Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sarabjeet Singh @ Seera vs State Of Punjab on 13 February, 2012
Author: T.P.S. Mann
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, T.P.S. Mann
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. D-753-DB of 2008
Date of Decision : February 13, 2012
Sarabjeet Singh @ Seera
....Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present : Mr. Jagmohan Singh Ghumman, Advocate
for the appellant.
Ms. Ritu Punj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab
T.P.S. MANN, J.
The appellant was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A IPC. Vide judgment and order dated 25.9.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, the appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. He was also convicted under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Crl. Appeal No. D-753-DB of 2008 -2-
According to the prosecution, on 27.8.2006, complainant-Major Singh, Sarpanch of village Ramsra, alongwith other Panchayat members, came to Police Station Raman and submitted a written complaint Ex.PA before SI Gurprit Singh, Station House Officer, to the effect that the appellant, who was his co-villager, was married to Sukhpreet Kaur, daughter of Charat Singh, resident of Dabwali about three years ago. The appellant used to frequently beat his wife and his own family members. His mother and uncle Balraj Singh on being frightened from him started living at Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa. The parents of the appellant often visited the Gram Panchayat of village Ramsra in connection with beating up of Sukhpreet Kaur. The appellant used to state in the presence of his mother-in-law and father-in-law that he would murder his wife and dispose of her body at such a place that no clue could be found of her. About three/four days ago, the appellant picked up a quarrel with his wife and, ever since then, she was missing therefrom and not traceable. The Gram Panchayat of village Ramsra inquired from the appellant about the cause of quarrel but he did not give satisfactory reply and stated that she had gone to her parents' home. The complainant and others went to her parents' home but she was not found present there. The parents of Sukhpreet Kaur were, at that time, lodged in jail in some criminal case. The complainant suspected hand of the appellant in the Crl. Appeal No. D-753-DB of 2008 -3- disappearance of his wife. SI Gurprit Singh made his endorsement on the aforesaid complaint submitted by the complainant and on its basis, FIR No. 97 dated 27.8.2006 (Ex.PA/2), under Sections 302 and 201 IPC was registered against the appellant.
Further case of the prosecution is that during the course of investigation, the police party raided the house of the appellant but the same was found locked. On 28.8.2006, the police party headed by SI Gurprit Singh, was present at Railway Chowk, Raman where the complainant met and informed him that the appellant was present at Railway Station, Raman for boarding a train to Delhi. On receipt of information, SI Gurprit Singh, alongwith others, visited Railway Station Raman and arrested the appellant. The appellant suffered a disclosure statement Ex.PD to the effect that he had buried the dead body of his wife Sukhpreet Kaur near a guava plant in the court-yard of his house after killing her by giving electric shock and he could get the same recovered. Thereafter, SI Gurprit Singh submitted two applications i.e. one to SDM, Talwandi Sabo for deputing some Executive Magistrate and the other to the SMO, Civil Hospital, Talwandi Sabo for deputing some Medical Officer to accompany the police to the designated place. Accordingly, Shri Darshan Singh Sidhu, Executive Magistrate-cum-Naib Tehsildar and Crl. Appeal No. D-753-DB of 2008 -4- Dr.Daler Singh Multani, Medical Officer were deputed for this purpose. DSP Gurmit Singh, Circle, Talwandi Sabo was also requested to come to the spot. Thereafter, the appellant led the police party to the specified place of concealment of the dead body where he excavated the dead body with a spade from a place near the guava plant in the court-yard of his house at village Ramsra in the presence of the witnesses. The dead body was naked and in a decomposed condition. There was some bangle type article in the arm of the dead body. The dead body was taken into possession vide separate memo. Ex. PE which was attested by the Executive Magistrate, the Medical Officer and the DSP. Inquest on the dead body was conducted. The photographs of the spot were taken and one CD was also prepared which were taken into possession. The spade and electric wire were also recovered from the spot which were made into sealed parcels and sealed with the seal impression 'GS' and taken into possession vide memo. Ex PF. The rough site-plan of the place of recovery was also prepared. The dead body was sent for post mortem through Head Constable Mehnga Singh, who, later on, handed over two sealed parcels to the Investigating Officer, which he had received from the concerned doctor and sealed with seal impression of the doctor. The same were duly deposited in the Malkhana of Police Station Raman. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Charat Singh, Crl. Appeal No. D-753-DB of 2008 -5- father of deceased Sukhpreet Kaur and that of other witnesses.
Upon completion of investigation and presentation of challan followed by its commitment to the Court of Sessions, the appellant was charged for the aforementioned offences, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 Charat Singh, PW2 Major Singh, PW3 Dr. Daler Singh Multani, PW4 ASI Darshan Singh, PW5 HC Gurdas Singh, PW6 DSP Gurmit Singh, PW7 Shri Darshan Singh, Naib Tehsildar, Kotkapura, PW8 Jaswinder Singh, PW9 Dr. Maninder Singh, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Bathinda, PW10 HC Mehnga Singh and PW11 SI Gurprit Singh.
When the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded his false implication. The appellant explained that his wife used to remain depressed as she was unable to bear a child. She used to take medicines for this purpose and remained unhappy and committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance in his absence when he was away to Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa. He was arrested from Railway Station, Raman. He never got the dead body of his wife recovered in the presence of the police and has been falsely implicated in this case on account of party faction in the village.
Crl. Appeal No. D-753-DB of 2008 -6-
In defence, the appellant examined his mother Balbir Kaur as DW1.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence available on the record, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned above.
Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the evidence scanned minutely with their able assistance.
Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the prosecution case on the ground that there was no ocular account of the occurrence. The circumstances relied upon by the persecution were not sufficient to conclude that it was the appellant who had been treating his wife with cruelty or had committed her murder.
It is true that the prosecution did not examine any witness in whose presence the appellant had committed the murder of his wife Sukhpreet Kaur. However, it relied upon various circumstances to establish the involvement of the appellant in the crime. To begin with, the prosecution relied upon the testimonies of PW1 Charat Singh and PW2 Major Singh, who had deposed that the appellant used to maltreat, taunt and beat his wife Sukhpreet Kaur and such treatment had started six months after the marriage. So much so, according to PW1, who is father of deceased Sukhpreet Kaur, the appellant had been Crl. Appeal No. D-753-DB of 2008 -7- demanding dowry from him. Further, the appellant was addicted to liquor and had even once mercilessly beaten Sukhpreet Kaur and broken her left arm. Even when PW1 Charat Singh had been visiting the house of his daughter, the appellant would extent a threat that he would kill Sukhpreeet Kaur and dispose of her dead body. Merely because PW1 Charat Singh had admitted in his cross-examination that the deceased had been taking medicine for begetting a child and she had been remaining unhappy on account of not giving birth to a child is not sufficient to hold that the appellant had not been treating her with cruelty or that it was deceased herself who had committed suicide by taking some pesticide.
The prosecution had further relied upon the testimony of PW2 Major Singh when he deposed that after Sukhpreet Kaur went missing and on enquiry from her parents' house it was learnt that she had not gone there, said Major Singh alongwith other members of the Panchayat and some villagers had visited the house of the appellant and requested him to state correct facts regarding the missing of his wife. Upon this, the appellant replied that he had done what he wanted and they should do whatever they wished. This made PW2 Major Singh and others believe that it was the appellant who had murdered his wife and disposed of her dead body. This was followed by Major Singh submitting Crl. Appeal No. D-753-DB of 2008 -8- application Ex.PA before the police and after registration of the case, the appellant was apprehended and on interrogation, suffered disclosure statement that he had concealed the dead body of his wife Sukhpreet Kaur by burying the same in the courtyard of his house. After recording statement Ex.PD of the appellant, the police requisitioned the services of PW7 Shri Darshan Singh, Naib Tehsildar, Kot Kapura and PW3 Dr. Daler Singh Multani and in their presence the appellant led police party to his house. He himself dug out the earth leading to the recovery of the dead body. At that time the dead body was naked and in a decomposed condition. Both, PW7 Shri Darshan Singh, Naib Tehsildar and PW3 Dr. Daler Singh Multani confirmed the factum of taking out of dead body of Sukhpreet Kaur by the appellant after digging out earth from a place in the courtyard of his house. If the deceased had committed suicide on account of suffering from depression because of not begetting a child, the appellant ought to have cremated the dead body at the proper burial place. The factum of dead body being recovered from the courtyard of the house of the appellant clearly proves the fact that it was the appellant who had first murdered his wife Sukhpreet Kaur and then buried her dead body in the courtyard of his house.
The dead body of Sukhpreet Kaur was subjected to post mortem by PW9 Dr. Maninder Singh. He had found the dead Crl. Appeal No. D-753-DB of 2008 -9- body to be decomposed, foul smelling and covered with soil. The face and abdomen were bloated. Skin was pealed off at various places. Viscera was decomposed and foul smelling. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was due to organo- phosphorus compound of pesticides as mentioned in the report of Chemical Examiner. The probable time between death and postmortem was between three to five days. In his cross- examination PW9 Dr. Maninder Singh deposed that if organo- phosphorus Compound was given forcibly to a person, there would be injuries on the face, lips and mouth of the victim. Though the doctor did not notice the presence of injuries on the face, lips and mouth of the victim yet no such injury could have been possibly there as a period of three to five days had already elapsed since the death and the dead body had already decomposed. Besides, the face was bloated and skin had pealed off at many places.
The non-joining of any independent person at the time of recording of the disclosure statement as well as at the time of recovery of dead body has been highlighted by the defence. However, PW2 Major Singh, in whose presence the appellant had suffered the disclosure statement, has not been shown to be having any enmity against the appellant. He is a respectable person being member of the Gram Panchayat. Similarly, at the Crl. Appeal No. D-753-DB of 2008 -10- time of recovery of the dead body at the instance of the appellant, PW3 Dr. Daler Singh Multani and PW7 Shri Darshan Singh, Naib Tehsildar, Kot Kapura were present. Both of them categorically deposed about the appellant leading the police party to his house and after pointing out the place, digging it up and the dead body recovered as a result of thereof, No motive could be imputed to either PW3 or PW7 for deposing falsely against the appellant.
In view of the above, it cannot be said that the prosecution had not led sufficient evidence to corroborate the various circumstances which it had pointed out against the appellant. In fact, the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete from which one and the only conclusion that can be arrived at is that it was the appellant who had been treating his wife Sukhpreet Kaur with cruelty and it was he who had committed her murder and thereafter concealed her dead body in the courtyard of his house in order to conceal the evidence of murder.
Resultantly, the appeal is without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ( T.P.S. MANN )
JUDGE JUDGE
February 13, 2012
satish