Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rupinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 1 March, 2013
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Inderjit Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No.D-437-DB of 2009
Date of decision : 01.03.2013
Rupinder Singh
.... Appellant
VERSUS
State of Punjab
.... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
***
Present : Mr.R.S.Sekhon, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr.B.S.Bhalla, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State.
*** INDERJIT SINGH, J Appellant Rupinder Singh has preferred the present appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 10.04.2009 and order of sentence dated 15.04.2009, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, vide which he has been held guilty for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.
Brief facts of the prosecution case are that FIR in the present case has been registered on the statement of Rupinder Criminal Appeal No.D-437-DB of 2009 [2] Singh, complainant, who in his statement Ex.P38 stated that on 19.04.2006, as usual, his wife Charanjit Kaur and daughter Manvir Kaur had slept in the veranda and he had slept in the room which was behind the veranda. At about 2:30 a.m. (night), he heard the noise like falling of roof, on which, he woke up immediately and switched on the lights of the house and came out from the room alongwith his 12 bore DBBL licenced gun. The complainant saw in the veranda and found that his wife Charanjit Kaur and daughter Manvir Kaur were lying in the pool of blood on their respective cots, who had died due to fire arm injuries. The fires hit on their chests. After seeing that, he came in the courtyard and fired two shots in the air. Then he informed his brother Charanjit Singh, Ex-Sarpanch, on telephone that his wife and daughter have been killed by some one by causing fire arm injuries. The cause of grudge is that on 11.11.1991, the terrorists had killed the son and daughter of his brother Baltej Singh, who was residing in the village at that time, and his wife was injured. Paramjit Singh alias Pamma was convicted and sentenced in that case and he has now been released from the jail. About one week ago, Paramjit Singh alias Pamma had threatened the complainant on telephone that he wanted to see him (complainant) weeping on the road and two threatening letters were also sent to him because complainant was the main witness in that case and he had deposed against him (Paramjit Singh alias Pamma) in the Court. Due to that reason, the complainant suspected that Criminal Appeal No.D-437-DB of 2009 [3] Paramjit Singh alias Pamma has murdered his wife and daughter by causing fire arm injuries. After leaving Charanjit Singh on the spot, when the complainant alongwith Karnail Singh, Chowkidar was going to police station to report the matter, police party met him and his statement was recorded by Sub Inspector Harbans Singh, Police Station Zira, on 20.04.2006 and the same was completed at 7:30 a.m. Ruqa was sent to the police station on the basis of which FIR was registered. Then the Investigating Officer alongwith complainant reached the place of occurrence. Photographer also reached the spot. Dead bodies of Charanjit Kaur and her daughter Manvir Kaur were lying on the cots in the veranda of house of Rupinder Singh. The Investigating Officer prepared the inquest reports Ex.P41 and Ex.P42 of both the dead bodies separately. Thereafter, dead bodies were sent for postmortem examination. The blood spots were lifted from the cots of Manvir Kaur and Charanjit Kaur and after converting it into separate sealed parcels, the same were taken into police possession vide memos Ex.P43 and Ex.P44. Blood stained blanket, bed sheet, pillow etc. were also taken into police possession. Rupinder Singh, complainant (now accused in the present case) produced 12 bore gun alongwith two empties and Arms licence before the Investigating Officer and the same, after converting into separate sealed parcels, were taken into police possession vide memo Ex.P48. Rough site plan of the place of occurrence Ex.P49 was prepared. On 04.05.2006, when Criminal Appeal No.D-437-DB of 2009 [4] Investigating Officer alongwith other police officials was present at Kot Ise Khan Road, Nachhattar Singh son of Dalip Singh and Rupinder Singh met him. Nachhattar Singh got recorded his statement before the Investigating Officer and produced Rupinder Singh before him. In the meanwhile, another Nachhattar Singh son of Dalip Singh, brother-in-law (wife's brother) of Rupinder Singh came there. On interrogation, Rupinder Singh made disclosure statement that he has kept concealed two empties in the waste pipe of toilet situated next to gate and he only knew about the same and he can get the same recovered and in pursuance thereof he got recovered the same which were taken into police possession after preparing sealed parcel. Rough site plan Ex.P55 of the place of recovery was prepared. Plastic pipe was also taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.P56. Statements of witnesses were recorded. After necessary investigation, challan against the accused was presented before the Court.
On presentation of challan, copies of challan and other documents were supplied to accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Finding a prima facie case against the accused, he was charge- sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The prosecution, in support of its case, examined PW1 Dr.Gian Singh, who mainly deposed that on 20.04.2006, he alongwith Dr.Harpartap Singh, conducted the postmortem examination on the Criminal Appeal No.D-437-DB of 2009 [5] dead body of Charanjit Kaur and and found the following injuries on her person:-
"A lacerated punctured wound 6 cm x 3.5 cm on the left side of chest. .3 cm above from the aveola. Margins were inverted. On dissection, under the injury No.1 the third and fourth rib shattered next to heart and lung punctured. All the mussels and tissues under the injuries infiltrated with blood."
The cause of death, in the opinion of the doctors, is due to shock, haemorrhage and injury to the vital organs which was anti- mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Probable duration between injury and death was within few minutes and between death and postmortem was within 24 hours.
On the same day, the doctors conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Manvir Kaur and found the following injuries on her person:-
1. A lacerated wound 4 cm x 3 cm on the right side of chest front side. Margins were inverted.
2. A lacerated gutter shaped wound 4 cm x 4 cm on the right forearm posterolateral aspect of lower part. On dissection, under all injuries muscles and tissues were infiltrated with blood. Under the injury No.1, 5th rib shattered and right lung lacerated and right side of plural cavity injured and right thoracic cavity full of Criminal Appeal No.D-437-DB of 2009 [6] blood. Under the injury No.2, radius bone fractured.
The margins of injury No.2 are backend of skin present.
As per the opinion of the doctors, the cause of death in this case was also due to shock, haemorrhage and injury to vital organs i.e. lung which was ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The probable duration between injury and death was within few minutes and between death and postmortem was within 24 hours. The doctor (PW1) also handed over two plastic wads and eight pallets duly sealed to police. PW2 Sat Pal, photographer, mainly deposed regarding clicking the photographs Ex.P5 to Ex.P8 of the dead bodies. He also proved the negatives Ex.P9 to Ex.P12. PW3 Baljinder Singh, photographer, mainly deposed regarding clicking the photographs Ex.P14 to Ex.P22 of recovery. He also proved the negatives Ex.P23 to Ex.P31. PW4 Nachhattar Singh son of Dalip Singh, Sarpanch of the village and Vice Chairman of Market Committee Moga, is the witness of extra judicial confession. He deposed that at that time when he produced Rupinder Singh before the police, he was Chairman of Market Committee, Moga. The sister of Nachhattar Singh and Gurnam Singh was married with Rupinder Singh. On the intervening night of 19/20.04.2006, Charanjit Kaur and her daughter Manvir Kaur were murdered. Rupinder Singh got registered FIR against Paramjit Singh alias Pamma. PW4 Nachhattar Singh further deposed that Rupinder Criminal Appeal No.D-437-DB of 2009 [7] Singh, having good relations with him, used to come to meet him. Rupinder Singh came to him on 03.05.2006 when he was present in the office of Market Committee, Moga. Rupinder Singh told him that he had come to Moga for domestic work and to meet him. He (PW4) inquired from Rupinder Singh whether any clue has come out for the murder of Charanjit Kaur and Manvir Kaur. Rupinder Singh confessed before him that due to some domestic quarrels, he had committed mistake in killing his wife and daughter. Rupinder Singh also requested to produce him before the police of Police Station Zira as he is mentally perturbed. He (PW4) further deposed that the police party headed by Sub Inspector Harbans Singh met him near the bridge of 'seepage drain' and he produced Rupinder Singh before the police. PW5 Head Constable Paramjit Singh is a formal witness, who tendered into evidence his affidavits Ex.P33 and Ex.P34. PW6 Khushal Singh, Draftsman, mainly deposed regarding preparing of scaled site plans Ex.P35 and Ex.P36. PW7 Jarmal Singh, Ahlmad to the Court of Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur, brought the record regarding issuance of arms licence in the name of Rupinder Singh. He proved the licence Ex.P37. PW8 Sub Inspector Harbans Singh is the Investigating Officer, who deposed regarding the investigation conducted by him in this case. PW9 Nachhattar Singh son of Dalip Singh, brother of deceased Charanjit Kaur, mainly deposed regarding disclosure statement and recovery of two empties by the accused in pursuance of his disclosure statement. PW10 Criminal Appeal No.D-437-DB of 2009 [8] Jarmal Singh, Clerk, office of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Zira, deposed regarding arms lincence issued to accused Rupinder Singh. PW11 Head Constable Ajmer Singh is a formal witness, who tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.P38.
At the close of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and confronted with the evidence of prosecution. The accused denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded himself as innocent. He also pleaded that it is a false case. He has been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of his brother-in-law Nachhattar Singh in order to grab his land. The FIR regarding murder of his wife and daughter was got lodged by him against Swaranjit Singh alias Pamma son of Darshan Singh resident of village Pandori Jattan but after lapse of time when the police failed to trace the real culprit he was falsely implicated in this case after making false story. Nachhattar Singh, Chairman PW belongs to village of his brother-in-law Nachhattar Singh and is close to them and he is a made up witness. False story of extra judicial confession has been coined. No recovery was effected at his instance and he was forced to pose for photograph. The alleged recoveries have been manipulated and planted on him as he had handed over his gun to the police on the day when the police came to his house first time after the murder of his wife and daughter. The reports of Forensic Science Laboratory are manipulated.
The trial Court, after appreciation of evidence, convicted Criminal Appeal No.D-437-DB of 2009 [9] and sentenced the appellant-accused, as stated above.
At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the statement of PW4 Nachhattar Singh regarding extra judicial confession of appellant-accused is not believable. This witness has been confronted with his statement recorded before the police where it has not been specifically mentioned that accused has killed his wife Charanjit Kaur and daughter Manvir Kaur. Learned counsel for the appellant next contended that PW8 Sub Inspector Harbans Singh, Investigating Officer, in cross-examination, has stated that the dog squad was brought to the place of occurrence but the dogs had not pointed towards appellant Rupinder Singh. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant contended that this fact shows innocence of the accused. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that no independent witness was joined at the time of recovery. Hence, recovery of two empties, as per disclosure statement of accused, cannot be believed and this recovery has been falsely planted upon the accused. Learned counsel for the appellant next contended that there is only Forensic Science Laboratory report which is based on the false recoveries shown from the accused. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant contended that a reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution version. The appeal should be accepted and the appellant should be acquitted accordingly.
On the other hand, learned Addl. Advocate General, Criminal Appeal No.D-437-DB of 2009 [10] Punjab, contended that the murder of Charanjit Kaur and Manvir Kaur took place in the house of accused and burden to prove the occurrence lies upon the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Learned Addl. Advocate General, Punjab, further contended that the Forensic Science Laboratory reports connect the empties, got recovered by the accused, with the crime which have been fired from the licenced gun of Rupinder Singh. Learned Addl. Advocate General, Punjab further contended that extra judicial confession made by the accused before PW4 Nachhattar Singh also proves his guilt. Recovery of empties also proves the prosecution version. Therefore, learned Addl. Advocate General, Punjab, contended that there being no merit in the appeal, the same should be dismissed.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Addl. Advocate General, Punjab and with their assistance, we have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully.
From the evidence on record, we find no merit in the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant. It is a case of circumstantial evidence. Accused Rupinder Singh got registered the FIR, raising his suspicion against one Paramjit Singh alias Pamma but accused was nominated on the basis of extra judicial confession, made before PW4 Nachhattar Singh. PW4 Nachhattar Singh is the Sarpanch of village and at that time he was also the Chairman of Market Committee, Moga. Therefore, he is the respectable person. It is also in the statement of PW4 Nachhattar Singh that accused Criminal Appeal No.D-437-DB of 2009 [11] Rupinder Singh was having good relations with him (PW4) and he used to come to meet him. Therefore, there is nothing on the record to disbelieve his statement. PW4 Nachhattar Singh, Sarpanch and Chairman, is a respectable person and the accused reposed confidence in him and took his help to get produced him (accused) before the police. The fact that PW4 Nachhattar Singh produced the accused before the police further makes his statement reliable. The Investigating Officer has also stated that the accused had been produced before him by PW4 Nachattar Singh. As regarding the fact that this witness has been confronted with his statement Ex.D1 wherein it has not been specifically mentioned that accused has killed his wife Charanjit Kaur and daughter Manvir Kaur, we find from the perusal of Ex.D1 that accused has clearly confessed his guilt before PW4 Nachhattar Singh. The accused has stated that "a small quarrel had taken place in their house and due to this he did mistake and as a result of it he has destroyed his family". Now he is restless. He (PW4), being chairman, has good terms with police officer. Please save him and produce him before the police. From this statement Ex.D1, it is clear that the accused made extra judicial confession before PW4 Nachhattar Singh, who is a reliable, truthful and trustworthy witness. There is nothing in his cross-examination which may make his statement unreliable. Production of accused before the police by PW4 Nachhattar Singh further supports and corroborates the prosecution version. The mere fact that PW8 Sub Criminal Appeal No.D-437-DB of 2009 [12] Inspector Harbans Singh , in cross-examination, has stated that dogs have not pointed towards accused Rupinder Singh, does not create any reasonable doubt in the prosecution version. Appellant-accused Rupinder Singh was residing in the same house. Charanit Kaur and Manvir Kaur were killed by fire arm injury from a distance as there was no blackening present around the wound. Therefore, if the dog has not pointed towards the accused, it does not create any doubt as Rupinder Singh was residing in the same house. Therefore, everywhere in the house, there can be his smell. Therefore, no benefit can be taken from this fact.
As regarding the recovery of two empties of 12 bore gun, we find that accused made disclosure statement and in pursuance thereof got recovered two empties. The photographer has taken the photographs which have been duly proved on the record. The police officials have no motive or enmity to falsely implicate the accused in the present case. PW3 Baljinder Singh, who had taken the photographs of the accused and the place from where the accused got recovered empties, is also an independent witness. Therefore, on this ground, no reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution version. The recovery of two empties in pursuance of disclosure statement of accused further supports and corroborates the prosecution version. Earlier gun and two empties, which were produced by the accused, were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory on 04.05.2006 vide letter No.10320/C dated 04.05.2006. As per Criminal Appeal No.D-437-DB of 2009 [13] Forensic Science Laboratory report Ex.P59, two empties C1 and C2 had been found fired from right barrel and left barrel of 12 bore DBBL gun No.87999 respectively. Again another two empties were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory vide letter No.11292/C dated 17.05.2006. As per Forensic Science Laboratory report Ex.P60, the empty C-4, contained in parcel 'I' had been fired from right barrel of 12 bore DBBL gun bearing No.87999 which means that the empty which the accused got recovered in pursuance of his disclosure statement was fired from his licenced gun. Both the Forensic Science Laboratory reports Ex.P59 and Ex.P60 further support and corroborate the prosecution version. The evidence, produced by the prosecution only points towards the guilt of the accused. The conduct of the accused by making false report to the police further completes the missing links of the chain. Moreover, the murder had taken place in the house of accused Rupinder Singh and under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the facts, which are especially within the knowledge of a person, are to be proved by him. But from the record, we find that there is no cogent explanation nor evidence produced by the accused to show how the occurrence took place in his house. Rather, other empties which were got recovered by the accused as per his disclosure statement contradict his version that he fired only two shots in the air. Otherwise also, it looks improbable that accused did not hear the firing of shots. Therefore, the version given by accused Rupinder Singh in his statement under Section 313 Criminal Appeal No.D-437-DB of 2009 [14] Cr.P.C. and in the FIR is not believable nor proved by producing any defence evidence. The chain of circumstances is complete and points towards the guilt of the accused only and none else.
Therefore, from the evidence on record, we find that the prosecution has duly proved its case by leading cogent evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Defence version given by accused in his statement under Section 313 is not believable. As such, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the appellant-accused are upheld and the appeal having no merit is dismissed.
(JASBIR SINGH) (INDERJIT SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
01.03.2013
mamta