Delhi District Court
Fir No. 194/04; State vs . Paramjeet Singh Page 1 Of 43 on 16 November, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAVINDER DUDEJA : ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE03:NW:ROHINI:DELHI
SESSIONS CASE NO. 29/08.
FIR No. 194/04
P.S. Tilak Nagar.
U/S: 302 IPC.
STATE
Versus
Paramjeet Singh,
S/o Sh. Gyan Singh,
R/o WZ46, Plot No. 39,
Gali No. 2, Ravi Nagar,
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi.
Date of Institution : 03.07.2004.
Date of Argument : 28.09.2011.
Date of Judgment : 16.11.2011.
J U D G M E N T
1. Prosecution case is that on 04.04.2004, on receipt of wireless information that a person stabbed his children with knife at WZ46, Plot No. 39, Gali No. 2, Ravi Nagar, Inspector Pratap Singh, Additional SHO, PS Tilak Nagar reached at the spot where FIR No. 194/04; State Vs. Paramjeet Singh Page 1 of 43 Constable Ram Singh produced accused Paramjit Singh and informed that Paramajit Singh had stabbed his children with scissor. Blood stained scissor and blood were lying at the spot. On enquiry, Inspector Pratap Singh came to know that the injured had been rushed to DDU Hospital by the landlord and the PCR van. Inspector Pratap Singh then went to DDU Hospital where Daljeet Singh, Balwinder Kaur and Arvin Kaur were found under treatment and Jaspreet Kaur was declared "brought dead" by the doctor. Smt. Balwinder Kaur gave statement that she had got married with Paramjit Singh about 13 years ago and was having three children, Jaspreet Kaur, aged about 12 years, Arvin Kaur, aged about 11 years and Daljeet Singh @ Golu aged about 11 years. She stated that her husband Paramjit Singh was earlier a TSR driver and was addicted to liquor and gambling and because of these habits, he sold his TSR and was unemployed since last 34 months and she was bearing the household expenditure by doing sewing work at her house. She stated that Paramjit Singh used to ask her to bring money from her house for the purchase of truck but she refused and on account of this, Paramjit Singh used to frequently quarrel with her and threatened that she and her children would be killed in case she did not bring the money. She FIR No. 194/04; State Vs. Paramjeet Singh Page 2 of 43 further stated that in the night, they were sleeping in the room and at about 4.00 am, she got up on hearing the cries of her daughter Jaspreet Kaur who was also sleeping with her on the bed. She saw that her husband Paramjit Singh, who was having two blades of scissor in his both hands, was attacking at Jaspreet Kaur with the blades of scissor. When she tried to save her daughter, he attacked her and her daughter Arvin Kaur with the blades of the scissor and was also saying "Aaj Main Tum Sabko Khatam Kar Doonga." She then asked her son Golu to call somebody from outside. While Golu was going out, he was also attacked by the accused with the scissor blades. Golu went out crying and called landlord Iqbal Singh, who came and caught Paramjit Singh. After sometime, police van came at the spot and she and her children were rushed to DDU Hospital where Jaspreet Kaur was declared dead by the doctor. Inspector Pratap Singh prepared the Rukka on the basis of which, FIR was registered under Section 302/307 IPC. During investigation, the spot was photographed and crime team was called at the spot. The blades of the scissor, small cotton towel, blood soaked mattress cover, pillow cover, quilt cover and blood sample were lifted from the spot. The clothes of accused Paramjit Singh and Balwinder Kaur were seized. FIR No. 194/04; State Vs. Paramjeet Singh Page 3 of 43 Accused was arrested. His disclosure statement was recorded on 05.04.2004. After postmortem, the body of Jaspreet Kaur was handed over to her legal heirs. The clothes of the deceased were handed over by the doctor in a sealed pullanda. Opinion of the doctor was obtained with regard to the weapon of offence i.e two blades of scissor and the doctor gave the opinion that the exhibited weapon could produce (inflict) injuries inflicted over the body of the deceased. Statements of Arvin Kaur, Daljeet Singh and landlord Iqbal Singh were also recorded. Scaled site plan was prepared by the Draftsman. The exhibits were sent to CFSL. Pending the receipt of CFSL result, charge sheet was prepared against the accused under Section 302/307 IPC.
2. After compliance of Section 207 Cr. PC, the case was committed to Sessions Court. Charge under Section 302/307 IPC was framed against accused Paramjit Singh to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 27 witnesses. PW1 is Smt. Balwinder Kaur. She is the wife of the accused. She proved the statement given by her to the police FIR No. 194/04; State Vs. Paramjeet Singh Page 4 of 43 which is Exbt. PW1/B. She identified the blades of the scissor Exbt. PW4 and Exbt. P5 respectively and also identified the clothes Exbt. P1 to Exbt. P3.
PW2 is Daljeet Singh. He is the son of accused. He th deposed that the incident is of 4 April morning. On hearing the screams, he got up and saw that his father was attacking with a scissor. His mother asked him to go out and bring someone for help. He then went out and called landlord Iqbal Singh. Iqbal Singh came and caught his father. He further deposed that his sister Arvin Kaur was also attacked with scissor by his father. He deposed that his sister Jaspreet Kaur was killed by his father. He further stated that the police took his sister and mother to the hospital while he and his other sister went to hospital in the car of Iqbal Singh.
PW3 is Surender Pal Singh. He is the brother in law of accused, being the brother of his wife. He deposed that on receipt of telephonic call, he came at DDU Hospital but by the time he reached there, he found that his niece was already dead. Next day, he received her body from the mortuary.
FIR No. 194/04; State Vs. Paramjeet Singh Page 5 of 43
PW4 is Gurbachan Singh. He is also the brother in law of the accused. He had identified the body of the deceased and his statement to this effect was recorded by the IO which is Exbt. PW4/A. PW5 is Baby Arvin Kaur. She deposed that on the night of 03.04.2004, she was sleeping in the room with her mother Smt. Balwinder Kaur, elder sister Jaspreet Kaur and brother Daljeet Singh @ Golu. Her father Paramjit Singh was also sleeping on the floor of the room. At about 4.00 am, she woke up on hearing the cries of her sister Jaspreet Kaur and saw that her father was attacking her sister Jaspreet Kaur with the blades of the scissor and when her mother tried to save her sister, then her father also attacked on her mother with the blades of the scissor and when she tried to save her sister Jaspreet Kaur, accused Paramjit Singh inserted the blades of scissor in her stomach. She further stated that when her brother Daljeet Singh @ Golu tried to intervene and stop him, her father also caused injuries to him with the blades of the scissor. Thereafter, Daljeet Singh went outside and called their landlord Iqbal Singh. Iqbal Singh intervened and FIR No. 194/04; State Vs. Paramjeet Singh Page 6 of 43 caught Paramjit Singh. She deposed that her sister Jaspreet Kaur died due to the injuries caused by her father.
PW6 is Dr. B.N. Mishra. He had conducted the postmortem of the deceased. He proved the postmortem report Exbt. PW6/A. He had given the opinion with regard to the weapon. The said opinion is Exbt. PW6/B. PW7 is SI Rajni Chopra, Duty Officer. She had recorded the FIR Exbt. PW7/A. She had also recorded DDs No. 4 & 5 which have been proved as Exbt. PW7/C and Exbt. PW7/D respectively. She had sent the special report of the case to the officers and to the learned MM through HC Kartar and made an entry bearing No. 6A to this effect which is Exbt. PW7/E. PW8 is Harmeek Singh. He is the son of the landlord of accused. He deposed that on 04.04.2004 at about 4.30 - 5.00 am, the son and daughter of accused Paramjit Singh came and woke him up and requested him to save them from their father. He stated that when he came outside his house, he saw that accused Paramjit Singh had already been caught by his father. FIR No. 194/04; State Vs. Paramjeet Singh Page 7 of 43 He then informed the police from his mobile phone No. 9810806252. The PCR came at the spot and took Smt. Balwinder Kaur and her daughter Jaspreet Kaur to DDU Hospital as both of them were bleeding. He took Arvin Kaur and Daljeet Singh @ Golu to DDU Hospital as they were also bleeding from the injuries.
PW9 is Constable Jaiveer Singh, Crime Team, Photographer. He had taken the photographs of the spot from different angles. He proved the prints of the photographs as Exbt. PW9/A1 to Exbt. PW9/A8.
PW10 is Iqbal Singh. He is the landlord of accused. He deposed that on 04.04.2004 at about 4.30 am, Golu came and took him to the room of Paramjit Singh where he saw two blades of scissor in the hands of Paramjit Singh, who was holding his wife Balwinder Kaur from her hairs and was causing injuries to her with blade. The elder daughter of the accused named Preeti was lying on the bed and was bleeding profusely. The clothes of Golu and Silky were also stained with blood. He stated that he asked the accused to throw the blades of the scissor and on his asking, he threw the blades and a piece of cloth on the ground. He then FIR No. 194/04; State Vs. Paramjeet Singh Page 8 of 43 brought the accused out of his room and asked Silky and Golu to call his son Harmeek Singh. His son Harmeek Singh called the police at 100 number from his mobile phone. After sometime, PCR van came there and local police from PS Khayala also reached there. He deposed that police had seized the blood stained blades of the scissor from the spot vide memo Exbt. PW10/A and had also seized the blood stained towel, bed sheet, blood earth, earth control and blood samples from the spot.
PW11 is Dr. Vipul Barslay from DDU Hospital. He proved the MLC of Balwinder Kaur as Exbt. PW11/A. PW12 is Dr. Udai Kumar Singh. He proved the MLC of Jaspreet Kaur, Daljeet Singh and Arvin Kaur as Exbt. PW12/A to Exbt. PW12/C respectively.
PW13 is Constable Ram Singh. He deposed that on 04.04.2004, on receipt of DD No. 32 Exbt. PW13/A, he along with SI Dharam Pal Singh came at the spot where Sardar Iqbal Singh, landlord of the house, informed that Paramjit Singh had caused injuries to his wife and children with scissor. Accused Paramjit FIR No. 194/04; State Vs. Paramjeet Singh Page 9 of 43 Singh was handed over to SI Dharam Pal Singh by Iqbal Singh. Iqbal Singh informed that the injured had been taken to DDU Hospital. He stated that after handing over the custody of accused Paramjit Singh to him, SI Dharam Pal Singh left for DDU Hospital. Additional SHO Pratap Singh also came at the spot. He also went to the hospital. Later on, SI Dharam Pal Singh, Additional SHO and Balwinder Kaur came at the spot. Accused was then arrested and his personal search was conducted and on interrogation, he gave disclosure statement Exbt. PW13/D. PW14 is Constable Sombir. He had gone to DDU Hospital with Inspector Pratap Singh and from there, he took Tehrir/Rukka to police station for the registration of the FIR and after registration of the FIR, he came back at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and Rukka to Inspector Pratap Singh.
PW15 is Constable Daya Nand, DD Writer. He had recorded DD No. 32 and handed over the same to SI Dharam Pal for investigation.
PW16 is SI Mahesh Kumar, Draftsman. On FIR No. 194/04; State Vs. Paramjeet Singh Page 10 of 43 10.06.2004, he prepared the scaled site plan of the spot which is Exbt. PW16/A. PW17 is HC Kartar Singh from PCR. He had removed Smt. Balwinder Kaur and Jaspreet Kaur to DDU Hospital in PCR van.
PW18 is HC Ram Swaroop, the then MHCM, PS Tilak Nagar. He proved the relevant entry of Register No. 19 as Exbt. PW18/A and proved the copy of Road Certificate as Exbt. PW18/B. PW19 is ASI Harpal Singh from Control Room. He had recorded the information received from mobile phone No. 9810806252 that a person had caused injuries to his children by knife at house No. WZ46, Plot No. 39, Gali No. 2, Ravi Nagar. He proved the PCR form Exbt. PW19/A. PW20 is HC Purshottam Kaushik. He had deposited the sealed parcels at FSL, Hyderabad on 30.05.2004 vide RC No. 27/21.
FIR No. 194/04; State Vs. Paramjeet Singh Page 11 of 43
PW21 is SI Dharam Pal. DD No. 32 was entrusted to him for investigation. He had gone at the spot with Constable Ram Singh where landlord Iqbal Singh had produced accused Paramjit Singh. He found the blood lying inside the room and two pieces of scissor were also lying at the spot. After deputing Constable Ram Singh at the spot, he himself went to DDU Hospital where Jaspreet Kaur was declared dead by the doctor. Additional SHO also reached at the hospital and obtained the MLCs of Smt. Balwinder Kaur, Daljeet Singh and Arvin Kaur. He stated that Inspector Pratap Singh recorded the statement of Balwinder Kaur and prepared Rukka and sent the same to police station through Constable Sombir. The body of Jaspreet Kaur was shifted to mortuary for postmortem. The doctor handed over the sealed parcels bearing the seal of CMO DDU Hospital which contained the frock of Arvin Kaur from the hospital. He then came at the spot with IO where the other proceedings were conducted.
PW20 is Constable Harpinder. He was deputed at the mortuary for the postmortem of the deceased. He stated that after postmortem, the doctor had handed over two sealed parcels which FIR No. 194/04; State Vs. Paramjeet Singh Page 12 of 43 were seized by the IO vide memo Exbt. PW22/A. PW23 is Dr. Maninder Kaur from DDU Hospital. She deposed that as per the MLC of Arvin Kaur, the injuries were dangerous in nature.
PW24 is Inspector Pratap Singh. He is the IO of this case. He had recorded the statement of Balwinder Kaur in the hospital, prepared the Rukka Exbt. PW24/A. He had seized the blade of the scissor having blood on them after keeping them in a cloth pullanda which was sealed with the seal of PS. The towel lying on the handles of the scissor, pillow cover, cushion cover, quilt cover having blood were also seized by him. He had seized the blood stained clothes vide memo Exbt. PW1/A. Site plan Exbt. PW24/E was prepared on the pointing out of complainant Balwinder Kaur. He had arrested the accused from the spot vide memo Exbt. PW13/C and conducted his personal search vide memo Exbt. PW13/B. He then recorded the disclosure statement of accused which is Exbt. PW13/D. He prepared the death report Exbt. PW24/C, recorded the statement of Surender Pal Singh, Mama of the deceased regarding identification of the body and FIR No. 194/04; State Vs. Paramjeet Singh Page 13 of 43 after postmortem, handed over the body to Surender Pal Singh vide receipt Exbt. PW3/A. He recorded the statement of Arvin Kaur after she was declared fit for statement by the doctor. On 06.04.2004, he recorded the statement of Daljeet Singh @ Golu. He had obtained the opinion of the doctor regarding the weapon of offence vide his application Exbt. PW24/D. On 29.05.2004, he sent the exhibits to CFSL, Hyderabad through HC Purshottam. He then got prepared the scaled site plan through SI Mahesh Kumar, Draftsman. After collecting the FSL result, he filed the same in court vide his application Exbt. PW24/F. PW25 is HC Kartar Singh. He had delivered the copies of FIR at the residence of learned MM and to the senior officers of police.
PW26 is Dr. N.R.K. Rao, Senior Scientific Officer, CFSL, Kolkata. He proved his report Exbt. PW26/A. PW27 is SI Rajesh Kumar. He had taken the sealed pullandas of blades of scissor before the doctor for obtaining report from him with regard to the weapon of offence. FIR No. 194/04; State Vs. Paramjeet Singh Page 14 of 43
4. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr. PC wherein he stated that he is innocent. He stated that he was mentally unfit and was undergoing treatment for his mental ailment and his wife Balwinder Kaur had made a complaint at Police Post Khayala, PS Tilak Nagar vide DD No. 17 dated 27.03.2004 complaining that he was not mentally well.
5. In his defence, accused produced six witnesses. DW1 is Surender Singh, Record Clerk from RML Hospital. He produced the attested copy of Psychiatric OPD Entry Register dated 09.03.2004 which contained the name of Paramjeet Singh at serial No. 155 and also contained his previous OPD visit number.
DW2 is HC Jagbir Singh, MHCR PS Tilak Nagar. He produced Station Daily Diary which contained DD NO. 17, copy of which is Exbt. DW2/A. As per Exbt. DW2/A, DD No. 5 was entrusted to ASI Harpal Singh who went at WZ46, plot No. 39, Ravi Nagar where complainant Balwinder Kaur made a complaint stating that she was having a quarrel with her husband on FIR No. 194/04; State Vs. Paramjeet Singh Page 15 of 43 domestic issues and that her husband was mentally disturbed and he was being treated in the hospital.
DW3 is Gurmeet Singh. He is the brother of the accused. He deposed that accused was of adamant nature since his childhood and used to become mentally disturbed and he noticed for the first time that accused was mentally disturbed in the year 198081 when he was deported back to India from Dubai. He deposed that accused used to get mentally disturbed whenever he faced tough time in life. He further stated that 810 days prior to the incident, his brother in law Amarjeet Singh called him up and told that accused had been detained by the police at PP Khayala. On coming to PP Khayala, he came to know that accused had a quarrel with his wife in the morning and therefore she had made a complaint to the police. He stated that accused was mentally unfit and disturbed at that time. When he talked to his wife, he came to know that accused was undergoing treatment for his mental ailment at some hospital. He deposed that he came to know from the wife of the accused that accused was receiving medicines for his mental ailments.
FIR No. 194/04; State Vs. Paramjeet Singh Page 16 of 43
DW4 is Smt. Bhupender Kaur. She is the sister of accused. She deposed that accused was a truck driver and used to mostly remain outside in connection with his work. According to her, accused was mentally perfect and his temperament with others was usually good.
Dr. Madan Lal, Senior Medical Officer, Jail No. 1, Tihar, has been wrongly numbered as DW4. He produced the admission and discharge record of accused of the period 05.04.2004, 08.08.2004, 24.11.2004, 28.02.2010 and 18.02.2010 which is collectively Exbt. DW4/A. He stated that accused was receiving treatment for adjustment disorder. He further stated that the treatment record of behavioural therapy ward of the period 05.04.2004 to 01.12.2004 has been transferred to Rohini Jail and as per Exbt. DW4/B, the said record was received by accused from Rohini Jail.
DW5 is Dr. Mohd. Niyaz Alam, Medical Officer, Jail No. 3. He produced the treatment record of accused for the period 2006 onwards. He stated that accused remained admitted at jail hospital from 25.02.2006 to 27.02.2006 for Maniac Episode FIR No. 194/04; State Vs. Paramjeet Singh Page 17 of 43 and also remained admitted in BT Ward from 20.10.2008 to 29.10.2008. According to him, accused was again admitted in BT Ward for adjustment disorder from 18.02.2010 to 25.02.2010 and from 28.02.2010 to 02.03.2010 and the said record is Exbt. DW5/A.
6. Arguments have been heard from the learned APP as also from Sh. Shubham Asri, Amicus Curiae for the accused. The learned APP has argued that the case is based on direct evidence of PW1 Balwinder Kaur, PW2 Daljeet Singh and PW5 Arveen Kaur and their testimonies are corroborated by the testimonies of landlord Iqbal Silngh (PW10) and his son Harmeek Singh. The learned Amicus Curiae has argued that prosecution has failed to prove motive behind the murder. In rebuttal, the learned APP submits that proof of motive is not a sine qua none to prove a case because it is not always capable of precise proof.
7. The key witnesses of prosecution are PW1 Balwinder Kaur, her son Daljit Singh (PW2) and her daughter Arveen Kaur (PW5). Balwinder Kaur deposed that accused was a three wheeler driver but was not behaving properly with her and her FIR No. 194/04; State Vs. Paramjeet Singh Page 18 of 43 children. He was not interested in running the three wheeler and wanted to drive a truck. He was demanding money from her and from her parental home for the purchase of the truck. She told him that she cannot bring the money but the accused sold away his three wheeler and remained unemployed. She could not arrange the funds demanded by the accused and therefore there used to be quarrel with her over these issues. She further deposed that on 04.04.2004 at about 4.00 am while she and her children were sleeping on the bed and accused was sleeping on the floor, she heard the screams of her children. She woke up and saw that accused was holding scissors in his hand and was attacking her children with the scissors. On seeing this, her son woke up and went at a little distance to escape the attack. In the attack, her eldest daughter Jaspreet Kaur was injured by accused on her stomach, her second daughter Arveen Kaur also received injuries on her stomach which was caused by scissors and when she tried to save her children, she also received injuries on her right hand. She asked her son to go out and call the neighbours for help. Accused tried to stop her son and he too was caused injuries by accused on his ear. She then caught the accused and in the meanwhile, her son opened the door and went out and FIR No. 194/04; State Vs. Paramjeet Singh Page 19 of 43 called the neighbours and landlord Iqbal Singh. Iqbal Singh caught the accused. Police was informed. Police took her and her daughter Jaspreet Kaur to DDU Hospital but by the time her daughter reached the hospital, the doctor declared her dead.
8. PW2 Daljeet Singh and PW5 Baby Arveen Kaur are the child witnesses. All the three injured have vividly described the incident as it happened. There is hardly any cross examination of Daljeet Singh and Baby Arveen Kaur. The incident took place at the house of the accused. The presence of wife and children of the accused is natural and established by the fact that they themselves sustained injuries in the course of same transaction at the very time and place of the occurrence. The testimonies of child witnesses is truthful and not polluted from any external influence. Even in the cross examination of PW1 Balwinder Kaur, nothing has come which can help the accused. The testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW5 find further corroboration from the testimony of landlord Iqbal Singh (PW10) who was called at the spot by PW2 Daljeet Singh. Iqbal Singh saw the blades of scissors in the hands of Paramjeet Singh when he reached there. At that time, accused was holding his wife FIR No. 194/04; State Vs. Paramjeet Singh Page 20 of 43 Balwinder Kaur from her hair and was causing injuries to her with the blades of the scissor. He saw that the elder daughter of accused was lying on the bed and was profusely bleeding and the clothes of the younger daughter and son of accused were also blood stained. Accused was apprehended from the spot itself immediately after the occurrence. SI Dharam Pal Singh and Inspector Pratap Singh have proved the recovery of blades of scissor from the spot. They have also proved the recovery of blood and blood soaked towel, cushion, pillow cover and quilt cover from the spot. The CFSL result Exbt. PW26/A proves the presence of human blood on the recovered exhibits.
9. Dr. B.N. Mishra (PW6) who conducted the postmortem of the deceased found as many as 11 injuries as detailed in the postmortem report. The injury No. 1 is a stab wound over abdominal wall measuring 1.2 cms. x 1 cm. The edges of the injuries were sharp. The loops of small intestine were found protruding through the wound. Injury No. 1 was found sufficient to cause death. The cause of death given by the doctor is respiratory embarrassment consequent upon laceration (piercing) and accumulation of blood in right thoracic cavity FIR No. 194/04; State Vs. Paramjeet Singh Page 21 of 43 followed by stabbing. The doctor was shown the blades of the scissor which were seized from the spot to seek his opinion with regard to the weapon of offence. The doctor gave the opinion vide Exbt. PW6/B that the stab injuries described in postmortem report Exbt. PW6/A were possible with the said blades. As per the MLCs of Jaspreet Kaur, Daljeet Singh, Balwinder Kaur and Arveen Kaur, Exbt. PW12/A, Exbt. PW12/B, Exbt. PW11/A and Exbt. PW12/C, the injuries were sharp in nature. Thus, the version given by the eye witnesses that accused had caused stab injuries with the recovered blades of the scissor also find corroboration from the medical evidence.
10. The only challenge to the testimonies of the eye witnesses is on account of absence of motive. PW1 Balwinder Kaur has categorically deposed that accused wanted to purchase a truck and was therefore demanding money from her and from her parents home and on not being able to arrange the funds, he used to quarrel with her. There is no cross examination of PW1 on this point so much so that not even a suggestion was given that accused was not demanding money from her and her parents for the purchase of truck or that he did not quarrel with her on FIR No. 194/04; State Vs. Paramjeet Singh Page 22 of 43 account of this reason. The learned Amicus Curiae has argued that the nonfulfillment of the demand of accused by PW1 cannot constitute motive for the murder of his daughter by the accused as he had no enmity with his daughter. I am not ready to accept this argument as prosecution has proved that accused was demanding money from PW1 for the purchase of truck and out of anger, he committed the murder of his daughter and also stabbed his wife and other two children.
11. Every criminal act is done with a motive. The proof of motive satisfies the judicial mind about the authorship of the crime but the absence does not ipso facto result in the acquittal of the accused. Absence of proof cannot undo the effect of evidence if otherwise, it is reliable and sufficient as motive is not always capable of precise proof, if proved, may only lend additional support to strengthen the probability of commission of offence by the accused but the absence of proof does not ipso facto warrant in acquittal. Assuming for the sake of arguments that prosecution failed to prove the precise motive, still it would not make any difference as it is well settled that where the direct evidence regarding the assault is worthy of credence and can be believed, FIR No. 194/04; State Vs. Paramjeet Singh Page 23 of 43 the question of motive becomes more or less academic. Sometimes the motive is clear and can be proved; sometimes, however, the motive is shrouded in mystery and it is very difficult to locate the same. If, however, the evidence of the eye witnesses is so creditworthy and is believed by the Court which has placed implicit reliance on them the question whether there is any motive or not becomes wholly irrelevant. In taking this view, I am guided by the judgment of Molu & Others Vs. State of Haryana AIR 1976 Supreme Court 2499.
12. Similarly, in the case of Bakau Pandey Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2004 SC 997, the court held that when direct evidence establishes the crime, the motive becomes insignificant. The present case is also based on direct evidence and therefore even if it is held that prosecution has failed to prove the motive for murder, the same has no significance.
13. Sh. Shubham Asri, Amicus Curiae submitted that the conduct of the accused at or about the time of occurrence, his having remained a patient of illness and the record produced during trial probabilised his being insane within the meaning of FIR No. 194/04; State Vs. Paramjeet Singh Page 24 of 43 Section 84 IPC which entitles him to acquittal. It has been argued that accused was under treatment for mental illness since prior to the occurrence and it is proved by DD No. 5 which was recorded at Police Post Khayala at the instance of PW1 Balwinder Kaur on 27.03.2004 i.e only eight days before the incident wherein she stated that accused was mentally disturbed for a long time and that she was getting him treated in the hospital. It is stated that the same finds mention in DD No. 17 proved as Exbt. DW2/A. It is argued that DD No. 17 is an admission by PW1 Balwinder Kaur regarding the mental illness of accused. It is argued that accused had been receiving treatment for his mental ailment from Guru Gobind Singh Hospital since February 2002 and also received treatment from RML Hospital prior to this occurrence and also remained in B.T. Ward of jail immediately after his admission in the jail on 04.04.2004. It is submitted that DW1 Record Clerk of RML Hospital has proved that on 09.03.2004, accused was receiving treatment from psychiatric department and drug addiction centre, RML Hospoital. DW3 Gurmeet Singh, brother of accused has proved that accused was mentally disturbed. DW4 has proved the admission and summary record of the jail which shows that accused was receiving treatment for adjustment FIR No. 194/04; State Vs. Paramjeet Singh Page 25 of 43 disorder. The learned Amicus Curiae has also argued that DW5 Dr. Mohd. Niyaz Alam, Medical Officer, Jail No. 3 has proved that accused remained admitted in the jail hospital from 25.02.2006 to 27.02.2006 for Manic Episode. Thus, relying on these evidences, it is argued that accused was of unsound mind at the time of commission of offence and was not capable of knowing the nature of the act or that what he was doing was wrong and contrary to the law and therefore he is entitled to acquittal. The learned APP has, however, argued that accused had produced his sister Smt. Bhupender Kaur (DW4) in his defence and she has categorically stated that accused was mentally alright and his temperament with others was usually good. It is submitted that it is not proved from the record that accused was insane at the time of commission of offence and therefore accused cannot be allowed to take the plea of insanity.
14. Section 84 IPC lays down the legal test of responsibility in cases of alleged unsoundness of mind. It provides that nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that what he is doing FIR No. 194/04; State Vs. Paramjeet Singh Page 26 of 43 is either wrong or contrary to law. The Section forms part of Chapter IV dealing with general exceptions.
15. The principal embodied in the chapter is based upon the maxim "actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea", i.e an act is not criminal unless there is criminal intent.
16. Under the Evidence Act, the onus of proving any of the exception mentioned in the Chapter lies on the accused though the requisite standard of proof is not the same as expected from the prosecution. It is sufficient if an accused is able to bring his case within the ambit of any of the general exceptions by the standard of preponderance of probabilities, as a result of which he may succeed not because that he proves his case to the hilt but because of the version given by him casts a doubt on the prosecution case.
17. In State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ahmadullah, AIR 1961 SC 998, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the burden of proof that the mental condition of the accused was, at the crucial point of time, such as is described by the Section, lies on the accused who claims the benefit of this exemption vide Section 105 FIR No. 194/04; State Vs. Paramjeet Singh Page 27 of 43 of the Evidence Act, Illustration--(a). The settled position of law is that every man is presumed to be sane and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his acts unless the contrary is proved. Mere ipsi dixit of the accused is not enough for availing of the benefit of the exceptions under Chapter IV.
18. In a case where the exception under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code is claimed, the Court has to consider whether, at the time of commission of the offence, the accused, by reason of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. Entire conduct of the accused, from the time of the commission of the offence up to the time, the Sessions proceedings commenced, is relevant for the purposes of ascertaining as to whether plea raised was genuine, bona fide or afterthought. Dealing with the plea of insanity, the scope of Section 84 IPC, the attending circumstances and the burden of proof, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dahybhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563 held:
"It is fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is FIR No. 194/04; State Vs. Paramjeet Singh Page 28 of 43 presumed to be innocent and, therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution, therefore, in a case of homicide shall prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused death with the requisite intention described in S. 299 of the Indian Penal Code. This general burden never shifts and it always rests on the prosecution. But, S. 84 of the Indian Penal Code provides that nothing is an offence if the accused at the time of doing that act, by reason of unsoundness of mind was incapable of knowing the nature of his act or what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law. This being an exception, under S. 105 of the Evidence Act the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within the said exception lies on the accused, and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. Under S. 105 of the Evidence Act, read with the definition of FIR No. 194/04; State Vs. Paramjeet Singh Page 29 of 43 "shall presume" in S. 4 thereof, the Court shall regard the absence of such circumstances as proved unless, after considering the matters before it, it believes that the said circumstances existed or their existence was so probable that prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the opposition that they did exist. To put it in other words, the accused will have to rebut the presumption that such circumstances did not exist, by placing material before the Court sufficient to make it consider the existence of the said circumstances so probable that a prudent man would act upon them. The accused has to satisfy the standard of a 'prudent man.' If the material placed before the Court, such as oral and documentary evidence, presumptions, admission or even the prosecution evidence, satisfies the test of 'prudent man' the accused will have discharged his burden. The evidence so placed may not be sufficient to discharge the FIR No. 194/04; State Vs. Paramjeet Singh Page 30 of 43 burden under S. 105 of the Evidence Act, but it may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of a judge as regards one or other of the necessary ingredients of the offence itself. It may, for instance, raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the judge whether the accused had the requisite intention laid down in S. 299 of the Indian Penal Code. If the judge has such reasonable doubt, he has to acquit the accused, for in that event the prosecution will have failed to prove conclusively the guilt of the accused. There is no conflict between the general burden, which is always on the prosecution and which never shifts, and the special burden that rests on the accused to make out his defence of insanity."
19. After referring to various text books and the earlier pronouncements, it was further held:
"The doctrine of burden of proof in the context of the plea of insanity may be stated in FIR No. 194/04; State Vs. Paramjeet Singh Page 31 of 43 the following propositions: (1) the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the offence with the requisite mens rea; and the burden of proving that always rests on the prosecution from the beginning to the end of the trial. (2) There is a rebuttable presumption that the accused may not be insane, when he committed the crime, in the sense laid down by S. 84 of the Indian Penal Code: the accused may rebut it by placing before the Court all the relevant evidence - oral, documentary or circumstantial, but the burden of proof upon him is no higher than that rests upon a party to civil proceedings. (3) Even if the accused was not able to establish conclusively that he was insane at the time he committed the offence, the evidence placed before the Court by the accused or by the prosecution may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court as regards one or more of the ingredients of the offence, including mens rea of the accused and in that case the FIR No. 194/04; State Vs. Paramjeet Singh Page 32 of 43 Court would be entitled to acquit the accused on the ground that the general burden of proof resting on the prosecution was not discharged."
20. In the case of Bapu @ Gajraj Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan 2007 (3) C.C. Cases (SC) 191, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "The section itself provides that the benefit is available only after it is proved that at the time of committing the act, the accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or that even if he did not know it, it was either wrong or contrary to law then this section must be applied. The crucial point of time for deciding whether the benefit of this section should be given or not, is the material time when the offence takes place. In coming to that conclusion, the relevant circumstances are to be taken into consideration, it would be dangerous to admit the: defence of FIR No. 194/04; State Vs. Paramjeet Singh Page 33 of 43 insanity upon arguments derived merely from the character of the crime. It is only unsoundness of mind which naturally impairs the cognitive faculties of the mind that can form a ground of; exemption from criminal responsibility. Stephen in 'History of the Criminal Law of England, Vo. II, page 166 has observed that if a person cuts off the head of a sleeping man because it would be great fun to see him looking for it when he woke up, would obviously be a case where the perpetrator of the act would be incapable of knowing the physical effects of his act. The law recognizes nothing but incapacity to realise the nature of the act and presumes that where man's mind or his faculties of ratiocination are sufficiently dim to apprehend what he is doing, he must always be presumed to intend the consequence of the action he takes. Mere absence of motive for a crime, howsoever atrocious it may be, cannot in the absence of plea and proof of legal insanity, bring the case within FIR No. 194/04; State Vs. Paramjeet Singh Page 34 of 43 this section. The Court in Sherall Walli Mohammed Vs. State of Maharashtra: (1972 Cr. LJ 1523 (SC), held that the mere fact that no motive has been proved why the accused murdered his wife and child or the fact that he made no attempt to run away when the door was broken open would not indicate that he was insane or that he did not have necessary mens rea for the offence. Mere abnormality of mind or partial delusion, irresistible impulse or compulsive behaviour of a psychopath affords no protection under Section 84 as the law contained in that section is still squarely based on the outdated th Naughton rules of 19 Century England."
21. PW1 Balwinder Kaur in her cross examination has denied that her husband was ill or that he was suffering from any disease either before or at the time of incident. She denied that accused was suffering from any mental disorder at the time of incident. She stated that aim of accused is to harass her by taking this excuse. She denied that she took the accused to Guru FIR No. 194/04; State Vs. Paramjeet Singh Page 35 of 43 Gobind Singh Hospital on 03.02.2004 for his treatment for mental disorder. She denied that she took him to G.B. Pant Hospital on 23.02.2004 or that from there, he was referred to RML Hospital for further treatment. She admitted that she had made complaint at Khayala Chowki as accused was demanding money from her and was harassing her but denied that she had made complaint of insanity. She denied that she became aware that accused was mentally ill for the first time on 16.12.2003. She admitted that she was called at PP Khayala on 16.12.2003 but denied that at that time, accused was mentally disturbed. She denied that she had signed at PP Khayala the statement that she was taking the accused to hospital with the younger brother of accused. DW2 HC Jagbir Singh has proved DD No. 17 dated 27.03.2004 wherein it finds mention that ASI Harpal Singh went at WZ46, Plot No. 39, Ravi Nagar where complainant Balwinder Kaur gave him complaint in writing that she was having a quarrel with her husband on domestic issues, that her husband was mentally disturbed since long, that they were getting him treated in the hospital and further that her husband becomes adamant and that she was taking her husband with his brother Gurmeet Singh and sister Bhupender Kaur to the hospital.
FIR No. 194/04; State Vs. Paramjeet Singh Page 36 of 43
22. Neither DD No. 5 recorded at PP Khayala nor the alleged written complaint given by Balwinder Kaur to ASI Harpal Singh stating the aforesaid facts has been produced in court. PW1 was not confronted with those documents to confirm whether she gave any such writing to the police. Despite several opportunities, accused could not produce the record of his treatment undertaken at G.B. Pant or RML Hospital. The only record which he managed to produce in court is the OPD Entry Register of Psychiatric Department of RML Hospital of 09.03.2004 which contained his name but it is not proved from this document as to what was the nature and extent of ailment of accused. Gurmeet Singh (DW3), brother of accused has merely stated that accused was adamant since his childhood and used to become mentally disturbed whenever he faces tough time in his life and that he was undergoing treatment for his mental ailment from some hospital. In cross examination, Gurmeet Singh admitted that he did not visit the doctor or hospital with accused for his treatment. He could not tell the names of the medicines given to accused and also stated that medicines were not given to him in his presence. It appears from the testimony of DW3 that FIR No. 194/04; State Vs. Paramjeet Singh Page 37 of 43 accused used to get mentally disturbed because of normal problems of life which may happen with anyone else but such a mental disturbance is not equivalent to the legal insanity required as defence under Section 84 IPC.
23. DW4 Dr. Madan Lal only proved the admission and summary record sheet dated 05.04.2004, 08.08.2004, 24.11.2004, 28.02.2010 and 18.02.2010 with regard to the treatment received by accused at B.T. Ward but the treatment record has not been produced. According to Dr. Madan Lal, accused was receiving treatment of adjustment disorder. The following court questions were put to the doctor: "Court Question: What is meant by Adjustment Disorder? Ans. It means that the patient was unable to adjust with the surroundings and that is why he was receiving treatment for the same. It usually happens due to the prison environment. Court Question: Is adjustment disorder indicative of insanity? Ans. No.
24. Similarly, DW5 Dr. Mohd. Niyaz Alalm proved that on subsequent occasions between 25.02.2006 to 27.02.2006, accused suffered Manic Episode and according to him, Manic FIR No. 194/04; State Vs. Paramjeet Singh Page 38 of 43 Episode is that a patient becomes violent. As per Exbt. DW4/B, the treatment record of B.T. Ward of the period 05.04.2004 to 01.12.2004 was returned to accused on 14.01.2008 but accused could not produce the said record, which perhaps may have proved as to what was the ailment of accused at or around the time of occurrence.
25. The evidence led by the accused including medical evidence at best proves that accused was mentally disturbed and suffering from adjustment disorder and depression which is likely to be there in the circumstances where such a person is confined in prison on the charge of murder of his daughter and causing injuries to his wife and other children. PW1 Balwinder Kaur deposed that when she asked her son to go out to call the neighbourers for help, accused tried to stop her son and caused injuries to him on his ear. Thus, accused tried to stop his son from going out to seek help from the neighbourers. Hence, his act at the time of commission of crime clearly indicates that he understood the implications of the nature of act done by him and in no case was having unsound mind within the meaning of Section 84 IPC at the relevant time.
FIR No. 194/04; State Vs. Paramjeet Singh Page 39 of 43
26. The evidence led by the prosecution also proves that besides causing death of Jaspreet Kaur, he had attacked his wife Balwinder Kaur, his other daughter Arveen Kaur and son Daljeet Singh with the blades of the scissor. Although the injuries to Daljeet Singh are not on any vital parts of his body, but stab injures have been caused to Balwinder Kaur and Arveen Kaur on chest and stomach which proves that he had the intention to cause their death.
27. Hence, in my opinion, prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused beyond doubt. I therefore hold him guilty and convict him under Section 302 & 307 IPC.
(RAVINDER DUDEJA) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE:NW03:ROHINI:DELHI. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16.11.2011.
FIR No. 194/04; State Vs. Paramjeet Singh Page 40 of 43 IN THE COURT OF SH. RAVINDER DUDEJA : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE03:NW:ROHINI:DELHI SESSIONS CASE NO. 29/08.
FIR No. 194/04
P.S. Tilak Nagar.
U/S: 302 IPC.
STATE Versus Paramjeet Singh, S/o Sh. Gyan Singh, R/o WZ46, Plot No. 39, Gali No. 2, Ravi Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi.
ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. Arguments heard on the point of quantum of sentence. It has been submitted by the learned Amicus Curiae that convict is not involved in any other criminal case and has clean antecedents and his family is also not supporting him. It is also argued that this is not a rarest of the rare case and therefore request has been made for taking lenient view. The learned Additional PP, on the other hand, submits that convict is involved in a heinous offence of FIR No. 194/04; State Vs. Paramjeet Singh Page 41 of 43 murder and therefore does not deserve any sympathy.
2. Every murder is a heinous crime but awarding of sentence other than the sentence of death is the general rule now and only`special reasons', that is to say, special facts and circumstances in a given case, will warrant the passing of the death sentence. The Supreme Court in Bachan Singh's case AIR 1980 SC 898, has laid down the following guidelines to be applied to the facts of each individual case where the question of imposing of death sentence arises; (i) the extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in rarest of rare cases of extreme culpability; (ii) before opting for the death penalty the circumstances of the `offender' also require to be taken into consideration along with the circumstances of the crime; (iii) life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception. In other words, death sentence must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate punishment having regard to the relevant circumstances of the crime and (iv) a balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be drawn up and in doing so the mitigating circumstances have to be accorded full weightage and a just balance has to be struck FIR No. 194/04; State Vs. Paramjeet Singh Page 42 of 43 between the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances before the option is exercised.
3. In my view, present case does not fall within the bracket of rarest of rare cases where collective conscience of the community is so shocked that it expects the court to inflict death penalty. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, convict is sentenced with imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 5000/ in default of payment of which, he shall undergo one year SI under Section 302 IPC. He is sentenced with seven years RI with fine of Rs. 5000/ under Section 307 IPC, in default of payment of which, he shall undergo one year SI. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The convict shall get benefit of Section 428 Cr. PC for the period during which, he remained in custody during investigation/trial. Copy of the judgment and order be given to convict free of cost. File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAVINDER DUDEJA) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE:NORTHWEST03:ROHINI:DELHI ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16.11.2011.
FIR No. 194/04; State Vs. Paramjeet Singh Page 43 of 43