Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjit Singh @ Dhina And Ors vs State Of Punjab on 15 October, 2008
Author: S.S. Saron
Bench: S.S.Saron, Sabina
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal 884-DB of 2004
Date of decision: 15.10.2008
Manjit Singh @ Dhina and ors ...Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.S.SARON.
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SABINA.
Present: Mr RS Cheema, Sr Advocate with
Ms Tanu Bedi, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr SS Gill, Additional AG Punjab for the State.
Mr Ramandeep Sandhu, Advocate for the complainant.
*****
Criminal Revision 544 of 2005
Swaran Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Manjit Singh and ors ...Respondents
Present: Mr Ramandeep Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr RS Cheema, Sr Advocate with
Ms Tanu Bedi, Advocate for the respondent.
Mr SS Gill, Additional AG Punjab for the State.
S.S. SARON, J.
This order will dispose of Criminal Appeal 884-DB of 2004 and Criminal Revision 544 of 2005 as they arise out of the same judgment and order dated 8/11.10.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala whereby the appellants - Manjit Singh @ Dhina and others have Criminal Appeal 884 of 2004 and 2 Criminal Revision 544 of 2005 been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 364 read with Section 334, Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC - for short) and convicted thereunder, vide order dated 8.10.2004. By a subsequent order dated 11.10.2004, the appellants were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life; besides to pay a fine of Rs 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for a period of one month each for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. They have been further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 10 years each and to pay a fine of Rs 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for a period of one month each for the offence punishable under Section 364 read with Section 34 IPC. They have been further sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 3 years each and to pay a fine of Rs 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one month each for the offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC. All the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
The appellants in the criminal appeal assail the said order of their conviction and sentence. Swaran Singh, by way of criminal revision, has prayed for payment of substantial compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased - Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi who died in the occurrence.
The FIR (Ex PH) in the case was initially recorded on the statement of complainant Swaran Singh (PW11) for the offence under Section 364 IPC. It is stated by the complainant that he is a resident of village Sidhwan and was posted as a Lecturer in the Senior Secondary School, Dudwindi. He had two sons; the eldest was Gurpreet Singh @ Criminal Appeal 884 of 2004 and 3 Criminal Revision 544 of 2005 Gopi (deceased) aged about 18 years and the younger to him Harpreet Singh aged about 14 years. Said Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi (deceased) had gone from the village Sidhwan to village Bholath on 6.4.2002 at about 12.30 in the afternoon for getting the zipper of his pant mended from the tailor. He had not returned home and the complainant - Swaran Singh then inquired from Billa tailor master (Anil Kumar PW1) who informed him that Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi had given his pant for mending it and had gone away. Thereafter, the complainant - Swaran Singh along with his brother - Malkeet Singh had searched for Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi from their relatives but nothing could be gathered. On 8.4.2002 Swaran Singh - complainant lodged a report at PS Bholath. He had full doubt that Sukhjinder Singh @ Kaka (appellant-2) and Hardeep Singh (not sent up for trial and kept in column 2 of the charge report) and Manjit Singh (appellant-1) as also Davinder Singh (appellant-2) had kidnapped his son. He requested for legal action being taken. On the said information, Sadhu Ram Inspector (PW17) made his endorsement (Ex PH/1). On 19.4.2000, Sadhu Ram Inspector (PW17) received a wireless message in terms of which Inspector SHO PS Kotwali informed him that a dead body near Village Desal was found lying and that his kith and kin had identified the same to be that of Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi son of the complainant - Swaran Singh. Accordingly, the FIR was converted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and a special report was sent to the higher officers. Sadhu Ram Inspector (PW17) went to the area of Bholath alon giwth Malkeet Singh to the shop of the tailor in Adda Bhogpur in the area of Bholath. The statement of Arun Kumar (sic Anil Kumar PW1) and his assistant Satpal (PW3) were recorded. Criminal Appeal 884 of 2004 and 4 Criminal Revision 544 of 2005 The statement of Malkeet Singh was recorded on 18.4.2002. The investigation in the case was conducted. The IO - Sadhu Ram Inspector (PW17) went to the place of the occurrence and after investigation of the spot, prepared site plan (Ex PT) with correct marginal notes. Lakhwinder Singh MHC of PS Kotwali Kapurthala produced before Sadhu Ram Inspector the clothes of the deceased along with the bracelet of the accused which are Ex P1 to Ex P5. These were converted into a parcel and sealed with seal - 'SR' and taken in possession vide memo Ex PU. On 23.4.2002 the photographs were produced before him. The photographs and the negatives which were taken in possession vide memo Ex PV, were attested by Gurmeet Singh Photographer (PW19). The statements of other witnesses were recorded. Besides, the statement of Mohinder Singh Lamberdar (PW13) before whom the accused made extra-judicial confession, was recorded. Manjeet Singh @ Dhina (appellant-1) was arrested on 28.4.2002 vide arrest memo (Ex PX). On the same day, Sukhjinder Singh (appellant-
2) and Chander Mohan (appellant-3) were arrested vide memos Ex PY and Ex PZ. On the basis of the investigation that was conducted, charge report (challan) was filed in the Court of learned JMIC Kapurthala who, in view of the fact that prima facie a case had been lodged for the commission of the offence under Sections 302, 201 and 364 read with Section 34 IPC to be made out and the offence under Section 302 IPC being exclusively triable by the Court of Session, committed the case vide order dated 3.7.2002 for trial to the said Court. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as 19 witnesses and also tendered documents in evidence. The statements of the accused in terms of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Criminal Appeal 884 of 2004 and 5 Criminal Revision 544 of 2005 Procedure (CrPC for short) were recorded in which the substance of the evidence appearing against them was put to them. Manjit Singh (appellant-
1) stated that he was innocent and the presence case was a false case. He had been produced before the Police on 22.4.2002 by Ranjit Singh, Chairman/Sarpanch of village Cheema and was kept in illegal detention till the formal arrest was shown by the Police. Sukhjinder Singh (appellant-2) also stated that he was innocent and the present was a false case. He was arrested from his house at Sidhwan and has been involved in the case due to party faction in the village. Chander Mohan (appellant-3) also stated that he was innocent and had been falsely involved in the present case. He was produced before the Police of PS Bholath on 20.4.2002 by Sardool Singh, Ex-Sarpanch of village Dhapai along with Satish Kumar. Davinder Singh (appellant-4) stated that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. In defence, Joginder Lal, DSP Special Crime Wing, Jalandhar (DW1) was examined in which he stated that he conducted the inquiry in the case on the complaint of Swaran Singh (PW11) which was entrusted to him by the office of Additional DSP (Crime). The inquiry was regarding Davinder Singh (appellant-4) and Hardeep Singh who had been kept in column-2 (of the charge report). It was alleged that they had been declared innocent by the local Police and the Police was not arresting them. On inquiry, he found both the accused - Davinder Singh and Hardeep Singh to be innocent. He submitted his report (Ex DX) to the office of Additional DGP (Crime). Hardeep Singh claimed himself to be juvenile and was sent to the Principal Magistrate of Juvenile Justice Board (CJM) Ludhiana for trial. The evidence and material as against the other appellants were Criminal Appeal 884 of 2004 and 6 Criminal Revision 544 of 2005 considered by the learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala and they were convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 364/34, 302/34 and Section 201/34 IPC and ordered to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC; besides other sentenced which, as already noticed, to run concurrently.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants has contended that Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi (deceased) was last seen by the complainant - Swaran Singh (PW11) on 6.4.2002 when he left his home in the forenoon for getting his pant mended. On 8.4.2002, he lodged a report with the Police in which he did not suspect anyone for the abduction. Thereafter, on 9.4.2002, an advertisement was got issued in the newspapers
- 'Ajit' and 'Jagbani' and there is no suspicion against anyone. It is thereafter on 8.4.2002 that Swaran Singh lodged the FIR (Ex PH) for the offence under Section 364/34 IPC in which a suspicion is raised against Sukhjinder Singh @ Kaka (appellant-2) besides Manjit Singh (appellant-1) and Davinder Singh (appellant-4) AS ALSO Hardeep Singh who was sent to the juvenile Court for trial vide order dated 21.11.2003. However, there is no allegation of suspicion against Chander Mohan (appellant-3). It is submitted that the first special report regarding registration of FIR is sent at 4 p.m. on 18.4.2002 and the next one is sent at 12.20 p.m. on 19.4.2002 regarding the offence under Section 302 IPC. It is further submitted that the dead body was found in the jurisdiction of another Police Station i.e. PS Kotwali Kapurthala. The dead body had been recovered on 18.4.2002 i.e. after 12 days of the disappearance of Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi on 6.4.2002 in respect of which a report was lodged by Swaran Singh (PW11) on Criminal Appeal 884 of 2004 and 7 Criminal Revision 544 of 2005 8.4.2002 followed by insertion of advertisement in the newspapers on 9.4.2002 as also a meeting of the Panchayat at PS Bholath on 14.4.2002. It is contended that the prosecution has failed to prove that the death was homicidal inasmuch as the injuries that were found on the person of the deceased were post-mortem in nature. A reference has been made to the deposition of Dr BS Multani, Medical Specialist, Civil Hospital, Kapurthala (PW12) who has stated that all the injuries described were post-mortem in nature and in the opinion of the Medical Board (Ex PM/1), the cause of death in the case was aluminum phosphate poisoning. It is submitted that there is no motive for the commission of the crime by the appellants and the only motive is a vague mention in the alleged confessional statement made before Mohinder Singh (PW13) to the effect that Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi (deceased) had been teasing Ramanpreet Kaur, mother's sister's daughter of Manjit Singh (appellant-1). It has been stated that he admitted his mistake before Manjit Singh and had undertaken not to repeat the mistake again. In fact, it is admitted that Mohinder Singh (PW13) before whom the extra- judicial confession is alleged to have been made does not make a mention of the administering of any poison. Besides, there is no commonality of interests between Manjit Singh (appellant-1) and his other co-accused. The dead body of Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi, it is submitted, is also not shown to be identified as the dead body allegedly found by the Police by Sakattar Singh ASI (PW14) was unidentifiable, which, it is stated, is the admitted case of the prosecution and the identification from the clothes can be highly misleading.
Criminal Appeal 884 of 2004 and 8Criminal Revision 544 of 2005 In response, learned counsel for the State and the complainant have submitted that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellants beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court having rightly passed the conviction and sentence, would not warrant any interference by this Court. It is submitted that the chain of circumstances clearly establish the guilt of the appellants. It is submitted that the recovery of two empty bottles of liquor and a mobile phone as also the evidence of last seen on 6.4.2002 clearly establish the guilt of the appellants. Learned counsel for the complainant has further submitted that the learned trial Court has gravely erred in not awarding any compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased which is liable to be awarded in view of the provisions of Section 357 CrPC.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also gone through the record of the case.
Swaran Singh - complainant (PW11) informed the Police on 18.4.2002 that his son - Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi (deceased) on 6.4.2002 at about 12.30 p.m. had gone to Bholath to Billa Tailor (Anil Kumar - PW1) to get the zipper of his pant mended. He did not return home and in the evening Swaran Singh (PW11) inquired from Billa Tailor (Anil Kumar PW1) who stated that his son had gone after handing over his pant to him. Swaran Singh - complainant further stated before the Police that he along with his brother - Malkeet Singh had tried to search his son amongst the relatives but he was not traceable. He suspected the appellants other than Chander Mohan to have kidnapped his son with the intention to kill him. On Criminal Appeal 884 of 2004 and 9 Criminal Revision 544 of 2005 these allegations Swaran Singh (PW11) requested the Police to take action against the accused. The statement of the complainant was recorded which was read over to him and was also signed by him. The Police initially registered a case for the offence under Section 364 read with Section 34 IPC. On 18.4.2002, the dead body of an unknown person was recovered from river Beas in the area of village Desal under the jurisdiction of PS Kotwali Kapurthala. ASI Sakattar Singh (PW14) had conducted the inquest proceedings of the dead body. The post-mortem on the dead body was conducted on 19.4.2002 by a Board of Doctors of Civil Hospital Kapurthala. On that day, Surjit Singh son of Niranjan Singh and Paramjit Singh (PW2) came to Civil Hospital Kapurthala and identified the dead body to be that of Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi (deceased). ASI Sakattar Singh prepared identification memo which was signed by Surjit Singh and Paramjit Singh as also HC Manjit Singh (PW7). On 19.4.2002 at about 7.40 p.m. a report was received by the Police of PS Bholath from SHP PS Kotwali Kapurthala that on 18.4.2002 a dead body of an unknown person had been found in the area of village Desal which was identified by Paramjit Singh (PW2) and Surjit Singh son of Niranjan Singh.
It may be noticed that the case is based on circumstantial evidence and the circumstances from which a finding of guilt is to be recorded must be shown to be cogently and firmly established. Besides, the circumstances are to be of definite nature unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. They are to form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probabilities the crime was committed by the accused and none else. The circumstances in order to Criminal Appeal 884 of 2004 and 10 Criminal Revision 544 of 2005 sustain the conviction are to be incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused which is to be not only consistent with the guilt of the accused but also inconsistent with his innocence. The evidence of the prosecution would show that Mohinder Singh (PW13) has been examined who has stated that on 25.4.2002 at about 8 p.m. he was present at his house. He was the Lamberdar of the village. At that time the appellants as also Hardeep Singh who were known to him came to him. In the first instance, Manjit Singh @ Dhina (appellant-1) told him that he, Sukhjinder Singh (appellant-2), Chander Mohan (appellant-3) and Davinder Singh (appellant-4) as also Hardeep Singh who was sent to the Juvenile Court, took a car bearing Registration No. PB-10-F-0525 from their friend for going to their relations. The aforesaid accused went to Bus Stand Bholath in the car and took tea at Bholath at a tea vend. They then waited for Gopi @ Gurpreet Singh (deceased) who came in a tempo at about 1.30 p.m. They shook hand with Gopi and also took him in embrace. Then they asked Gopi to roam around. He told them that he had to get the zip fitted to his pant and he was going to give his pant to Billa Tailor. Manjit Singh (appellant-1) further informed Mohinder Singh (PW13) that he told Gopi to give his pent to the tailor and also tell him that he would come next day. The aforesaid accused and Gopi then went to the same car to Hamira and took a bottle of Indian made foreign liquor which they took while sitting in the car. Then a bottle of country liquor was purchased. Then they went to village Dullowal to the land of Joginder Kaur who is the father's sister (Bhua) of Manjit Singh (appellant-1). Manjit Singh then asked Gopi as to why he was teasing Ramanpreet - mother's sister's Criminal Appeal 884 of 2004 and 11 Criminal Revision 544 of 2005 (Massi's) daughter of Manjit Singh. To this, Gopi had replied that he committed a mistake and in future he would not tease her. Sukhjinder Singh (appellant-2) then is alleged to have thrust a bottle of liquor in the mouth of Gopi, as a result whereof, teeth of Gopi were broken and blood oozed out. Thereafter he struck the bottle on the neck of Gopi, as a result there Gopi fell down. Then Manjit Singh, Sukhjinder Singh, Davinder Singh, Hardeep Singh and Chander Mohan kicked Gopi @ Gurpreet Singh as a result of which, he died. Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi who had died was put in the same car which was driven by Manjit Singh and he was taken to Dhussi Bandh. There the appellants threw the dead body of Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi in the river Beas. The appellants then came back in the same car. Manjit Singh (appellant-1) told Mohinder Singh (PW13) that he had committed a big mistake. Sukhinder Singh, Davinder Singh, Chander Mohan and Hardeep Singh, the other accused also made similar extra-judicial confession in the same manner before Mohinder Singh (PW13). They also admitted their mistake. Manjit Singh (appellant-1) had approached him (Mohinder Singh
- PW13) since he had been a frequent visitor to the Police Station and asked him that he should produce them before the Police. He told them that since it was dark, he would not go to the Police Station at that time and they should come to Bholath in the morning. They, however, did not come to Bholath in the morning. Had they come in the next morning, he would have produced them. On 26.4.2002, he made a statement before the Police. Mohinder Singh (PW13) was cross-examined and the discrepancies in his statement from his statement (Ex DC) made before the Police were got confronted. It may be noticed that the extra-judicial confession is a vague Criminal Appeal 884 of 2004 and 12 Criminal Revision 544 of 2005 type of evidence. Besides, it may appropriately be noticed that in the medical evidence of Dr BS Multani, it has clearly been deposed that the body was covered with different stages of maturation of maggot, skin of face, top of scalp, right elbow, front of right knee, scrotum, inner side of left ankle were eaten away by maggots. Distal Phalynx of thumb and finger of right hand, thumb and fingers of left hand, toe of left foot were missing and irregular post mortem lacerated wound were present on eye and left foot. Scalp, ear were partially fallen off and easily pluckable. The teeth were loose. Three incisor, two central and one right teeth side incisor of under jaw and canine of lower jaw on right side were missing from the socket and the socket was empty. The clothes and the body were spoiled with mud and sandy particles at places. Rigor mortis present in all the four limbs and post mortem staining could not be appreciated because of putrification. The eye balls were eaten away by maggots and sockets were empty. The cause of death it was stated would be given after the receipt of report of the Chemical Examiner, Patiala. All the injuries described were post mortem in nature. After receipt of Chemical Examiner's report, a Medical Board was constituted by Dr Barinder Gill, SMO Incharge. According to the opinion of the Board (Ex PM/1), the cause of death in this case was aluminum phosphide poisoning. The opinion of the Board (Ex PM/1) bears the signatures of Dr BS Multani (PW12) as also of Dr Subhash Chander and Dr Gurbachan Singh, whose signatures he identified. In cross-examination, it is stated by Dr Multani that the dead body was highly decomposed. Many parts of the dead body were eaten away by maggots and even at the time of post mortem examination, the dead body had remained unidentified. The Criminal Appeal 884 of 2004 and 13 Criminal Revision 544 of 2005 pesticide it was stated has a very strengthening smell. On account of the strengthening smell of the pesticide, it cannot be administered secretly. It was incorrect that there was no poison in kidney, spleen and liver. The quantity of the aluminum phosphide administered in this case was not mentioned in the report of the Chemical Examiner. Therefore, evidently in the evidence of Mohinder Singh (PW13) before whom the extra-judicial confession is stated to have been made by the appellants, it is stated that the appellants had caused the death of Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi by thrusting the liquor bottle in the mouth of Gopi as a result whereof his teeth were broken and blood oozed out. Thereafter, the bottle was struck on the neck of Gopi as a sresult of which, he fell down. Then the appellants kicked him as a result of which he died. However, Dr Multani (PW12), Medical Specialist has stated that the injuries described were post mortem in nature and the death was due to aluminum phosphide. The learned trial Court has, however, observed that when Manjit Singh and the other accused made extra-judicial confession before Mohinder Singh (PW13), they told him that a bottle of liquor was thrust in the mouth of Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi, as a result of which his teeth had broken and blood oozed out. Thereafter they struck the bottle on his neck, as a result of which he fell down. Then the accused kicked Gopi and he died. This, it was observed meant that in that liquor there was poison and that liquor was forcibly given to Gopi. Since the dead body of Gopi was at an advanced stage of putrification, it was not possible to detect any injury on the same. It was, therefore, observed that homicidal death of Gopi in this case is, thus, proved from the report (Ex PM/1) of the Board of Doctors.
Criminal Appeal 884 of 2004 and 14Criminal Revision 544 of 2005 After given our thoughtful consideration, we, however, are of the view that the said findings are inconsistent. There is no allegation in the entire prosecution case or even in the extra-judicial confession made by the appellants before Mohinder Singh (PW13) that any poison had been administered to Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi leave alone in the liquor that was forcibly thrust in his mouth. Besides, the observation that there was poison in the liquor, is not the case of the prosecution. No liquor is shown to have been recovered and neither has any such liquor been sent for analysis to ascertain whether it contained any poison of aluminum phosphide. Therefore, no case is made out of administering aluminum phosphide poison by the appellants to the deceased - Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi which apparently is the cause of death as per the opinion (Ex PM/1) of the Board of Doctors.
( S.S.SARON )
JUDGE
( SABINA )
ASR JUDGE
Criminal Appeal 884 of 2004 and 15
Criminal Revision 544 of 2005