Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manpreet Kaur vs State Of Punjab on 22 March, 2012
Author: Rajive Bhalla
Bench: Rajive Bhalla, Rakesh Kumar Jain
Criminal Appeal No.557-DB of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. 557-DB of 2010
Date of Decision: 22.3.2012
Manpreet Kaur ..Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab ..Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.583-DB of 2010
Binder Kumar ..Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab ..Respondent
and
Criminal Appeal No. 1208-DB of 2010
Surjit Singh .Appellant-complainant
Versus
Manpreet Kaur and others ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr. D.S.Malwai, Advocate for the appellant.
(in Criminal Appeal No.557-DB of 2010)
Mr. T.S.Sangha, Senior Advocate
with Mr. H.S.Sangha, Advocate
for the appellant (in Criminal Appeal No.583-DB of 2010)
Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Additional Advocate General,
for the State of Punjab.
Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate for the complainant
(Criminal Appeal No.1208-DB of 2010)
RAJIVE BHALLA, J.
By way of this order, we shall dispose of three Criminal Appeals No.557-DB and 583-DB of 2010 challenging order of Criminal Appeal No.557-DB of 2010 2 conviction and sentence filed by the accused and Criminal Appeal No. 1208-DB of 2010 filed by the complainant praying for enhancement of the sentence.
Manpreet Kaur, appellant, in Criminal Appeal No.557-DB of 2010 challenges her conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, for causing the death of her two minor children, namely, Narinderpal and Anmol, whereas Binder Kumar, appellant, in Criminal Appeal No. 583-DB of 2010, challenges his conviction under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants have been sentenced to undergo two separate life imprisonments for causing the death of two minor children, Narinderpal and Anmol, and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-each for each death. In default of payment of fine, the appellants have been directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months each. All sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
On 23.7.2005, a message was received in Police Station Talwandi Sabo that dead bodies of two children, Narinderpal and Anmol, have been received at Civil Hospital, Mansa. The police party left for Civil Hospital, Mansa, where they met Surjit Singh son of Jati Ram, who made statement dated 23.7.2005, Ex.PA, to the effect that Harjit Singh @ Happy son of Ram Sarup died four days ago. Harjit Singh had two sons Narinderpal, aged 08 years and Anmol, aged about 02 years. The ashes of Harjit Singh were collected on 23.7.2005. Kanta Devi wife of Krishan Kumar, Anita wife of Janak Raj, sisters of Manpreet Kaur widow of Harjit Singh and Binder Kumar son of Satish Kumar, came to the village to pay condolence. Criminal Appeal No.557-DB of 2010 3 Kanta Devi, Anita, Manpreet Kaur and Binder Kumar said that as Manpreet Kaur is quite young, she should get remarried after getting rid of her children. It is further stated that at about 2.00 P.M on 23.7.2005, he and his mother went to the house of Manpreet Kaur, where his nephew Narinderpal told them that they (the children) have been vomiting as their mother Manpreet Kaur has administered some poisonous substance to them. Narinderpal and Anmol became unconscious. The complainant arranged for a vehicle and removed Narinderpal and Anmol to Guru Nanak Children Hospital, Mansa, where both children passed away. The complainant alleged that Manpreet Kaur had poisoned her children in connivance with her sisters Kanta Devi, Anita and her paramour Binder Kumar, with whom she has illicit relations. His statement, Ex.PA, was reduced into writing by Balbir Singh, SHO, Police Station Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda on 23.7.2005; and forwarded to Police Station Talwandi Sabo that led to registration of FIR, Ex.PA/2. After registration of FIR, the police began investigation by sending the dead bodies of children for post mortem examination. The police recorded the statements of witnesses, arrested the appellants, visited the place of occurrence, collected a vial containing poison, pursuant to disclosure statement made by Manpreet Kaur and after recording the extra-judicial confessions of Manpreet Kaur and Binder Kumar, made before Surinder Kumar @ Bala, opinion of the doctor based upon report of the Chemical Examiner that the cause of death was poisoning with a choloro compound bound poison, filed challan under sections 302/201/34 IPC against Criminal Appeal No.557-DB of 2010 4 Manpreet Kaur and Binder Kumar only, but found Smt. Kanta Devi and Anita innocent during investigation. The Illaqa Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Bathinda, on 5.10.2005.
The learned Sessions Judge framed charges against Manpreet Kaur under sections 302 and 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code, but against Binder Kumar charges were framed under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. During trial and pursuant to order dated 31.5.2006, passed on the application under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Smt. Kanta Devi and Anita were arraigned as accused. Accordingly, charge was amended and Kanta Devi and Anita were charged under section 302 read with section 115 of the Indian Penal Code. As all the accused pleaded not guilty, the prosecution was directed to lead its evidence.
The prosecution examined the following witnesses:
PW1 Surjit Singh (complainant) son of Jati Ram, who reiterated his statement made before the police and though cross- examined, in detail, had maintained his stand that the deceased children were poisoned by their mother Manpreet Kaur.
PW2 Ram Sarup son of Kheta Ram, father of Harjit Singh and grand father of the deceased children, deposed that his son Harjit Singh died on 20.7.2005 as Manpreet Kaur administered him poison. He had also deposed about the statement made by the sisters of Manpreet Kaur and Binder Kumar on 22.7.2005 with respect to the re-marriage of Manpreet Kaur and had also stated that Manpreet Kaur had an extra-marital affair with Binder Kumar Criminal Appeal No.557-DB of 2010 5 and for that reason, she had administered poison to her minor children.
PW3 Head Constable Pritam Singh, Police Station Raman, deposed that he and Constable-II Balwant Singh were deputed by SI/SHO Balbir Singh, Police Station Talwandi Sabo, to get the post mortem of Narinderpal and Anmol conducted. He had deposed that Dr. Suresh Kumar Singla was deputed to conduct post mortem. He deposited two parcels of viscera each, sealed with sixteen seals, two envelopes each sealed with five seals, two parcels of clothes of each of the deceased children and a letter addressed to Chemical Examiner, Patiala as well as other samples.
PW4 ASI Darshan Singh, who recorded the initial statement of Surjit Singh (complainant) that led to the registration of FIR, apprehended the appellants, their interrogation, has deposed that Manpreet Kaur told him that she had concealed the medicine, which was administered to the children in her room. He recorded the statement of Manpreet Kaur, Ex.PC, but admitted that it was not thumb marked by her, i.e., Manpreet Kaur. He also deposed with respect to recovery of "Sackweed Nasin Nashak" Insecticide by Manpreet Kaur after removing some chaff.
PW5 Dr. Daljit Singh Gill, Prof., Guru Nanak Children Hospital, Mansa, deposed that both the children were brought to his hospital. He suspected that some poisonous substance had been consumed. He referred them to Civil Hospital, Mansa. He has proved his reports Ex.PW5/A and Ex. PW5/B. PW6 Head Constable Manjit Ram is a formal witness, Criminal Appeal No.557-DB of 2010 6 who tendered in evidence his sworn affidavit Ex.PW6/A. PW7 Head Constable Mohinder Singh is also a formal witness who tendered his sworn affidavit, Ex.PW7/A, in evidence.
PW8 Head Constable Joga Singh, is a formal witness, who has tendered in evidence, his affidavit, Ex.PW8/A. He has deposed in his cross-examination that after receipt of articles from the doctor, he had sent them, on the next day, to the office of the Chemical Examiner. He has further deposed about depositing of a vial, through Head Constable Manjit Ram, with the office of Chemical Examiner, Patiala on 18.7.2005.
PW9 Head Constable Balwant Singh is a formal witness, who had tendered his sworn affidavit, Ex.PW9/A, in evidence. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he did not know about the contents of parcels, envelopes etc. He further deposed that he had handed over these articles to the dealing hand only.
PW10 Surinder Kumar @ Bala has deposed about the extra-judicial confession made by the appellants before him.
PW11 Dr. Suresh Kumar Singla, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Mansa, conducted the post mortem and opined that cause of death was due to poisoning of choloro compound insecticide.
PW12 Inspector Balbir Singh (since retired) deposed that he received QST, Ex. PW-12/A) from SHO, City Mansa, whereupon he reached Civil Hospital, Mansa and recorded statement, Ex.PA. He also conducted part of investigation.
The toxicology report, Ex.PX, was tendered into evidence. Upon closure of prosecution evidence, the entire Criminal Appeal No.557-DB of 2010 7 incriminating circumstances appearing against the appellants and the accused were put to them. The appellants and other accused denied these circumstances and pleaded their false implication.
Manpreet Kaur stated that Surjit Singh had undue influence over her father-in-law Ram Sarup. She has been falsely implicated, at his instance, so as to grab the property of her father-in- law. She also stated that Surjit Singh, who murdered her husband, and minor children and levelled false allegations against her. Binder Kumar pleaded his innocence. The appellants produced DW1 Varinder Kumar and DW2 Surjit Kaur in defence.
After considering the arguments addressed by counsel for the parties and perusing the entire record, the Additional Sessions Judge, convicted and sentenced Manpreet Kaur and Binder Kumar, as referred to in the opening part of the judgment, but acquitted Smt. Kanta Devi and Anita by giving them the benefit of doubt.
Counsel for appellant Manpreet Kaur urged that there is no evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, to prove that the appellant poisoned her children or that she had an illicit relationship with Binder Kumar or that she had any role to play in the unfortunate death of her minor children. It is further argued that the motive set up by the prosecution, is the alleged illicit relationship, based upon the deposition of PW1 Surjit Singh and PW2 Ram Sarup, who are interested witnesses. This apart, the prosecution has not examined any independent witness to prove illicit relationship. It is further argued that there is no evidence that Manpreet Kaur administered poison or that the appellants had conspired to administer poison to Criminal Appeal No.557-DB of 2010 8 the deceased. The entire case of the prosecution is based upon the statements of PW1 Surjit Singh and PW2 Ram Sarup. The statement made by PW2 Ram Sarup is that Manpreet Kaur administered poison to her children. The cross-examination of these witnesses clearly establishes that Surjit Singh PW1 had deposed falsely as he wanted to usurp the property of PW2 Ram Sarup. The disclosure statement, Ex.PC, allegedly, made by Manpreet Kaur, is not signed by her nor was the bottle of poison, allegedly, recovered, sent for chemical analysis. The extra-judicial confession, was made before a person, who, admittedly, had a criminal record. It is further submitted that there was no reason for Manpreet Kaur to murder her children by administering insecticide/pesticide. It is also contended that the fact that Manpreet Kaur was present in the hospital when her children were declared dead, clearly establishes that the prosecution story, saying that she was not present, is false. It is further argued that an inference drawn by the trial court under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the "Evidence Act") is unwarranted as there is no evidence that Manpreet Kaur was the only person, who had access to the children. It is argued that the court below has failed to consider that PW2 Ram Sarup had executed a will in favour of Surjit Singh, bequeathing his entire property to the latter and it was for this reason that Surjit Singh committed the murder of Harjit Singh, i.e., Manpreet Kaur's husband and her minor children.
Counsel for Binder Kumar appellant states that the only evidence against him is the statement allegedly made by him soon Criminal Appeal No.557-DB of 2010 9 after the death of Manpreet Kaur's husband along with Kanta Devi and Anita. However, Kanta Devi and Anita have been acquitted, there was no reason for the trial court to convict and sentence the appellant. It is further contended that the prosecution has not produced any evidence to prove the alleged illicit relationship between Binder Kumar and Manpreet Kaur. The bald statements by PW1 Surjit Singh and PW2 Ram Sarup are insufficient to raise an inference of illicit relationship or that the appellant had participated in the murder of two minor children. It is also contended that as prosecution witnesses have admitted that Binder Kumar was present in the Hospital and in the Police Station, this fact alone establishes that he has been falsely implicated. The alleged extra-judicial confession is not believable, particularly when the appellant had no reason to make such a confession before PW10 Surinder Kumar @ Bala, who is a stranger.
Counsel for the State of Punjab submits that orders passed by the trial court are legal and valid as the prosecution has succeeded in bringing home the guilt of both the appellants. The depositions made by PW1 Surjit Singh and PW2 Ram Sarup about the illicit relationship, about the statements made by the deceased Narinderpal to them, leave no manner of doubt as to the guilt of the appellants. Minor discrepancies in the prosecution version, do not have any bearing on the merits of the case. It is further pointed out that statements of PW1 Surjit Singh and PW2 Ram Sarup are corroborated by the medical evidence and the report prepared by the Chemical Examiner to the effect that children had died of Criminal Appeal No.557-DB of 2010 10 poisoning. The extra-judicial confession is legal and valid and does not suffer from any infirmity. The stand taken by Manpreet Kaur that children may have taken some poisonous substance by mistake clearly establishes death by poisoning and, in essence, lends credence to the prosecution story.
We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and order.
The investigation was set into motion pursuant to a statement, dated 23.7.2005, Ex.PA, made by Surjit Singh, leading to the registration of the FIR. Surjit Singh is closely related to the deceased and to Manpreet Kaur, appellant no.1 as well as he is a cousin brother of Manpreet Kaur's late husband and resides in the adjoining house. His deposition is to the effect that on 19.7.2005 Harjit Singh, husband of Manpreet Kaur, suffered from vomiting and loose motions and expired at about 3.00 A.M. Harjit Singh had two sons, namely, Narinderpal, aged 08 years,and Anmol, aged 02 years. After the cremation, Kanta, Anita Rani, sisters of Manpreet Kaur, Binder Kumar and other relatives came to his house, where his mother Nirmala Rani, Ram Sarup, father-in-law of Manpreet Kaur, were sitting. Smt. Kanta and Anita, sisters of Manpreet Kaur, and Binder Kumar stated that as Manpreet Kaur is young, it would be difficult for her to spend her life and she should, therefore, get re- married to some relative. They further advised Manpreet Kaur to get rid of her children as they would be a stumbling block in her future life. Surjit Singh had further deposed on oath that on 23.7.2005 at about 2.00 P.M., he along with his mother Nirmla Rani went to the Criminal Appeal No.557-DB of 2010 11 house of Manpreet Kaur and found that both Narinderpal and Anmol were crying. Narinderpal told him that their mother has administered poison to them. Thereafter both children began vomiting and passing loose motions. Surjit Singh and his mother shifted the children to Guru Nanak Children Hospital at Mansa, where they were referred to Civil Hospital, Mansa. By the time they reached Civil Hospital, Mansa, both children had passed away. Surjit Singh has implicated Binder Kumar and Manpreet Kaur, appellants, along with Kanta Devi and Anita, sisters of Manpreet Kaur, in the murder of the minors. Surjit Singh is a witness to the disclosure statement, Ex.PC, pursuant whereof a bottle of poisonous substance was recovered at the behest of Manpreet Kaur. The prosecution, has, in an attempt to impeach his credibility, asserted that Ram Sarup, father-in-law of Manpreet Kaur, had executed a Will in favour of Surjit Singh who engineered the murder of Manpreet Kaur's husband Harjit Singh and then her children, so as to inherit the entire property of Ram Sarup. A large number of irrelevant questions were directed against the witness relating to the time of occurrence, why he did not get treatment in the village etc. but the defence was unable to impeach the credibility of this witness in any manner. It will be necessary, at this stage, to point out that a specific question was put to this witness as to how he came to know about poison having been administered to the deceased children. In response, this witness reiterated his statement in the affirmative and deposed that the children had told him that at about 2.00/2.30 P.M. they had been administered some poisonous substance by their mother. We find no Criminal Appeal No.557-DB of 2010 12 reason to disbelieve the deposition of this witness merely on the ground that Ram Sarup had executed a will in his favour as we are satisfied that this could not be reason enough for him to have engineered the death of Manpreet Kaur's husband and then her minor children. If Ram Sarup had executed a Will in favour of Surjit Singh, there was no reason for him to engineer the murder of Manpreet Kaur's husband and her children as he would have inherited the property on the demise of Ram Sarup. The defence regarding the Will, in our considered opinion, is fanciful and too far fetched to believe, particularly, when Ram Sarup stepped into the witness box, admitted execution of the Will but also deposed that he had cancelled the Will before the incident. We have perused the statement of this witness with a great degree of care and are unable to discern any fact that impeaches the veracity of his deposition. It is true that there are certain inconsistencies and discrepancies in the statement of this witness, but this alone does not distract from the essence of his statement which, in our considered opinion, unerringly points to the guilt of Manpreet Kaur and Binder Kumar.
As regards his statement indicting Binder Kumar in the death of these two children on the ground that Binder Kumar and Manpreet Kaur shared an illicit relationship, it is true that this part of the prosecution evidence is based solely upon the statements of Surjit Singh PW1 and Ram Sarup PW2. An illicit relationship is generally concealed from public gaze and only a few, are aware of such a fact, and generally tend to suppress this fact to protect family honour for fear of societal disapproval. As a general rule, it is nearly Criminal Appeal No.557-DB of 2010 13 impossible for the prosecution to collect direct evidence of an illicit relationship and, therefore, it has to rely upon statements of witnesses. It is for a court to weigh the evidence and thereafter conclude whether the statements are sufficiently credible to raise inference of an illicit relationship. We have perused the statement made by PW1 Surjit Singh and find no reason to doubt his credibility or the truthfulness of his deposition. Surjit Singh, in our considered opinion, had no reason to falsely implicate Manpreet Kaur. A red herring introduced by the defence, namely, a Will allegedly executed by Ram Sarup in favour of the complainant so as to deflect the blame to Surjit Singh, has been considered in the preceding part of the judgment and rejected. We, however, reiterate that in case the Will was executed in favour of Surjit Singh, there was no reason for him to murder the husband and children of Manpreet Kaur as he would have, in due course of time, inherited the property of Ram Sarup. The witness has faced a searing cross-examination from counsel for both the appellants and has not deviated from the essence of his deposition, namely, an illicit relationship between Binder Kumar and Manpreet Kaur, as the cause for these murders. The fact that poison was administered to the two minor children, namely, Narinderpal, aged 08 years and Anmol, aged 02 years, by Manpreet Kaur, is proved from the statement of Surjit Singh as he has clearly deposed that the children told him that poison had been administered, to them, by their mother. The next witness, is Ram Sarup, grand father of the deceased children, and father-in-law of Manpreet Kaur appellant. PW2 Ram Sarup has deposed that his son Criminal Appeal No.557-DB of 2010 14 Harjit Singh died on 20.7.2005 as some poisonous substance was administered to him by Manpreet Kaur. He has also deposed that Manpreet Kaur's sisters Smt. Kanta Devi, Anita Devi and Binder Kumar came after the ashes of Harjit Singh were collected and stated that as Manpreet Kaur is a young woman, she should remarry and for that purpose, she should do away with the children. On 23.7.2005 at about 2.00 P.M. when he was present in his house, Manpreet Kaur administered poisonous substance to her children. In the meanwhile, Nirmala Devi and Surjit Singh (PW1) came to his house. Narinderpal, aged 08 years, stated that his mother Manpreet Kaur had administered poison to him and his brother. Both children started vomiting and began passing loose motions. Surjit Singh and Nirmala Devi took the children initially to Guru Nanak Children Hospital, and then to Civil Hospital, Mansa, where they expired. He has also deposed that Manpreet Kaur had an illicit relationship with Binder Kumar and she has murdered her children in conspiracy with Binder Kumar. The witness was subjected to a searing cross-
examination by counsel for both the appellants, but did not commit any error or a contradiction as to draw an inference that he has deposed falsely or has concealed the truth. An attempt was also made by the defence to raise an inference by reference to the site plan of the house, that children were present in the house of Surjit Singh, where they were poisoned but this suggestion was repelled by this witness. The statement made by PW2 Ram Sarup corroborates the statement made by PW1 Surjit Singh. We find no reason to doubt the correctness of the depositions of these two Criminal Appeal No.557-DB of 2010 15 witnesses.
As regards the depositions of these witnesses relating to illicit relationship between Manpreet Kaur and Binder Kumar, PW 1 Surjit Singh has deposed that he did not disclose the illicit relationship of Binder Kumar and Manpreet Kaur to any person other than his family members as he feared for honour of his family. A perusal of examination-in-chief and the detailed cross- examination(s) of PW1 Surjit Singh and PW2 Ram Sarup, in our considered opinion, leaves no manner of doubt that there was an illicit relationship between Manpreet Kaur and Binder Kumar, who hatched a conspiracy, to get rid of the children and in furtherance to this conspiracy, they administered poison to the children, in the shape of an insecticide mixed with cough syrup, that led to their death.
The prosecution has proved that poison was found in the viscera of the minor children by the deposition of PW11 Dr. Suresh Kumar Singla, who conducted the postmortem on the dead bodies of children and on the basis of Chemical Examiner's reports, Exs.PW11/C and PW11/D, thereby completing the chain of circumstances against the appellants. The disclosure statement made by the appellants before PW10 Surinder Kumar alias Bala puts paid to any pretense of innocence. The criticism directed against the deposition of PW 10 Surinder Kumar @ Bala is that there was no reason for the appellants to go to Dhanaula and that as this witness is a previous convict, his statement should be discarded. We have considered the argument, perused the deposition of PW 10 Surinder Criminal Appeal No.557-DB of 2010 16 Kumar @ Bala with a great degree of care and hold that the fact that he is a previous convict, does not lead to an inference that he is a procured witness. The appellants have not been able to adduce any evidence that could enable us to hold that PW10 Surinder Kumar @ Bala has not disclosed the truth and even otherwise, there was no reason for PW10 Surinder Kumar @ Bala to depose against the appellants as he has no previous enmity, and as is apparent, is closely related to both of them.
An argument that as the disclosure statement, Ex.PC, made by Manpreet Kaur is not signed by her, it should be ruled out of consideration, is irrelevant, as the trial court has discarded this evidence on the ground that it is not signed by Manpreet Kaur and as the bottle of insecticide recovered pursuant to this disclosure statement was not sent for chemical examination.
The trial court has, after considering the evidence, relied upon section 106 of the Evidence Act, to hold that as the children were in the custody of Manpreet Kaur, it was for her to explain as to in what manner, the children consumed poison or were administered poison. The trial Court has held that the circumstances proved by the prosecution clearly establish that Manpreet Kaur administered poison to the minors and failed to satisfy the court about the circumstances that led to the death by poisoning of two minor children, as required by section 106 of the Evidence Act. Manpreet Kaur, however, has taken a contradictory stand that children may have been poisoned accidentally and another stand that they were poisoned by Surjit Singh PW1. Manpreet Kaur's stand clearly proves Criminal Appeal No.557-DB of 2010 17 that the children were poisoned and the evidence on record proves beyond shadow of doubt that they were poisoned by Manpreet Kaur in conspiracy with Binder Singh.
In view of what has been stated hereinabove, we find no reason whether in fact or in law to interfere with findings recorded by the trial court and consequently dismiss both the appeals, i.e., Criminal Appeals Nos.557-DB of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No.583- DB of 2010, filed by accused-appellants.
As suitable punishment has been awarded to the accused-appellants, we dismiss Criminal Appeal No. 1208-DB of
2010 filed by the appellant/complainant for enhancement of sentence.
( RAJIVE BHALLA ) JUDGE ( RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ) 22.3.2012 JUDGE VK