Punjab-Haryana High Court
Niranjan Lal vs State Of Haryana on 22 September, 1993
Equivalent citations: 1995CRILJ248
JUDGMENT Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.
1. This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 400-DB of 1991 Niranjan Lal Versus State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 404-DB of 1991 Chander Bhan Versus State of Haryana and Criminal Appeal No. 467-DB of 1991 Sushil Kumar, Versus State of Haryana.
2. These three appeals have been filed by four appellants who were jointly tried along with Mst Suresh by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari for offences under 302,392 read with Sections 34, and 201, of Penal Code. After trial Mst. Suresh' who was charged for an offence under Section 201, IPC was acquitteed while the four appellants were held guilty for offences under Sections 302,392, read with 34, IPC for committing the murder of Krishan son of Behari in village Nanglia and for removing his tractor and wrist watch. They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each under Section 302/34, IPC and to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-each for the offence under Section 392/34, IPC. Although no charge was framed against them under Section 25 of the Arms Act yet Pappu alias Chander Bhan and Sushil appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for this offence.
3. The case of the prosecution as unfolded from the evidence on record is as follows :
Complainant Subhash and his brothers Krishan and Jaswant, who owned about 65 acres of land, resided in village Nanglia. They had purchased one tractor mark Ford of blue colour. Although registration number of the tractor was HNM-633 yet no number plate was affixed on the tractor. On July 2,1989 at about 3-00 P.M. three persons came to the house of Krishan deceased and agreed to purchase the tractor for Rs. 1,36,000/-. They paid Rs. 50/- as advance money and told that they will pay the remaining consideration on July 4, 1989. On the same evening, Krishan deceased went to the fields with the tractor for ploughing the land and he did not return till 11.00 P.M. His brother Jaswant searched for him in the fields but he neither found Krishan nor the tractor. He gave this information to his elder brother Subhash. Subhash joined with him Jaswant and Shiv Karan and went in search of Krishan, when he found harrow of the tractor lying in the field near the dead body of Krishan which was smered with blood. The tractor was missing. After leaving Shiv Karan and Jaswant at the spot, Subhash accompanied by Ram Kumar and Rattan Lal went to Police Station Jatusana and lodged a report there at 2-30 A.M. He suspected these three persons for the commission of murder of his brother and removal of the tractor whose description was incorporated in the first information report.
4. Sub Inspector Ram Nath investigated the case. He visited the spot and took into possession one blood stained 'Gulla', blood stained earth and harrow vide separate recovery memos. He detected four foot marks near the dead body of which moulds were prepared. After inquest report was prepared, the dead body was sent for post mortem examination.
5. The autopsy on the dead body of Krishan was conducted by Dr. G. P. Aggarwal, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Rewari, who observed the following injuries on the dead body :
(1) An incised wound 1 x 1/4 cm. over the left parietal bone of the skull, bone deep (posterior part).
(2) An incised wound 2 x 1/2" on the right angle of the mouth extending to the right cheek.
(3) A bruise 1" x 1/2" on the front of the chin, red in colour.
(4) An incised wound 4" x 2" on the right lateral side of the neck, upper part 3/4" deep. Underlying subcutaneous tissue, muscles and major muscles of the neck were cut.
(5) A bruise 3 x 4" on the right side of the back above the right hip bone, red in colour.
In the opinion of the doctor, the death was due to shock and haemorrhage on account of the injuries which were ante-mortem and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
6. The investigating officer searched for the accused but he could not find any clue. On 8th July, 1989 one Ram Karan disclosed that he had gone to the house Niranjan appellant where Pappu and Sushil appellants were also present and Niranjan was telling them that they should not visit him frequently so that they might not be suspected regarding the murder of Krishan and that he will come and settle the matter regarding tractor. Even after this disclosure the appellants could not be apprehended. On July 23, 1989, at about, 10-00 A.M. Surat Singh Sarpanch was present at his shop when all the appellants approached him and made an extra judicial confession regarding the murder of Krishan and removal of the tractor. Surat Singh and Banwari a resident of Noorgarh then produced the appellant before the police and they were arrested. Their footwears (Chappals) were taken into possession vide recovery memos Ex.PC to Ex. PF. On the same day, Sanjay appellant was interrogated by Sub Inspector Ram Nath and he made a disclosure statement that he had kept concealed a tractor in village Musepur Jalal, District Aligarh (Uttar Pradesh) under the heap of Pullas and he could get the same recovered. In pursuance of his disclosure statement Sanjay got recovered tractor Ex.P.l on July 25, 1989fromvillageMusepur in the presence of Ram Karan and Mam Raj PWs.
7. On the day, when the appellants were arrested Sushil and Pappu suffered disclosure statements and got recovered knives Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 respectively while Niranjan appellant in pursuance of a disclosure statement got recovered one wrist watch Ex.P.7 which was alleged to be that of the deceased.
8. On July 27,1989 Khalil Ahmad Tehsildar, Rewari under the orders of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rewari went to sub-jail and took foot moulds of all the four appellants and prepared memo Ex.PK. The crime and specimen moulds were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban and four specimen foot-print moulds i.e. one of each appellant agreed with one of the crime moulds. Human blood was detected on various articles but origin of blood on one of the knives could not be detected as it had disintegrated. There was no blood on the other knife.
9. The prosecution in order to prove the allegation against the appellants examined 17 witnesses and also produced the articles recovered from the spot and those recovered at the instance of the appellants.
10. All the appellants denied their complicity in the crime and stated that they were falsely involved. Niranjan and Papu alleged that they were arrested much before July 23,1989. Sanjay and Sushil, who were real brothers, stated that they were arrested from their village in Uttar Pradesh on July 15, 1989 at 7-30 P.M. by Haryana Police and in Police Station, Jatusana, they were supplied the shoes and chappals and the alleged crime moulds were lifted. The tractor was already parked in front of the police station. In defence five witnesses were examined. After perusing the evidence and hearing the counsel for' the parties, the trial Court held the appellants guilty and sentenced them as referred to above. Aggrieved by the judgment dated Oct. 1, 1991 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, the appellants filed these appeals.
11. From the medical evidence on record, there remains no doubt that Krishan died an unnatural death on account of the injuries sustained by him, but there is no direct evidence regarding the commission of the offence by the appellants. The entire prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence. The question, therefore, is whether the prosecution proved guilt of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. In a case of circumstantial evidence all the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully and cogently established. All the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The proved circumstances should be of conclusive nature and definite tendency, unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. They should be such as to exclude every hypoth-esis but the one proposed to be proved. In the instant case the circumstnces relied upon by the prosecution are :
(i) extra-judicial confession made by the appellants;
(ii) recovery of the tractor, knives and wrist watch belonging to the deceased; and
(iii) comparison of foot moulds of the appellants lifted from the spot with their specimen foot moulds taken by the Tehsildar.
12. It was argued on behalf of the appellants that evidence regarding extra judicial confession was fabricated and no reliance could be placed on the statement of Surat Singh PW 3 to whom the extra-judicial confession was made jointly by all the appellants. There was nothing on record to show as to why the appellants took Surat Singh into confidence and made confession of the crime when they did not know the witness earlier and had absolutely no intimacy with him. The prosecution failed to establish as to why the appellants reposed confidence in a complete stranger. This contention of the learned counsel holds good. The appellants in this case belongs to different villagers. Sushil and Sanjay are real brothers and they are residents of village Musepur Jalal, District Aligarh (Uttar Pradesh). Niranjan Lal belongs to village Nanglia while Pappu was a resident of village Taoru, District Gurgaon. None of the appellants had any relation residing in village Palhawas where Surat Singh PW 3 resided. In fact the alleged confession was not made even at Palhawas but according to Surat Singh he was present in village Haily-Mandi where the appellant came and confessed that they had a hand in the murder of Krishan. The confession made to this witness is joint and he had not disclosed the exact words spoken by the appellants. The witness had no influence with the police so as to save the appellants from unnecessary harassment. He was not even consistent in his statement. According to his statement under Section 161, Cr. PC, the appellants had approached him while he was present at his shop. In his statement in Court, he deposed that he was present at his house when the appellants came and made confession. He was duly confronted with his statement Ex. DC. He admitted that his shop was at a distance from his house. In the case of Heramba Brahma v. State of Assam AIR 1982 SC 1593 : (1983 Cri. LJ 149), it was claimed that the accused persons made confession to an under-trial in jail awaiting trial for dacoity and the High Court accepted the evidence of extra-judicial confession without examining the credentials of the witness, without ascertaining the words used, without referring to the decision of Supreme Court where it is succinctly stated that extra-judicial confession to afford a piece of reliable evidence must pass the test of re-production of exact words, the reason or motive for confession and the person selected in whom confidence is reposed. It was held :
The evidence of extra-judicial confession was unworthy of belief and could not be taken to corroborate any other evidence.
In the instant case a joint confession was made by all the appellants to a person with whom they had no intimacy. It is not disclosed as to who out of the appellants disclosed the facts relating to the occurrence because all of them could not state at the same time the same words. No reason was given for the confession and for the person selected for that purpose. So confession to such a person who was not even sure about the place where the appellants contacted him is devoid of any credibility. Even otherwise Surat Singh is not a person on whose testimony implicit faith could be placed. He alleged himself to be the Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat but admitted that he was no longer the Sarpanch. He, however, denied the suggestion that he was charged with misappropriation of Panchayat funds and after a case was registered against him he was forced to resign from the post of Sarpanch. He also admitted in his cross-examination that when he produced the appellants before the police his statement was not recorded. The testimony of this witness is therefore, suspicious and no reliance can be placed on the same.
13. The prosecution further tried to connect the appellants with the commission of crime by producing evidence to the effect that in pursuance to the disclosure statement of Sanjay the tractor belonging to the deceased was recovered from village Musepur Jalal in Uttar Pradesh. It was urged that evidence regarding recovery of the tractor was highly doubtful and no reliance could be placed on the same. In fact, the tractor was already parked in the police station when the appellants were arrested. To prove the recovery of the tractor the prosecution examined Ram Kumar PW 2 and the investigating officer Sub Inspector Ram Nath PW 12. The other witness of the recovery, namely, Mam Raj was given up. As per version of the prosecution Sanjay made a disclosure statement on July 23,1989, but recovery was effected two days later. Ram Kumar belonged to the village of the deceased and had gone to the police station along with many other residents of his village on coming to know of the arrest of the appellants. Although recovery was effected from a village in Musepur Jalal the investigating officer did not take into confidence any person belonging to that village. The statements of the two witnesses were also highly discrepant and no reliance could be placed on the same.
14. We find merit in this contention of the learned counsel. Since the recovery was alleged to have been effected from a village in Uttar Pradesh, the investigating officer from Haryana was required to give information to the local police regarding his arrival for the purpose of effecting recovery. When cross-examined with respect to this aspect of the case, Sub Inspector Ram Nath PW 12 stated that he had gone to the police station within whose jurisdiction village Musepur Jalal was located and he got entries made about his arrival in the daily diary of the concerned police station. According to him village Musepur Jalal fall within the jurisdicton of Police Station, Kawarsi. Ram Kumar PW 2 denied the fact that Sub Inspector Ram Nath went to any police station before effecting the recovery of the tractor. Statement of the investigating officer was belied by the statement of Meer Lal constable of police station, Kawarsi, who was examined as DW 4. This witness was summoned with the daily diary register of July 25, 1989 of the concerned police station and he deposed that there was no entry regarding the arrival of any police from Haryana or recovery of the tractor. The statement of this witness, therefore, leads to an inference that the Sub Inspector and the witness had never gone to Police Station, Kawarsi or to village Musepur Jalal to effect the recovery of the tractor. The recovery was also not effected immediately after the alleged disclosure statement of Sanjay was recorded. For two days no action was taken which will further lend support to the defence version that in fact the tractor was already parked in the police station. This circumstance itself is suspicious that murder of Krishan was committed for taking away the tractor. Admittedly, Niranjan appellant had his own tractor and none of the appellants were shown to be connected with Niranjan. They belonged to different places and the prosecution could not explain as to how they happened to join in the commission of this offence. The complainant who is real brother of the deceased was unable to give even the correct registration number of the tractor while reporting the matter to the police. Registration number given by him was HNM-306 while actually the tractor that was recovered bore registration No.HNM-633. In this way recovery of the tractor is doubtful and is not a circumstance conclusive to prove the guilt of the appellants.
15. As regards the recovery of one wrist watch at the instance of Niranjan, PW 13 Mahavir Singh, a cousin f the deceased, was examined to depose that in pursuance to the disclosure statement Niranjan appellant got recovered wrist watch. Ex.P.7 from the 'Chhan' of his shed. He further stated that wrist watch Ex.P. 7 was purchased by him for the deceased. The evidence regarding recovery of wrist watch seems to be an afterthought. When the first information report was lodged, the brother of the deceased did not say that the deceased was having a wrist watch, which was found missinng. It was only subsequently that this evidence was introduced. The wrist watch was admitted to be of common pattern and there was no number of the watch in the cash memo that was produced by,PW 13. The wrist watch is not such a valuable commodity that the appellant would keep it concealed in his house. It is difficult to understand why the appellants committed robbery of such an insignificant article and then retained the same unless they merely wanted to place some evidence against them at the disposal of the police. Recovery of the wrist watch is, thus, not such a valuable piece of evidence so as to lead to a conclusion that the appellants were the only persons who were guilty of the offence.
16. The recovery of two knives recovered at the instance of Pappu and Sushil appellants is 'also not of much significance as one of the knives did not have any blood and the blood on the other knife was disintegrated. The witnesses examined ' to prove the recoveries were interested in the prosecution being the collaterals of the deceased and no independent witness was taken into confidence.
17. The next piece of evidence on which the prosecution based reliance was the lifting of fooot moulds from the scence of occurrence and comparison of the same with the specimen foot moulds of the appellants. This piece of evidence is also suspicious. It has come in the statements of prosecution witnesses that before the arrival of the police about 50-60 persons from the village had visited the place of occurrence which was a ploughed field. Although two persons were left to guard the spot, there is nothing to suggest that any foot prints were preserved by them. It was only when the investigating officer reached the spot that he noticed only four foot prints of which the moulds were prepared. This lifting of four foot moulds, when no mention of the same is made in the inquest report, is highly doubtful. Shokar Pal PW 11 was examined by the prosecution regarding the lifting of foot moulds from the spot. He stated that police took into possession Gulla, blood stained earth and a harrow from the spot and also lifted four foot prints from the scene of occurrence after moulds were prepared. But this statement regarding moulds is an addition made by the witness in his statement in Court. The statement of the witness was recorded in the inquest report Ex.PX wherein he did not make any mention about the lifting of foot moulds from the spot though he was specific regarding the other recoveries made by the police at the time the inquest was prepared. It has also come in evidence that as soon as the appellants were arrested their footwears were seized vide separate recovery memos. There is, however, nothing on record to show that when specimen moulds were prepared by Khalil Ahmad those very shoes were returned to the appellants and they were asked to wear the same. Statement of PW 6 Tehsildar, Rewari who took specimen foot moulds is silent about that fact. Rather in his cross-examination, he deposed that the appellants were never provided any shoes or Chappals in his presence. All these circumstances show that in fact no crime moulds were prepared at the spot and all the moulds were prepared after the arrest of the appellants. This contention is further fortified from the fact that crime moulds were not sent immediately to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory. The appellants' version was that they were arrested much before the time their actual arrest was shown and some telegrams were also sent to the senior police officers regarding their apprehension by the police. It is too good a co-incident to be believed that the investigating officer only noticed four foot prints near the place of occurrence which spot had been visited by numerous persons before his arrival and then those foot prints tallied with one specimen foot mould of each of the appellants. The evidence regarding foot moulds was procured evidence and that is why some interpolation had to be made in the register Malkhana maintained in the police station. PW 7 Babu Lal head constable admitted in his cross-examination that in the register of Malkhana there was cutting regarding the number of moulds of shoes and chappals and numbers were altered. Even otherwise the science of identification of foot prints is a rudimentary science and much reliance cannot be placed on the result of such identification. In the case of Chandran Surendran v. State of Kerala (1990) 3 Rec Cri R 644 : (1990 Cri. LJ 2296) where robbery and murder were committed and the case was based on circumstanial evidence; Finger prints found on two glass pieces at the place of occurrence tallied with finger prints of the accused and some recovery was also made at the instance of the accused and some recovery was also made at the instance of the accused , it was held by the Apex Court that these were scanty pieces of circumstantial evidence highly hazardous to rely for conviction of the accused. Considering the evidence regarding comparison of crime moulds with specimen moulds as discussed above, we find that no reliance can be placed on the same in order to connect the appellants with the commission of the crime.
18. In the present case the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellants by leading evidence depicting circumstances of a conclusive nature. It cannot be denied that suspicion and conjectures should not take the place of legal proof. Since there is no conclusive evidence pointing only to the guilt of the appellants, their conviction cannot be maintained.
19. As a result of the above discussion we accept all the three appeals, set aside the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants and acquit them of the offences with which they were charged. They shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.