Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurvinder Kaur @ Kamal Soni And Another vs State Of Punjab on 6 December, 2012
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Rajiv Narain Raina
Crl. Appeal No.1096-DB of 2009
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No.1096-DB of 2009
Date of Decision: 06.12.2012
Gurvinder Kaur @ Kamal Soni and another ..... Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab ..... Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr. T.S. Sangha, Sr. Advocate,
with Mr. Narinder Singh, Advocate,
and Mr. J.S. Lalli, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr. Pavit S.Mattewal, Addl. AG, Punjab.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar dated 06.11.2009 convicting both the appellants for committing the murder of Inderjit Singh alias Kinderjit Singh alias Makhan and the order dated 12.11.2009 sentencing both the appellants under Section 302 IPC to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for two years each as well as under Section 201 IPC sentencing both the appellants to undergo imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for one year. Both the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
Appellant No.1 - Gurvinder Kaur @ Kamal Soni is the wife of Crl. Appeal No.1096-DB of 2009 -2- the deceased. Appellant No.2 - Shashi Kant was her alleged paramour.
On 27.03.2007 Kalu Ram, Head Jamadar, Municipal Council, Malout was informed by rag pickers that a bag was lying in the garbage dump emitting foul smell. Kalu Ram took the assistance of Surjit Kumar Sweeper to open the bag. A maggot ridden decomposed body of an unknown person was found headless and sans arms. The police was accordingly informed and FIR No.48 dated 27.03.2007 was registered at Police Station City Malout under Sections 302/201/34 IPC. Accordingly, Inspector Ram Lal made on the spot investigation and prepared the inquest report. The dead body was in an unidentifiable condition. The corpse was sent for post-mortem which was performed on the same date. The time between death and post-mortem was recorded as more than one week, but less than three months. The head was decapitated. The arms were opined to have been severed by sharp edged heavy cutting tools. The death was instantaneous and immediate. Identification by finger tips was obviously not possible. The injuries caused were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to result in death. The abdomen had burst open and no anatomical configuration of the viscera could be made out.
The break through in the mysterious death of Inderjit Singh alias Kinderjit Singh alias Makhan (hereafter Inderjit Singh) came on 30.03.2007 when Jagdip Singh PW-7 brother of the deceased got his statement recorded at the Police Station that his sister-in-law Gurvinder Kaur alias Kamal Soni - appellant No.1 had extra marital relations with Shashi Kant - appellant No.2. He stated that he had seen both the appellants on 23.03.2007 at about 10.30 PM. He saw both the appellants taking his Crl. Appeal No.1096-DB of 2009 -3- brother Inderjit Singh alias Kinderjit Singh alias Makhan on a rickshaw. Inderjit Singh was in a state of inebriation. He offered help to take his brother home. He was told that help was not required as it was a matter of daily routine and they could handle the drunk man. The next morning, he went to his brother's house to inquire after him. His sister-in-law was standing at the gate and informed him that Inderjit Singh had gone to Sacha Sauda Dera Beas. He asked his brother's whereabouts continuously for the next 3 or 4 days but received no satisfactory response from his sister-in-law. Thereafter, he heard of the recovery of the dismembered body of his brother. The body was identified by Jagdip Singh.
On 01.04.2007 Jagdip Singh produced both the appellants before the Police. Both made disclosure statements that the missing parts of the body had been concealed by them. Shashi Kant disclosed that he had concealed the head of Inderjit Singh wrapped in a piece of cloth in an envelope thrown in the bushes near the Railway Station, Malout. Gurvinder Kaur made a disclosure statement that she and Shashi Kant had murdered Inderjit Singh and that Shashi Kant had thrown the head while she had disposed of the arms in the gutter near her house. Recoveries from the places disclosed by both the appellants were effected in the presence of Mr. Rohit Gupta, Executive Magistrate, Malout. The recovered head was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-4/A and the arms vide memo Ex.PW- 4/B. Gurvinder Kaur also got recovered one shirt, one quilt, a salwar over which acid appeared to have been sprinkled which were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-7/C duly attested by Jagdip Singh PW-7. Recoveries having been effected of the body parts, the accused were Crl. Appeal No.1096-DB of 2009 -4- arrested on grounds of arrest Ex.PW-7/D. The parts of the body recovered from the two separate places were then sent for post-mortem examination.
PW-3 Dr Jagdish Gargi who had conducted the autopsy on the maggot ridden torso and legs of the deceased conducted the subsequent post-mortem the next day. The subsequent post-mortem report is Ex.PW- 3/B. The body parts were human. The medical opinion given was that the possibility of body parts i.e. the head and arm being of the same person cannot be ruled out. The injuries to the body parts were testified as having been caused by sharp edged weapon. The body parts had by then putrefied. The hand-saw allegedly used for dismembering body parts was recovered from a canal, but bore no blood stains. However, the clothes worn by the first appellant and recovered were found on chemical analysis as containing human blood. The investigation of the case having pointed prima facie to a case of homicide. On conclusion of the investigation, the entire evidence gathered against the appellants was collated in a final report presented under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Before the trial court. On committal charge of murder and of destruction of evidence was framed against the accused and they put to trial.
The prosecution examined 15 witnesses in support of its case. PW-1 Kalu Ram deposed that he discovered the body of an unknown person in a gunny bag thrown in the garbage dump and informed the police accordingly which had set the criminal law into motion.
PW-2 Head Constable Jasvir Singh initiated the conduct of the post-mortem and took the corpse to G.G.S. Medical College, Faridkot for Crl. Appeal No.1096-DB of 2009 -5- autopsy. The body was cremated at Faridkot with the help and support of the Sahara Club. Subsequently, he took the body parts to Civil Hospital, Malout and on reference to G.G.S. Medical College, Faridkot the second autopsy was done. After post-mortem, the doctor handed over to the police a Salwar and Kameej as worn by women, one towel and one parcel containing ladies Bindi.
PW-3 Dr. Jagdish Gargi, Principal, Govt. Medical College, Amritsar conducted the post-mortem of unknown body on 28.03.2007 at 8 AM which was brought on 27.03.2007 by PW-2 HC Jasvir Singh. The following injuries were found on the body of the deceased:-
"1. A lacerated wound 15 x 8 cm on the lateral aspect of right leg, maggots were crawling in the wound and strands of muscles were coming out from the wound (post-mortem injury).
2. A laceration on the medial aspect of left thigh 13 x 10 cm. No clotted blood was present (Bursting of the skin - post mortem)."
Rohit Gupta, Tehsildar, Malout appeared as PW-4. He deposed that he was orally directed by the SDM, Malout to recover/excavate the body parts and had joined the investigation with SHO, P.S. City Malout. He accompanied the police when recoveries were effected as per the disclosure statements of both the accused.
PW-5 Suraj Kumar was a sweeper working with Nagar Council, Malout and deposed that he and one Sunil Kumar, also a sweeper, had lifted and put the gunny bag in a garbage trolley thinking that it was a dead pig. Later, they were told by the Sanitary Inspector Budh Ram that the gunny bag had a dead body in it.
PW-6 Constable Nachhattar Singh was a formal witness who deposited material and objects recovered for analysis at the FSL, Punjab, Crl. Appeal No.1096-DB of 2009 -6- Chandigarh.
PW-7 Jagdip Singh brother of the deceased deposed that he had last seen the appellants taking his brother Inderjit Singh on a rickshaw in an intoxicated state. He offered help to take his brother into the house but both the appellants said it was a routine matter and his help was not required and they could manage him. He deposed that the accused Shashi Kant did not have good relations with his sister-in-law and for this reason his brother would restrain him to meet his wife, but Shashi Kant would visit the house of his brother in his absence and this had led the brother to consume liquor to point of addition. He suspected them both of having committed the murder of his brother. He stated that the accused confessed to the crime before the Executive Magistrate and SHO Ram Lal in his presence. He deposed also as a recovery witness of the body parts of his brother.
PW-8, PW-9 and PW-10 are formal witnesses for preparation of site plan, demarcation, the disclosure statements, recoveries and of taking photographs of the dead body near the heap of garbage etc. and would not detain us further for decision in this appeal.
PW-11 Inspector Ram Lal was the Investigating Officer. He deposed with respect to the disclosure statements and recoveries made consequent thereto. He deposed that he made efforts for identification of body from the city dwellers but no body could identify the corpse. The dead body was handed over to Sahara Welfare Society, Faridkot by Head Constable Jasvir Singh and MHC Gurmeet Singh who cremated the headless and armless dead body. He deposed that on statement of Jadgip Singh, offence under Section 34 IPC was added by making the entry in the Crl. Appeal No.1096-DB of 2009 -7- DDR. Jagdip Singh brought the accused to Police Station where they were interrogated and suffered disclosure statements while in police remand that in the night intervening 23.03.2007 both committed the murder of Inderjit Singh, kept the dead body in the living room and on the following night of 24.03.2007 they severed the head and amputated the arms and Gurvinder Kaur threw the amputated arms in the sewage/gutter after lifting the manhole cover of the gutter while he wrapped the severed head in a cloth and put it in a plastic bag and disposed it off near the Railway Station, Malout. Recoveries were effected. An iron file recovered and allegedly used for dismembering the body parts was proved by this witness vide MO-9.
PW-12 Dr. P.S. Sandhu, Professor and Head, Eye Department and Principal of Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot deposed that he had deputed two doctors to conduct the autopsy but was informed that the dead body was highly putrefied and in an advanced stage of decomposition. Therefore, the corpse was referred to the Forensic Science Expert and that is how Dr. Jagdish Gargi, Professor and Head Forensic Medicines, G.G.S. Medical College, Faridkot conducted the autopsy.
PW-13 MHC Gurmeet Singh deposed with respect to case property. PW-14 Dr. Ranbir Singh deposed that in the 3rd and 4th month of 2007 accused Gurvinder Kaur who he recognized in Court during recording of statement said that she came to his clinic after having suffered burn injuries on her leg caused by splattering of kerosene and he gave first aid and dressed her burn wounds for three or four days.
PW-15 HC Gurmail Singh is also a formal witness inasmuch as Crl. Appeal No.1096-DB of 2009 -8- he took photographs which are part of the record.
On the closing of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating evidence gathered against the appellants was put to them under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They claimed innocence and false implication out of suspicion. Gurvinder Kaur disclaimed that the dead body recovered was that of her husband Inderjit Singh. She denied illicit relations with the co-accused Shashi Kant.
We have heard Mr. T.S. Sangha, learned Senior counsel appearing with Mr. Narinder Singh and Mr. J.S. Lalli, Advocates for the appellants and Mr. Pavit S.Mattewal, Addl. AG, Punjab for the State.
The issue in appeal which requires to be answered is whether in a case of circumstantial evidence of this kind, a conclusion of guilt can be drawn based in the first instance on last scene evidence of PW-7 Jagdip Singh, brother of the deceased, when the trio was seen together on a rickshaw and both the appellants accompanying Inderjit Singh together in drunken condition and linking this fact with the disclosure statements made during police remand leading to the recovery of body parts from the places disclosed by the accused from a gutter adjoining the house of the deceased and whether these twin chain of circumstances are consistent with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused. The further issue which requires examination relates to the medical opinion of the second autopsy conducted on 02.04.2007 in which PW-3 Dr. Jagdish Gargi found "Right hand was showing the glowing of the finger tip (degloving) and was charred... charring of soft tissues was probably the resultant effect of the use of corrosive material." The corrosive material mentioned in the report can be Crl. Appeal No.1096-DB of 2009 -9- linked with the ladies apparel containing stains of human blood and evidence of burning due to acid and the recovery of six incriminating materials from the washing machine of Gurvinder Kaur and the quilt also suffering from acid marks recovered from the bathroom of the house of the deceased and to link it with the evidence of PW-14 Dr. Randhir Kumar, a Registered Medical Practitioner, who is said to have treated the burn injuries on the person of Gurvinder Kaur in the month of March/April 2007 and whether the evidence of PW-14 Dr. Randhir Kumar and PW-3 Dr. Jagdish Gargi when read in each others context, support the prosecution story by corroboration.
Mr. Sangha submits that this is a case of circumstantial evidence and the record has to be examined in the light of the fact that there is no direct evidence. He has laid great stress on the time of death, given that the major part of the body was discovered on 27.03.2007 in an advanced stage of decomposition or putrefaction. The doctors opinion was that the time of death was more than one week before autopsy but less than three months of it. The physical state in which the body was found is inconsistent with the last scene evidence theory on 23.03.2007 i.e. within four or five days. He relies on Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and the Chapter on Putrefaction or Decomposition and the Chart contained in the text book showing the putrefactive changes which occur with passage of time after death. The physical signs found on the body were such as to suggest decomposition well beyond the point of time of last scene and discovery of the corpse. In short, he submits that in this case, death had occurred sufficient long back so as to make the timing improbable. His Crl. Appeal No.1096-DB of 2009 -10- further submission is that the identity of the accused is also shrouded in doubt. The body of the unknown person was cremated but there is no concrete evidence connecting the head and arms with the cremated body. It is doubtful whether PW-7 Jagdip Singh could have recognized the maggot ridden dismembered body of his brother especially when medical opinion was that the body was in an unidentifiable state. The probable time of death was longer than the one suggested by the prosecution inasmuch as maggots were found and maggots takes at least a week to appear. On these premises, Mr. Sanga would urge that there is no direct connecting evidence proving the guilt of the appellants. The evidence of the Registered Medical Practitioner without any written record of treatment does not qualify as evidence justifying reliance. It is a case of blind murder where recoveries of body parts had been foisted on the appellants. He relied on the statement of PW-1 Kalu Ram the Head Jamadar who first saw the body and his deposition that the face and arms were in decomposed state. In cross- examination, he had said that the face and arms were lying cut in the bag. From this, he would infer that the story of recovery of body parts has been cooked up by the police.
Per contra, Mr. Mattewal would submit that the prosecution has successfully brought home the guilt. The last seen evidence of PW-7 Jagdip Singh brother of the deceased is credible. The witness had not only seen but met both the accused in the company of deceased while they were taking him home in a rickshaw in a drunken state. The recovery of body parts on disclosure statements from places only the accused would know alone is sufficient to bring home the guilt specially when both the arms were Crl. Appeal No.1096-DB of 2009 -11- recovered from a gutter next to the matrimonial house of the deceased and Gurvinder Kaur. Still further the acid stained clothes as usually worn by women was recovered from the washing machine and bathroom of the deceased in close proximity with the time of burn injuries on the person of Gurvinder Kaur appellant and treated by the Registered Medical Practitioner. Mr. Mattewal submits that the state of putrefaction of the body could well have been naturally caused within 4 or 5 days given the time of the year and the putrid place of recovery and substantial parts of the body cut and exposed to the elements.
As to how long does it take a body to decompose as found in medical books, it can be fairly seen that as with many things in life, the question would depend on many factors including temperature and humidity, whether the body is in water or not, whether the body is buried or not, whether the body is underground or not, whether the body is embalmed or not, expose to insects or carnivorous animals etc. Insects arrive to the scene very quickly as they are really sensitive to the smell of decomposition. Flies will lay eggs in skin openings and in entrances to the body, nose, ears and mouth. Maggots will hatch and start eating the decomposition. As the body breaks down gases are released. These gases are what give bodies that terrible smell of rotting. Liquids are released from the body which attract flies, beetles and other insects. This happens within 4 to 10 days after death if the dead body is untended. In warm weather, conducive to fly growth maggots can act swiftly given their quantum levels of rapid multiplication. The time of death in the present case was in warm weather. Therefore, Mr. Sangha's argument based on putrefactive changes spelt out at page 142 of Crl. Appeal No.1096-DB of 2009 -12- the Medical Jurisprudence text relied upon cannot be seen as a hard and fast rule or that 4 to 5 days would be too short to produce the effect witnessed.
We have given a thoughtful consideration to the respective stands and have examined the record.
Though the case is one of circumstantial evidence but we find that the portion of the statement of both the accused which led to recovery of head and amputated arms on disclosure statements to the police and the medical evidence that the death was caused by decapitation of head and arms that part of the statement recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and reduced into writing is incriminating evidence against both the accused. Both the arms were recovered from an underground gutter adjoining the house of Gurvinder Kaur and the deceased. A sweeper had to lift the gutter cover to lower himself into the sewage system to recover the arms as revealed by Gurvinder Kaur herself. Still further, we have also no reason to doubt the statement of PW-7 Jagdip Singh that he last saw the deceased with both the appellants. Not only did he see them but also talked to them and showed his anxiety which is not unnatural since Gurvinder Kaur was his sister-in-law and his brother was in drunken state and he must have been worried. The help offered by him was not accepted. Both the recoveries of body parts was made in the presence of Sh. Rohit Gupta, Tehsildar cum Executive Magistrate, Malout. The height of the deceased at 5-6 inches and the length of the arms recovered and recorded are not disproportionate to each other. Kalu Ram's statement of peeping into the terrible gunny bag housing the dead body and finding that the face and arms were in decomposed condition and or that the body parts were lying in the Crl. Appeal No.1096-DB of 2009 -13- bag as stated in his cross-examination cannot be blindly believed as a true and factual account of what he saw. He also did not state that the body was actually removed from the bag for him to take a full view. The stench and the condition of the maggot ridden body may have been such that he may have just had one cursory look and no more. He may have suffered from hyper imagination. We, therefore, disbelieve that part of the statement of Kalu Ram and endorse the view of the learned trial Court on this issue which appears well reasoned.
The suggestion that PW-7 Jagdip Singh had intention to grab the property of the deceased Inderjit Singh and, therefore, roped in the accused is not tenable. The deceased left behind two sons who would inherit the property. Even if there is no concrete evidence of extra marital relationship between Gurvinder Kaur and Shashi Kant, it would not detract from the other evidence available on record to connect the appellants with commission of crime. Suffice it to say, there was something between Gurvinder Kaur and Shashi Kant sufficient for them to participate in eliminating Inderjit Singh. We are truly neither concerned with motive nor are obsessed with it in the present case. The lady may have had enough of her husband's drinking habits which may have precipitated the murder, we cannot be sure. But the severity with which the brutal murder was committed and the chopping of body parts would have required a strong male hand. Illicit relations are normally kept under cover and out of public view and in such matters very often suspicion and body language furnish their own special reasons for endorsing such behaviour by other people and their perception of it. We are, however, not called upon to go into the Crl. Appeal No.1096-DB of 2009 -14- morality of the relationship between the appellants neither is it our business so long as we are convinced of their complicity, concert and common intention to do Inderjit Singh to death and remove him from the scene for whatever reason.
In the totality of circumstances, we are left with no doubt that the prosecution has successfully brought home the guilt of both the accused on the charges framed. We can conceive of no other parallel theory establishing the innocence of the appellants or to give them the benefit of doubt or that all incriminating facts and circumstances are incompatible with the innocence of the accused or guilt of any other person. The impugned judgment is, therefore, upheld for the reasons aforestated.
Consequently, the present appeal fails and is dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA) (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA)
JUDGE JUDGE
06.12.2012
manju