in any eatable and served the same to Ravinder and Ramesh, he filed this application, on the basis of which formal F.I.R. was registered against the appellant.
3. To prove that it is only the appellant who was responsible for murder of Ravinder and Ramesh, the prosecution relied upon recovery of dead bodies of these two persons, from the factory of the appellant. Motive of not returning an amount of Rs. 32,000/-and, therefore, killing these two was another circumstance relied upon by the prosecution. Reliance was also placed upon the statement of PW 5 Parmod son of Gaja Nand, who deposed that on June 24, 1991 at about 7 p.m. he had met Ramesh at his shop situated near Railway Crossing, Bhiwani. At that time Sanjay and Ravinder were sitting with him. In his presence Ravinder and Ramesh asked Sanjay about the money of Committee. Sanjay told them that he would give the money in the factory where they would drink and dine together. PW 5 was also invited by Ramesh as talks were of dine and wine together. He accepted the invitation. He went to the factory at about 8 p.m. and found that Sanjay, Ravinder and Ramesh were also sitting there. They were in the process of preparing meals. On enquiry, Ramesh told him that food was not ready as yet and he should take some liquor. As he was not to take liquor, he only sat there for sometime and when he found that food was not ready, he left from there. The prosecution also relied upon an extra judicial confession, said to have been made by the accused to one Chander Prakash and the statement of PW 3 Dinesh son of Manohar Lal, i.e. real brother of deceased Ravinder. This witness deposed that in the morning of June 25,1991 the appellant had come to him at about 7 a.m. and told him that during the night on June 24, 1991 Ravinder and Ramesh had taken liquor and meals along with him at his factory. Ravinder and Ramesh, after taking meals, vomitted but the appellant felt nothing and they slept there. However, in the morning he found that Ravinder and Ramesh were dead. It is an admitted position that the learned Sessions Judge, on perusal of the evidence, did not rely upon the prosecution version insofar as it relates to motive of the appellant as also the extra judicial confession made by him to one Chander Prakash. The learned Sessions Judge, however, convicted the appellant on the basis of the remaining, part of the prosecution version, i.e. the dead bodies of Ravinder and Ramesh having been found in his factory, statements of PW 3 and PW 5, mention whereof has been made above. The learned Sessions Judge also took notice of the fact that as per reports of the Chemical Examiner, Ex.PA/5 and Ex. PB/4, poison was found in the visceras of the deceased Ravinder and Ramesh.
4. This matter came up earlier on Oct. 17, 1995. The Court at that stage thought it necessary, in the interest of justice, to receive some evidence with regard to nature of poisoning of two deceased. It was, thus, deemed appropriate to get an opinion of the expert on the subject and, therefore, the case was remitted to the trial court to record evidence to the effect as to the manner in which the body would react after being administered aluminium phosphide or methyl alcohol and whether it would be possible that the traces of the poison which were present in the vomit might have evaporated on account of its exposure to the air and on any other matter that the prosecution might require elucidation. This exercise has been done and, therefore, the case has again been put up for hearing.
5. Mr. R.S. Ghai, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the appellant vehemently contends that mere recovery of dead bodies of Ravinder and Ramesh from the factory of the appellant, even if it is found that the death was caused on account of poisoning, would not be enough to return a finding of guilt. It might, at the most, raise suspicion in the mind of the Court but the suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof. The aforestated argument is raised by first endeavouring to convince the Court that the statements of PW 3 and PW 5 are wholly unworthy of credence and that insofar as motive of appellant to commit the crime and his extra judicial confession made before Chander Prakash are concerned, the same have already been disbelieved by the trial Judge.
6. Mr. Variender Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, however, contends that recovery of dead bodies of Ravinder and Ramesh from the factory of the appellant coupled with his own statement made before Dinesh, brother of the deceased Ravinder, as also the statement of PW5 Parmod, who too, even though for a short period, was personally present in the gathering that took place on June,24,1991, were enough to return a finding of guilt against the appellant. He further contends that the learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of material available on records of the case, was not justified in rejecting the prosecution version with regard to extra judicial confession made by the appellant before Chander Prakash.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at great length and have gone through the records of the case. In our considered view, even though it is a case where two lives have been lost, the appellant, on the material available on records, could not be convicted. Before we discuss the prosecution evidence any further, it requires, however, to be mentioned that the recovery of two dead bodies from the factory of the appellant has been amply established but the other circumstantial evidence, pressed into service by the prosecution, lacks credence and, therefore, it is not a case where it could be said that the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete so as to reach the only one hypothesis, i.e. the guilt of the accused. Coming first to the criticism of the learned State counsel with regard to the learned Sessions Judge disbelieving the motive and extra judicial confession of the accused, it would be seen from paragraph 14 of the judgment that the learned Sessions Judge has discussed evidence of PW 6 Rameshwar before whom the alleged extra judicial confession was made. He deposed that accused made disclosure statement on July 21,1991 at about 9 a.m. However, in cross-examination, he admitted that Manohar Lal, father of deceased Ravinder, was head Draftsman of Public Health while Ramesh deceased was Kumhar, that he was also Kumhar by caste and Ramesh deceased was his nephew of the 4th degree; that Chander Prakash was contractor of Public Health; that he was also a contractor of Public Health Department; that he had knwoledge about the death of both the persons due to poisoning; that Manohar Lal suspected accused for the murder which fact he learnt on 25-6-1991 itself in the hospital. The witness aforesaid gave the date of extra judicial confession made by the appellant before him as July 21, 1991 whereas the appellant was in custody of the police prior to July 8, 1991. On the aforesaid evidence of PW6, the learned Sessions Judge, in our view, rightly concluded that PW 6 was an interested witness as also that this evidence was against the facts proved on the records of the case. Insofar as motive of the accused to commit the crime is concerned, only relevant evidence was the statement of PW 2 Manohar Lal, who, of course, stated in his examination-in-chief that his son told him that he had to receive Rs. 32,000/- from the accused-appellant. In cross-examination, Manohar Lal admitted that in the hospital he never disclosed to anybody that accused owed Rs. 32,000/- to his son; that on coming to know from Parmod that accused and his son deceased took liquor and meals in the factory, he went to the police to disclose the facts to them but the police told that they would record statement only after the receipt of report of Chemical Examiner, that he gave application of his own on or about July 13,1991, which was hand-written one; that the said application Was torn by him as the police asked him to give a typed application, so he gave a typed application, that his son used to maintain account at the shop; that Rs. 32,000/ - were entered in the same; that the said writting was in a copy which the deceased used to carry with him; that he had a rough copy to show a statement of account which he never produced before the Court. From the aforesaid cross-examination, in our view, the learned Sessions Judge rightly returned a finding that it was evident in the present case that motive alleged against the appellant that the deceased had to take Rs. 32,000/-from him was not proved. The accounts said to be in the hand of deceased were not produced either before the police or before the Court. The fact with regard to the appellant promising to return the money was not disclosed to the police except in application, Ex. PD, which was received by the police on June 13,1991.
8. The motive and extra judicial confession having been dis-proved, the prosecution is left only with the statements of PW 3 and PW 5. Concededly, PW 3 is the other son of Manohar Lal and, thus, real brother of deceased Ravinder. He stated before the Court that on the morning of June 25, 1991 the appellant came to him at about 7 a.m. and told him that during the night of June 24, 1991, Ravinder, Ramesh and the appellant took liquor and meals in the Oil Mills of appellant. The appellant further told him that after taking meals Ravinder and Ramesh vomitted and they all slept there and that in the morning Ravinder and Ramesh were found dead. In cross-examination, the witness was confronted with his statement, Ex. DA wherein it was not recorded that his brother had gone to Bhiwani K hera. It may be recalled that deceased had gone to Bhiwani Khera to get trie money from the appellant. He was also confronted with his statement made before the police on various other crucial issues and it appears to us that this witness was introduced only with a view to strengthen the prosecution version. That apart, it does not appear to be probable that the appellant would have gone and told all these things to the real brother of the deceased Ravinder. Further, it is on June 25,* 1991 that the appellant is alleged to have told this witness about the dinner programme at his factory and the death of Ravinder and Ramesh and yet the F.I.R. came to be recorded on July 13,1991. We have gone through the statement of PW 5 Parmod son of Gaja Nand and are of the considered view that this witness has also been introduced simply with a view to secure conviction against the appellant. If the appellant had pre-conceived the idea to eliminate those, who were insisting upon the return of money and had planned to administer poison, there was no occasion for him to have agreed to his participation as well in the mills at night. It may be recalled that even though the invitation extended to this witness was not by the appellant but the same, according to the prosecution version, was in the presence of the appellant. That apart, if this witness had actually been invited, there was no occasion for him to have left the place before taking his meals. Further, the witness admits that he does not drink and, thus, there was no special reason for him to have gone to the factory of the appellant. Further, the witness admits in his cross-examination that he suspected the death due to poison on June 25, 1991 itself when he had reached the hospital and yet he did not disclose this fact even to the parents of the deceased or any body on June 25,1991 or thereafter, and made a statement only to the Dy. Supdt. of Police when he came to know that the case had been reopened.
9. We might at this stage refer to the evidence that has been recorded pursuant to the orders passed by this Court on Oct 17, 1995. All that is required to be mentioned is that the evidence, as per the contention of learned counsel appearing for the parties, shows that the traces of poison in the vomit might or might not have evaporated on account of its exposure to the air.
10. From the evidence that has been led by the prosecution and which has been discussed above, the only circumstance proved against the appellant is that the dead bodies of Ravinder and Ramesh were found in his factory and were recovered from there only but that in itself in our view, is not enough to sustain a finding of guilt. If the evidence with regard to motive and extra judicial confession had been accepted, perhaps the view would have been different but the same, as discussed above, have not been proved. We, therefore accept the contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellant that suspicion, howsoever strong it may be, cannot substitute the proof and on that theory, acquit the appellant of the charge framed against him. Resultantly, the orders of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is set aside and the appeal is allowed.