Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mange Ram And Ors vs State Of Haryana on 5 May, 2011
Bench: Hemant Gupta, A.N. Jindal
Crl. Appeal No.338-DB of 2002 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No.338-DB of 2002
Date of Decision: 05.05.2011
Mange Ram and Ors. ... Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL
Present: Ms. Kiran Bala Jain, Advocate and
Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr. Pardeep Singh Poonia, Addl. AG, Haryana.
A.N. JINDAL, J. (Oral)
Mange Ram, Attar Singh and his wife Santosh Devi were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- each under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
All the accused are the residents of Nanda Colony, P.S. Farakpur, District Yamuna Nagar. Attar Singh and his wife Santosh Devi were residing separately in a joint house. Mange Ram was married to deceased Rekha Rani about 15 years prior to the occurrence. Out of their wedlock, two daughters namely Lucky and Jyoti and a son Ricky were born. Since Mange Ram had developed illicit intimacy with Santosh Devi wife of his brother Attar Singh, therefore, the relations between Rekha Rani and Mange Ram became strained whereby a case under Section 498-A IPC was got registered against Mange Ram by complainant Rekha Rani, which remained pending for five years. However, after a compromise was effected between the parties, the accused Crl. Appeal No.338-DB of 2002 -2- brought Rekha Rani to his house situated at Nanda Colony, District Yamuna Nagar from her matrimonial house at Rorkee. On 13th September, 1998 at about 9.30 a.m., the accused persons strangulated Rekha Rani and thereafter, the accused Mange Ram informed by telephone to Somi Devi, the mother of the deceased, that they had killed Rekha Rani and they could do whatever they liked. Due to long distance, Rajesh Kumar complainant (PW-8) and his mother Somi Devi (PW-9) could not move and early in the morning they went to the house of the accused and found that Rekha Rani was lying dead on the floor in a room. On the aforesaid statement PB, made by Rajesh Kumar (PW-
8), FIR No.129 dated 13.09.1998 (Ex.PB/1)was registered at Police Station Farakpur, District Yamuna Nagar. Consequently, the investigation commenced, the Investigating Officer prepared the inquest report (Ex.PG) and dispatched the dead body for postmortem examination and arrested the accused. During interrogation, Mange Ram in his disclosure statement (Ex.PC) stated that he had concealed one chunni (dupptta) about which he only knew and he could get the same recovered, which was used by him in the commission of the crime. Thereafter, the accused got recovered chunni from the disclosed place. The Investigating Officer also prepared the site plan (Ex.PJ), recorded the statements of the witnesses and on completion of investigation, the challan against the accused was presented in the Court.
In order to substantiate the charges framed against them under Section 302/34 IPC, the prosecution examined UGC Piare Lal (PW-1), Mulakh Raj (PW-2), Pawan Kumar (PW-3), HC Dila Singh (PW-4), HC Devender Singh (PW-5), Dr. Vinay Chaudhary (PW-6), Anil Kumar Batta (PW-7), Rajesh Kumar (PW-8), Somi (PW-9), Narender Kumar ASI (PW-10). Crl. Appeal No.338-DB of 2002 -3-
When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., all the accused denied the allegations and pleaded their false implication in the case. The accused Mange Ram further explained as under: -
"I am innocent. My wife was characterless and she was murdered by some unknown person. I am not at fault in this incident."
Attar Singh stated as under: -
"I am innocent. I along with my wife and 3 young daughters have been living separately from Mange Ram accused. I was falsely involved in this case and I have no hand in the murder of Rekha Rani."
Santosh Devi explained as under: -
"I am innocent. I have no illicit relations with my Dewar Mange Ram. I have three young daughters who are living with me. I have been falsely implicated in this case."
During their defence, the accused examined Kali Ram (DW-1), the father of the deceased. He has stated that Rekha Rani was his daughter and the accused Mange Ram had illicit relations with Santosh Devi accused. On account of this, Mange Ram and Attar Singh used to beat his daughter and had deserted Rekha Rani as such she stayed with them for long time. He had also filed a complaint with regard to maltreatment given to her daughter Rekha Rani. However, in the year 1998, he sent his daughter with Mange Ram but she was again turned out by the accused persons. Again in the month of September, 1998, he had sent his daughter with Mange Ram as an experience kept the children with him but on 13th September, 1998, she was killed and when they reached their house, none from the accused side was present. The trial resulted into conviction.
Crl. Appeal No.338-DB of 2002 -4-
The arguments heard.
Ms. Kiran Bala Jain, learned counsel for the accused has tried to persuade us by raising the multifold contentions. She has urged that there is no direct evidence on the file to connect the accused with the incident and the case is based on circumstantial evidence. The recovery of chunni pursuant to the disclosure statement (Ex.PH) made by the accused cannot be believed Mange Ram cannot said to be have made alleged statement voluntarily. There is no evidence that Mange Ram was having illicit relations with Santosh Devi as such they (Attar Singh and Santosh Devi) had no motive to kill Rekha Rani. Moreover, both Attar Singh and Santosh Devi were living separately from Mange Ram. As regards Mange Ram, it was urged that he himself had informed about the death of Rekha Rani, therefore, his conduct is indicative of the fact that he is not the perpetrator of the crime.
It was further urged that the injury on the finger of Mange Ram has not been explained by the prosecution. It was also contended that the deceased was a lady of easy virtues which is proved from the letters Mark A and Mark B written by Kali Ram DW-1.
To the contrary, Mr. Poonia, Additional Advocate General while referring to the statements of the witnesses, has supported the judgment and while urging that though the case is based on circumstantial evidence yet there is complete chain of circumstantial evidence connecting the accused with the commission of the crime. The circumstantial evidence so led is quite complete and is consistent with no other hypothesis except that of the guilt of the accused. He has further taken us through the statement of Anil Kumar PW-7 (an independent witness) who had seen the accused in the house of Crl. Appeal No.338-DB of 2002 -5- Mange Ram on that night when Rekha Rani was murdered by strangulation. Further contention is that prosecution's reliance is not only on testimonies of Rajesh Kumar (PW-8) and Somi Devi (PW-9) but it is also banking upon testimony of Kali Ram (DW-1) a defence witness who has also accepted the prosecution version as a whole. Therefore, they cannot wriggle out of allegations levelled against them by the prosecution and the same would be treated as correct.
Having heard the rival contentions, the admitted facts of the case are that Rekha Rani was married to the accused about 15 years prior to the occurrence. She had two daughters and a son. The relations between Rekha Rani and the accused Mange Ram became strained and she was maltreated by the accused which excited her to lodge a complaint against all the three accused. Consequently a case was registered under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against them. Rajesh Kumar PW-8 has also confirmed the fact that in the said complaint a compromise had taken place with the accused in the month of March, 1998 as a result of which, Rekha Rani was taken by the accused to their house, however, even prior to the compromise Rekha Rani was turned out of the house, but later on the matter was settled and the accused persons brought her to their home. The testimony of Rajesh Kumar with regard to the previous litigation stands corroborated by Soma Devi PW-
9. He has further confirmed the fact that the accused had taken Rekha Rani on 08.09.1998 with the assurance that they would keep her well. There is also no denying a fact that Rekha Rani died at the house of the accused and his dead body was found lying in the said house. It has also come in evidence that all the three accused who were living there ran away after the incident. Crl. Appeal No.338-DB of 2002 -6- There is a lot of medical evidence that Rekha Rani was strangulated to death. Dr. Vinay Chaudhary, M.O. (PW-6), M.L.G.H., Yamuna Nagar has stated that on 14.09.1998 at about 12.30 p.m. when he along with other members of the team comprising of Dr. M.L. Kamra and Dr. Dinesh Goel conducted autopsy on the dead body of Rekha Rani and observed as under: -
"The length of the body was 5 feet. There was a dark brown well defined slightly depressed mark commencing on left side of the neck anteriorly about 0.5 cm wide below the thyroid cartilage encircling the neck. Directed obliquely upwards and reaching upto midline posteriorly with width of 1.5 cm. On dissection, it was pale with redish and ecchymosed margin. There was a 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm abrasion near the posterior end of ligature mark.
Patient was well developed, well nourished, female wearing light green printed Kameej and salwar, yellow metallic Kokka in left nostril, golden colour ring in the ring finger of right hand while metallic chutki in second toe of both feet. Eyes were closed, mouth was semi opened. Rigor mortis was present in lower limbs, upper limbs and neck. Fluid mixed with blood was coming from mouth and nostril. Face was cyanosed. Conjunctim was congested. Pupils were dilated.
There was a lacerated wound of 1 cm x 1 cm on left index finger distally.
Skull, brain and membrane were healthy. Parieties and organs of generation were healthy. All other organs were congested. Right side of heart was full of blood and left side was empty. There was frothy mucus present in larynx and trachea. Both plural cavities contained serious fluid. Pericardium also contained serious fluid.Crl. Appeal No.338-DB of 2002 -7-
There were lacerations and clots in the muscle of neck underlying the ligature described previously.
In our opinion, the cause of death in this case was asphyxia as a result of strangulation which was ante- mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in normal course of nature."
He further disclosed that the time elapsed between the injury and death was within few minutes and between death and postmortem was within 36 hours.
During his deposition, he further observed that possibility of Chunni having been tied around the neck and thereby, as a result of strangulation, the death of Rekha Rani having been caused cannot be ruled out. The contention of the accused that Rekha Rani had committed suicide does not prevail and is quite inconsistent with the medical evidence. This fact has also not been disputed that except the accused none else was living in the said house.
Anil Kumar, PW-7 states that all the accused were present in the house on the night of occurrence. Further, it has been specifically stated by Rajesh Kumar PW-8 and Somi Devi PW-9 that on 13th September, 1998 in the morning when they reached the house none was present by the side of the dead body from the side of the accused, which shows that the accused after the occurrence had absconded.
The Investigating Officer has also stated that accused Attar Singh and Mange Ram have a joint house. There is no dividing wall between the house of Mange Ram and Attar Singh.
ASI Narender Kumar PW-10 has also stated that he had arrested Crl. Appeal No.338-DB of 2002 -8- accused Attar Singh and Santosh Devi whereas Mange Ram had surrendered in the Court on 15.09.1998 from where he was arrested. Again in regard to evidence of recovery of Chunni with which the accused had strangulated the deceased, ASI Narender Kumar PW-10 has stated that during interrogation, the accused had made a disclosure statement PH to the effect that he had concealed Chunni by which he had strangulated his wife, in the house of Pintu situated at village Dev Danor, District Saharanpur and he could get the same recovered. But the accused found to be concealing this fact as Chunni was not discovered from that place. Thereafter on 16.09.1998, the accused suffered second disclosure statement (Ex.PC) with regard to concealment of Chunni, pursuant to which he get recovered Chunni (Ex.P-15) from under the bed from his residential house situated in Nanda Colony, Farakpur. The disclosure statement (Ex.PC) and recovery memo (Ex.PD) in that regard have been duly proved on the record.
The argument that since the prosecution recorded two disclosure statements for effecting the recovery of Chunni, therefore, none could be believed and the recovery stands vitiated, our long experience transpires that the accused sometimes play so cleverly that they hide many facts and do not disclose true facts at first blush as such the second disclosure statement (Ex.PC) pursuant to which the Chunni (Ex.P-15) was recovered, is fully proved by the Investigating Officer and the witnesses cannot be disbelieved. In the given circumstances of the case, the second statement under section 27 of the Evidence Act, cannot be said to be result of any pressure and such disclosure statement particularly when the 'Chunni' was recovered from such a hidden place not accessible to the general public cannot be doubted, Crl. Appeal No.338-DB of 2002 -9- particularly when Dr. Vinay Chaudhary has confirmed the fact that the strangulation of Rekha Rani with the said 'Chunni' cannot be ruled out.
The motive with regard to the occurrence stands duly established which led the accused person to finish the long drawn trouble hanging over their heads. The illegal intimacy of Santosh Devi with the accused Mange Ram, which was continuous obstacle in their way drove them to take this step. He along with Santosh Devi used to maltreat her which also led to the litigation which remained pending between the deceased and the accused for about five years. However , as is the woman tendency and it is common in Indian society that the parents always make an endeavour for settlement of their daughter after compromising with the accused and send her back to matrimonial home but they were not oblivious to the evil desires of the accused that they will repeat their old illegal intimacy and would not act upon the assurance and they would rehabilitate the deceased and maintain her and their children properly. Rather it appears that they with the intention to settle old scores and to remove the obstacle, took the deceased to their house and ultimately ended her life.
Besides this, there is also an evidence that information was given by the accused on telephone to her mother-in-law Somi Devi PW-9 that they had killed Rekha Rani and they could do whatever they liked, which cannot be disbelieved as we have not only the testimonies of Rajesh Kumar PW-8 and Somi Devi PW-9 but we have also the evidence of Kali Ram DW-1 to whom the accused dared to examine who also besides admitting the prosecution version on material aspects further stated that they had received a telephone on 13th September, 1998 regarding the death of Rekha Rani. At that time the Crl. Appeal No.338-DB of 2002 -10- accused was not in custody or having any pressure over his mind and no case has been registered by that time against him and it was not the statement before any Police Officer or a person in authority. Therefore, why such extra confession should not be believed.
As regards the argument that the accused Mange Ram was living separate from Attar Singh, does not gather any moss. It has come in evidence that it was joint house where they were residing in a separate portions and there was no wall in between. Even in earlier litigation, Rekha Rani had levelled allegations against all the three accused and the accused have not brought any such evidence that after 1998 the circumstances had changed and the accused had taken a separate house. The existence of two ration cards for the same house is sufficient to prove that they were living separately in a joint house.
The delay in lodging the first information report stands duly explained by PW-8 Rajesh Kumar. Even otherwise, Rajesh Kumar has been residing with his parents at Rorkee, District Haridwar whereas Rekha Rani was residing with the accused at Nanda Colony, Farakpur, District Yamuna Nagar (Haryana). The occurrence had taken place during the night of 12/13.09.1998. Due to the lack of proper transport during the night time, they reached in the morning at the house of the accused is the confirmed fact. Thereafter, they went to the police station and got recorded the statement on the basis of which first information report was recorded as such the delay in lodging the FIR stands duly explained. It is further noticed that since Rekha Rani wanted to seek her settlement at the house of accused, left the children at the house of her parents and while accepting their assurance of her will being Crl. Appeal No.338-DB of 2002 -11- accompanied the accused to their house. Even on 12th September, 1998, as confirmed by Anil Kumar PW-7 all the accused were present in the house. Thus these circumstances place a heavy obligation upon the accused to explain the facts within their personal knowledge as to what happened to Rekha Rani and why her live body was turned into corpus. Section 106 of the Evidence Act requires the accused to explain as to who else killed and how she died while in their custody. On failure to explain the facts in their personal knowledge, the adverse influence would have to be drawn against them.
The defence version as set up by the accused is contradictory. At one time, they say that the deceased was characterless and some persons had committed her murder. Had they doubted homicidal death at the hands of certain persons, then they instead of running for concealing themselves should have immediately informed the police regarding unfortunate murder of the deceased, but they did not prefer to do so. Even the letters Mark A and Mark B which essentially could prove her character remained unproved. No witness was examined to prove the letters.
Now coming to the complicity of Attar Singh in the commission of crime, it is observed that an innocent person may not be held guilty and the guilty may not escape the punishment, keeping in view the substratum of the circumstances and the evidence recorded in the case, it appears that Attar Singh had no motive and role to play in the commission of the crime as he himself appears to be a sufferer on account of the illegal act of illicit intimacy of his own wife with Mange Ram. Though he may be silent being under domination, was unable to make defiance against the accused and kept mum Crl. Appeal No.338-DB of 2002 -12- but he appears to have not played any role in commission of the crime. Therefore, he deserves to be extended benefit of doubt.
Therefore, we partly accept the criminal appeal No.338-DB of 2002, set aside the impugned judgment to the extent that Attar Singh is acquitted of the charges framed against him and he be set at liberty forthwith. Bail bonds and surety bonds furnished by him stand discharged and fine, if any, deposited by him be refunded. The appeal qua accused Mange Ram and Santosh Devi stands dismissed.
( HEMANT GUPTA ) ( A.N. JINDAL )
JUDGE JUDGE
MAY 05, 2011
Rajan
Crl. Appeal No.338-DB of 2002 -13-
While touching the motive, we consider and accept the argument of learned counsel for the appellants to the extent that Attar Singh had no motive for committing the crime. It does not appeal to the reason that when his own wife had illicit relations with his brother then why he would participate in the commission of the crime. This could be only Mange Ram and Santosh Devi who were to be effected if Rekha Rani remains alive and Attar Singh was not going to be benefitted on the death of Rekha Rani. Accordingly, as per FIR (Ex.PB/1), the allegations are against Mange Ram and Santosh Devi and Attar Singh is said to be witness to the conspiracy but latter on Attar Singh was attributed the same part as that of the other accused. No element of conspiracy has been proved, which Attar Singh had contributed towards the murder of Rekha Rani.