Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Iqbal Singh on 17 August, 2011
Bench: S.S.Saron, Jora Singh
Crl.Appeal No. 611-DBA of 2002 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Date of decision:17.8.2011
(I) Crl.Appeal No.611-DBA of 2002
State of Punjab
... Appellant
versus
Iqbal Singh
... Respondent
(II) Crl.Appeal No.612-DBA of 2002
State of Punjab
... Petitioner
versus
Iqbal Singh
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SARON.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH.
Present: Mr.Amarjit Singh Jatana, Addl.AG, Punjab,
for the appellant-State.
Mrs.Baljit Kaur Mann, Advocate,
and Mr.Pavittar Singh Grewal, Advocate,
for the respondent.
...
JORA SINGH, J.
State of Punjab has filed Crl.Appeal No.611-DBA of 2002 and Crl.Appeal No.612-DBA of 2002 against the judgment of acquittal dated 24.8.2001 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, in Sessions Case Nos.15 and 11 dated 19.4.1995, arising out of FIR No.7 dated 25.1.1995 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC for short), PS Amargarh, and FIR No.8 dated 2.2.1995 under Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act, PS Amargarh, respectively.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that Albel Singh, complainant (PW2), resident of Village Jabo Majra, at about 7.30 pm on 25.1.1995 was present in his house, then heard the sound of gun shots from the house of Baldev Singh (deceased). He had gone to the house of Baldev Singh and Crl.Appeal No. 611-DBA of 2002 2 noticed the dead body of Baldev Singh lying at the entrance gate of the house. After that, the complainant along with Joginder Singh, Chowkidar, had gone to lodge a report. Near the Bus Stand of Village Chaunda, police party headed by SI Kirpal Singh met them. Then statement (Ex.PG) of Albel Singh was recorded by SI Kirpal Singh at 9.05 pm. After making an endorsement, statement (Ex.PG) was sent to the police station, on the basis of which, formal FIR (Ex.PAA/1) was recorded. Special report was delivered to the Ilaqa Magistrate at 7.00 am on 26.1.1995.
SI Kirpal Singh along with other police officials, Albel Singh, complainant, and Joginder Singh, Chowkidar, had gone to the spot. Dead bodies of Baldev Singh, Harbans Kaur and Manjit Kaur were found lying in the house of Baldev Singh. One empty cartridge was lying near the dead body of Baldev Singh and two empty cartridges were found lying near the dead body of Manjit Kaur. Empty cartridges were taken into police possession after the same were made into a sealed parcel, sealed with the seal bearing impression `KS', vide memo (Ex.PT) attested by the witnesses. Blood stained earth was lifted from the spot and made into a sealed parcel, sealed with the seal bearing impression `KS'. Sealed parcel was taken into police possession vide memo (Ex.PS) attested by the witnesses. Seal after its use was handed over to ASI Nahar Singh. Inquest reports (Ex.PB, Ex.PE and Ex.PK) regarding the dead bodies of Manjit Kaur, Baldev Singh and Harbans Kaur, respectively, were prepared, and the same were attested by Bhajan Singh and Jora Singh. Dead bodies of Manjit Kaur, Baldev Singh and Harbans Kaur were sent to the hospital for post mortem examination along with applications, Ex.PC, Ex.PF and Ex.PI, respectively. After post mortem examination, dead body of Baldev Singh was received by Albel Crl.Appeal No. 611-DBA of 2002 3 Singh, complainant, and of Manjit Kaur and Harbans Kaur by Avtar Singh for cremation. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. On return to the police station, case property was deposited with the Incharge of Malkhana.
After post mortem examination, Constable Karnail Singh has produced three sealed parcels of the clothes worn by the deceased. Two parcels were sealed with the seal bearing impression `KS' and one parcel was sealed with the seal bearing impression `SKG'. Sealed parcels were taken into police possession vide memo (Ex.PQ) attested by the witnesses. Sealed parcels were deposited with the Incharge of Malkhana.
On 2.2.1995, Gurpreet Singh son of Tara Singh had produced respondent-accused Iqbal Singh son of Baldev Singh before SI Kirpal Singh. Iqbal Singh, respondent, was arrested in this case and was interrogated in the presence of Amarjit Singh. Iqbal Singh suffered a disclosure statement that he has kept concealed a gandasa in a room of his residential house meant for storing chaff and a 12 bore double barrel gun along with four live cartridges in his fields under the heap of paddy straw. He knew about the same and could get the same recovered. Statement of Iqbal Singh (Ex.P2) was recorded, who signed the same. In pursuance of his disclosure statement, the respondent got recovered gandasa (Ex.P14) from the specified place. Sketch of blade of the gandasa was prepared. 12 bore double barrel gun No.66577 (Ex.P15) and four live cartridges (Ex.P16 to Ex.P19) were also got recovered from the specified place. Gandasa was made into a sealed parcel sealed with the seal bearing impression `KS'. Sealed parcel was taken into police possession vide memo (Ex.PW) attested by the witnesses. Rough site plan of the place from where gandasa was got recovered was also prepared. Gun and live cartridges were also made into a Crl.Appeal No. 611-DBA of 2002 4 sealed parcel sealed with the seal bearing impression `KS'. Sealed parcel was taken into police possession vide memo (Ex.PX) attested by the witnesses. Rough site plan of the place of recovery of the gun and the cartridges was prepared. After the recovery of the gun and the live cartridges, separate FIR No. 8 dated 2.2.1995 under Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act was registered. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and on return to the police station, case property was deposited with the Incharge of Malkhana. After the receipt of sanction to launch prosecution under the Arms Act and after completion of investigation, separate challans were presented in Court.
Offence under Section 302 of IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of Session and vide order dated 10.4.1995 passed by JMIC, Malerkotla, both the cases were committed to the Court of Session for trial.
After hearing learned PP for the State, learned counsel for the respondent and from the perusal of the documents on the file, learned trial Court opined that a prima facie case is made out to frame charges under Section 302 IPC and under Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act. Accordingly, charges were framed against respondent-accused Iqbal Singh, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Vide order dated 24.5.1995 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, challan under the Arms Act was consolidated with the main challan under Section 302 IPC and the trial of both the cases was ordered to be clubbed in terms of Section 220 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. for short) and the evidence was ordered to be recorded in FIR No.7 dated 25.1.1995 under Section 302 IPC and was to be read in both the cases.
Crl.Appeal No. 611-DBA of 2002 5
In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined number of witnesses.
PW1 Dr.Charanjit Singh on 26.1.1995 at about 1.00 pm had conducted post mortem on the dead body of Manjit Kaur and observed as under:-
"Rigor mortis was present. Postmortem staining was present on back of the body. Eyes were closed. Mouth was partly opened. On posterior aspect of head, skin was bruised. Margins were inverted. Upper part of skull was shattered along with a brain matter. Blood and clots were present in the area. On back of skull, wound of 4.5 cms long was present. Skin was bruised with margins inverted. Both the left and right ventricals were empty. Stomach was healthy and empty. Urinary bladder was healthy and contained 150 mls of urine. Small intestine was healthy and contained fluid and gases. Large intestine was healthy and contained faeces and gases. Scalp injury was ante mortem in nature and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Death was due to injury to vital organ brain resulting from firearm.
Probable duration between injuries and death was immediate and between death and postmortem was within 24 hours."
On the same day at 2.30 pm, he had conducted post mortem on the dead body of Baldev Singh and observed as under:-
"1. Entry wound bullet 1 x 1 cm in right eye. Margins were inverted, bruised, lower margin of right upper eye lid Crl.Appeal No. 611-DBA of 2002 6 was injured.
2. Exist wound bullet on right posterior lateral aspect of skull scalp, margins everted, measuring 2.5 x 3.0 cm.
On dissection, both the above injuries connected with track of bullet travelling backwards injuring on way right eye ball, brain, blood and blood clots were present in the region.
Both right and left ventricals were empty. Small intestine was healthy and contained fluid and gases. Large intestine was healthy and contained faeces and gases. Urinary bladder was healthy and empty. Injuries were ante mortem in nature and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Death was due to injury to vital organ brain resulting from firearm."
Probable duration between injuries and death was immediate and between death and postmortem was within 24 hours."
PW2 Albel Singh is the complainant but he did not support the prosecution story and was declared hostile.
PW3 Jagdev Singh is one of the eye witnesses but he too was declared hostile, when he failed to support the prosecution story.
PW4 Dr. Sheetal Jain had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Harbans Kaur and found the following injuries on her person:-
"1. There was an incised wound of 14 cms x 3 cms on the left side of the scalp, 16 cms away from the left ear pinna. Underlying bone and brain matter were cut. Crl.Appeal No. 611-DBA of 2002 7
2. Incised wound 13 cms x 4 cms on the right side of the scalp, 11 cms away from the right ear pinna and 8 cms above the right eye brow.
3. Lacerated wound 2 cms x 0.5 cm on the left side of left forearm 7 cms away from the left wrist joint underlying. Both the bones were fractured.
4. An incised wound 1 cm x 0.5 cm on the left lateral aspect of left forearm 5 cms away from injury No.3 and 2 cms away from the left wrist joint. Both the underlying bones were fractured."
Cause of death was due to the injuries to the vital organ brain and haemorrhage, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Probable duration between the injuries and death was immediate and between death and postmortem examination was within 24 hours." PW5 Parampaul Singh is the second eye witness and stated that on 25.1.1995 at about 7.30 pm, he was near the house of Baldev Singh. Then Jagdev Singh was seen while closing the gate. There was electric light in the courtyard of Baldev Singh. Baldev Singh was going towards the gate of his house after alighting from Ambassador car. Iqbal Singh was also seen armed with 12 bore double barrel gun. He had fired a shot hitting Baldev Singh. On receipt of firearm injuries, Baldev Singh fell down on the ground. Then Iqbal Singh raised lalkara that Harbans Kaur and Manjit Kaur are not to be spared. Iqbal Singh then fired 2-3 shots. He along with Jagdev Singh to save their lives had fled away from the spot. After some time, number of people had gathered there. Then he and Jagdev Singh came Crl.Appeal No. 611-DBA of 2002 8 back to the house of Baldev Singh. Dead bodies of Baldev Singh, Harbans Kaur and Manjit Kaur were found lying in their house. He had narrated the above said incident to Albel Singh, complainant, who came at the spot after informing the police. Motive to murder Baldev Singh, Harbans Kaur and Manjit Kaur was that 15/20 years back, Gurdev Kaur was turned out of her matrimonial home by her husband Baldev Singh. Baldev Singh also used to ill treat his son Iqbal Singh. Baldev Singh was an addict and was selling his land and due to this reason, Iqbal Singh murdered Baldev Singh, Harbans Kaur and Manjit Kaur.
PW6 HC Rajinder Singh tendered his affidavit (Ex.PL). PW7 Gurnam Singh had prepared scaled site plan (Ex.PN). PW8 Constable Karnail Singh got conducted post mortem examinations on the dead bodies of the deceased.
PW9 Constable Gamdoor Singh tendered his affidavit (Ex.PR). PW10 ASI Nahar Singh on 25.1.1995 was with the party headed by SI Kirpal Singh and in his presence, statement of Albel Singh, complainant, was recorded by SI Kirpal Singh. Blood stained earth and empty cartridges were lifted from the spot by the Investigating Officer.
PW11 ASI Gurcharan Singh stated that on 2.2.1995, he was with the police party headed by SI Kirpal Singh and in his presence, respondent Iqbal Singh was interrogated. In pursuance of the disclosure statement suffered by Iqbal Singh, he got recovered a gandasa and a gun with four live cartridges from the specified places. Gandasa and gun along with four live cartridges were made into separate sealed parcels. Sealed parcels were taken into police possession vide separate memos attested by him and Amarjit Singh.
Crl.Appeal No. 611-DBA of 2002 9
PW12 Constable Bhagwant Singh tendered his affidavit (Ex.PZ).
PW13 SI Kirpal Singh is the Investigating Officer.
PW14 Raghbir Singh proved sanction (Ex.PKK).
Reports of Serologist (Ex.PFF and Ex.PGG) and of Chemical Examiner (Ex.PHH and Ex.PII) were tendered into evidence.
After close of the prosecution evidence, statement of the respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all the prosecution allegations and pleaded to be innocent.
Defence version of the respondent was that Baldev Singh (deceased) was a cruel person and was not allowing him to enter the house. Baldev Singh was having illicit relations with Manjit Kaur. Parampaul Singh was introduced as a witness after calling him from Rampuraphul. He is the son of Harbans Kaur. Due to enmity, Parampaul Singh has deposed against him because one month earlier to the occurrence, he (Parampaul Singh) had a dispute with him and he had given beatings to Parampaul Singh, Opportunity was given to lead defence but no defence was led. After hearing learned PP for the State, learned counsel for the respondent, the respondent was acquitted of the charges levelled against him.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-State, learned counsel for the respondent and have gone through the evidence on the file.
Learned counsel for the appellant-State argued that the respondent, real son of Baldev Singh (deceased), has murdered three persons at about 7.30 pm. Occurrence was witnessed by Parampaul Singh Crl.Appeal No. 611-DBA of 2002 10 and Jagdev Singh. Jagdev Singh appeared as PW3 but did not support the prosecution story. He was won over by the respondent. PW5 Parampaul Singh is the son of Harbans Kaur (deceased) and brother of Manjit Kaur (deceased). Parampaul Singh being related to the deceased came to the house of Baldev Singh to know about the welfare of Harbans Kaur and Manjit Kaur. Presence of Parampaul Singh at the time of occurrence is natural. Gun of Baldev Singh (deceased) was used to commit the crime and the gun was recovered in pursuance of the disclosure statement suffered by the respondent. Empties recovered from the spot were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. After recovery of the gun on 2.2.1995, gun was also sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and as per report of the laboratory, empty cartridges lifted from the spot were found fired from the gun which was recovered in pursuance of the disclosure statement suffered by the respondent. Parampaul Singh was not inimical towards the respondent. Therefore, there was no reason to name the respondent by leaving the real culprit. Evidence on the file was not rightly scrutinized by the learned trial Court.
Learned counsel for the respondent argued that dead bodies were recovered from the house of Baldev Singh (deceased). Respondent is the real son of Baldev Singh but the respondent had no motive to commit the crime. As per story, motive to commit the crime was that Baldev Singh had a dispute with his wife Gurdev Kaur. 15/20 years back, she was turned out of the matrimonial house. Baldev Singh was having illicit relations with Manjit Kaur. Baldev Singh was an addict and was selling his land. He was treating the respondent like a servant. But no evidence on the file that the land was sold by Baldev Singh. 15/20 years back, Gurdev Kaur was turned Crl.Appeal No. 611-DBA of 2002 11 out of the house and if the respondent had a motive to commit the crime, then there was no idea to wait for about 15/20 years. Manjit Kaur (deceased) was married but after the death of her husband, she was residing with Baldev Singh. Manjit Kaur had litigation at Jalandhar but Parampaul Singh was not pursuing the litigation. Father of Baldev Singh was also murdered. No evidence on the file that Baldev Singh was treating the respondent like a servant. After post mortem examination, dead bodies were not collected by Parampaul Singh for cremation. When Baldev Singh (deceased) was having illicit relations with the sister of Parampaul Singh, then Parampaul Singh had a motive to commit the crime and name the respondent because one month earlier to the occurrence, respondent had a dispute with him (Parampaul Singh). Respondent gave beatings to him. Presence of Parampaul Singh at the time of occurrence is doubtful. He was practicing at Rampuraphul. Harbans Kaur and Manjit Kaur were staying with Baldev Singh. During working days when no ceremony was to be solemnized at Village Jabo Majra, then presence of Parampaul Singh at 7.30 pm in village Jabo Majra is doubtful. If Parampaul Singh had witnessed the occurrence, then he should have signed the recovery memos, inquest reports. But no document was signed by Parampaul Singh either in the house of Baldev Singh (deceased) or in the hospital when post mortem examination was conducted. After the post mortem examination, dead bodies were not collected by Parampaul Singh for cremation. Albel Singh is the complainant but he did not support the prosecution story. The complainant did not state that after lodging the report when he came back at the house of Baldev Singh, then Parampaul Singh was found present there and had informed about the occurrence. Ex.PG/1 is the supplementary statement of Crl.Appeal No. 611-DBA of 2002 12 Albel Singh. According to the supplementary statement, when Albel Singh came to the house of Baldev Singh after lodging the report, then Parampaul Singh and Jagdev Singh disclosed to him that Iqbal Singh is the murderer. Parampaul Singh as PW5 stated that he along with Jagdev Singh had witnessed the occurrence and this fact was disclosed to Albel Singh. Occurrence is dated 25.1.1995. In case, Parampaul Singh had witnessed the occurrence, then his statement was to be recorded on 25.1.1995 but statement of Parampaul Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is dated 26.1.1995. ASI Nahar Singh was with the IO on 25.1.1995. In his presence, blood stained earth and empty cartridges were lifted from the spot but he did not state a word that after recording the statement of the complainant when the police party headed by SI Kirpal Singh came to the house of Baldev Singh, then Parampaul Singh was present there and his statement was recorded. SI Kirpal Singh as PW13 did not state a word that after recording the statement of the complainant when he along with other police officials had gone to the house of Baldev Singh, then Parampaul Singh was present there and his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded. If Parampaul Singh had witnessed the occurrence, then the IO should have specifically stated that when he along with other police officials had gone to the house of Baldev Singh, then statement of Parampaul Singh was recorded. Statement of Parampaul Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was not signed by him. Second eye witness, namely, Jagdev Singh did not support the prosecution story. Recovery of gandasa and gun was on 2.2.1995. Recovery was in the presence of Amarjit Singh but he was not examined. If recovery of gandasa was on 2.2.1995, then statement of Parampaul Singh is not correct one when he stated that gandasa was shown to him after two days. Maid servant and Crl.Appeal No. 611-DBA of 2002 13 other servants were in the house at the time of occurrence but they were not examined. No one has appeared in Court to state that the crime was committed by the respondent. When appeal is against acquittal, then judgment is not to be set aside lightly on the allegation that there is a possibility of different view. Defence version of the respondent is that one month earlier to the occurrence, he had a dispute with Parampaul Singh. Respondent gave beatings to Parampaul Singh. Due to this reason, Parampaul Singh has deposed against the respondent. If the respondent failed to lead evidence in support of his defence version, then inculpatory part of the statement of the respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be made the sole basis of conviction. Appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence but judgment of acquittal is to be set aside if the Court is of the opinion that the judgment is perverse and erroneous because the accused is presumed to be innocent until he is found guilty.
Admittedly, Parampaul Singh is the son of Harbans Kaur (deceased) and brother of Manjit Kaur (deceased). Harbans Kaur is the sister of mother of Baldev Singh (deceased).
Gurdev Kaur is the wife of Baldev Singh but 15/20 years back, Gurdev Kaur was turned out of the matrimonial house. Then she along with her second son started residing separately at her parental house. Evidence shows that father of Baldev Singh was also murdered. Manjit Kaur, sister of Parampaul Singh, was married at Jalandhar but after the death of her husband, she was residing with Baldev Singh at Village Jobo Majra. Manjit Kaur had a litigation at Jalandhar.
Ex. PG is the statement of complainant Albel Singh. As per Crl.Appeal No. 611-DBA of 2002 14 statement (Ex.PG), at about 7.30 pm, Albel Singh was present in his house. He heard sound of gun shots from the house of Baldev Singh. After that, the complainant had gone to the house of Baldev Singh and found the dead body of Baldev Singh lying at the entrance gate of the house. After that, the complainant along with Joginder Singh, Chowkidar, had gone to lodge a report. At 9.05 pm, statement (Ex.PG) of the complainant was recorded by SI Kirpal Singh but on the next day, supplementary statement of Albel Singh (Ex.PG/1) was recorded by SI Kirpal Singh. As per supplementary statement (Ex.PG/1), after lodging the report with the police, when Albel Singh along with Joginder Singh, Chowkidar, and police officials came to the house of Baldev Singh (deceased), then Jagdev Singh son of Gurbachan Singh (PW3) and Parampaul Singh son of Gurdial Singh (PW5) told that murder was by Iqbal Singh with the gun of Baldev Singh (deceased) and after murder, he had fled away from the spot. Motive to murder was that 15/20 years back, Gurdev Kaur was turned out of the matrimonial house. Then Baldev Singh kept his aunt (mausi) Harbans Kaur and her daughter Manjit Kaur in his house. Baldev Singh developed illicit relations with Manjit Kaur. He was an addict. Land was sold by him. Due to this reason, Iqbal Singh has murdered Baldev Singh, Harbans Kaur and Manjit Kaur. According to the statement (Ex.PG) dated 25.1.1995 recorded at 9.05 pm, no eye witness. Albel Singh on hearing the sound of gun shots from the house of Baldev Singh had gone there and found the dead body of Baldev Singh lying in his house. But according to the supplementary statement (Ex.PG/1) dated 26.1.1995, PW3 Jagdev Singh and PW5 Parampaul Singh had witnessed the occurrence. As per Ex.PG, Parampaul was not present at the time of occurrence but when supplementary statement (Ex.PG/1) of Crl.Appeal No. 611-DBA of 2002 15 Albel Singh was recorded, then allegation of Albel Singh was that Jagdev Singh and Parampaul Singh told the police that they had witnessed the occurrence.
Albel Singh appeared as PW2 but he did not support the prosecution story. He was declared hostile. He stated that he is illiterate and his thumb impressions were obtained on blank papers. Iqbal Singh was arrested on the next day. Albel Singh did not state a word that when his supplementary statement (Ex.PG/1) was recorded, then Jagdev Singh and Parampaul Singh had told him or the police that they had witnessed the occurrence.
As per Ex.PG/1, occurrence was witnessed by Jagdev Singh and Parampaul Singh. Jagdev Singh appeared as PW3 but he failed to support the prosecution story. He was declared hostile and was cross- examined by the learned PP for the State but nothing came out of the same which could help the prosecution. Statement of Jagdev Singh, one of the alleged eye witnesses, falsifies the prosecution story. As per Ex.PG/1, second eye witness is Parampaul Singh. Now the question is whether presence of Parampaul Singh at the time of occurrence is natural or was introduced simply to strengthen the prosecution story.
As discussed earlier, Parampaul Singh is the son of Harbans Kaur (deceased) and brother of Manjit Kaur (deceased). He was practicing at Rampuraphul. Parampaul Singh as PW5 stated that he came from Rampuraphul in the evening on 25.1.1995 and at 7.30 pm, he was near the main gate of Baldev Singh (deceased). Then Jagdev Singh was seen while closing the gate. There was electric light in the courtyard of Baldev Singh. Baldev Singh was going towards the gate of his house after alighting from Crl.Appeal No. 611-DBA of 2002 16 Ambassador car. Iqbal Singh was also seen armed with 12 bore double barrel gun. He had fired a shot hitting Baldev Singh. On receipt of firearm injuries, Baldev Singh fell down on the ground. Then Iqbal Singh raised lalkara that Harbans Kaur and Manjit Kaur are not to be spared. Iqbal Singh then fired 2-3 shots. He along with Jagdev Singh to save their lives had fled away from the spot. After some time, number of people had gathered there. Then he and Jagdev Singh came back to the house of Baldev Singh. Dead bodies of Baldev Singh, Harbans Kaur and Manjit Kaur were found lying in their house. Parampaul Singh further stated that the injuries with sharp edged weapon were also noticed on the person of Harbans Kaur. Incident was narrated to Albel Singh, complainant, who came with the police party. Motive to murder was that 15/20 years back, Gurdev Kaur was turned out of her matrimonial home by her husband Baldev Singh. Baldev Singh also used to ill treat his son Iqbal Singh. Baldev Singh was an addict and was selling his land. But in cross-examination, Parampaul Singh admitted that 25.1.1995 was a working day. He had 8/10 cases fixed on that day but dates were taken by his Clerk. He is maintaining a diary. He came to his house at 1.00 pm to visit Village Jabo Majra to know about the well being of his mother and sister. Village Jabo Majra is at a distance of about 70/72 kms from Rampuraphul. He came by bus and had started at 3.30 pm. He firstly came to Barnala, then Malerkotla and at 6.15 pm, he had started from Malerkotla and alighted from the bus at twin bridge. Village Jabo Majra is at a distance of about 5-6 kms from twin bridge. He is owning land in Villages Mehraj, Nathpura, Bhaini and Bajoana. Male and female servants were inside the house. They had raised an alarm. Father of Baldev Singh, namely, Attar Singh was murdered. There is a passage on the back side of Crl.Appeal No. 611-DBA of 2002 17 the house of Baldev Singh. After 4/5 minutes, he ran away from the spot. He had concealed himself in the bagichi of Dhuman. He did not raise an alarm. Police came after 1-1-1/4 hours. When police was doing the writing work, then he was sitting in the baithak. Police remained at the spot for about 3-4 hours. Foot prints were seen at the place of occurrence. He had not signed any document prepared by the Investigating Officer when stayed at the place of occurrence. He had gone to the hospital on a private jeep of his maternal uncle's son of Village Sirthala. Dead bodies were not identified by him. He had not signed any document in the hospital. Manjit Kaur was married at Jalandhar. After the death of her husband, Manjit Kaur used to visit Village Jabo Majra frequently. Baldev Singh (deceased) was the attorney of Manjit Kaur (deceased). He was not pursuing litigation on behalf of Manjit Kaur. Harbans Kaur (deceased) used to reside at Rampuraphul. Suggestion was given to Parampaul Singh that Baldev Singh had developed illicit relations with Manjit Kaur but suggestion was denied.
After going through the evidence on the file, we are of the opinion that presence of Parampaul Singh at the time of occurrence is doubtful because he was practicing in the Civil Courts at Rampuraphul and 25.1.1995 was a working day. He was maintaining diary and his 8/10 cases were fixed for hearing on that day. Dates were taken by his Clerk but diary was not produced to show as to whether on the day of occurrence, his 8/10 cases were fixed for hearing in different Courts and in all the cases, dates were taken by his Clerk. Clerk of Parampaul Singh was also not joined in the investigation to state that on 25.1.1995, in all the cases, he had taken dates because Parampaul Singh did not attend the Court. Parampaul Singh owned land in four villages but it is very strange that he came by bus and Crl.Appeal No. 611-DBA of 2002 18 was exactly present at the time of occurrence at 7.30 pm in Village Jabo Majra. Suppose, Parampaul Singh came to Village Jabo Majra by bus and at 7.30 pm, while present near the house of Baldev Singh had witnessed the occurrence, then why his statement was not recorded by the police on 25.1.1995. Statement of Parampaul Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is dated 26.1.1995. If Parampaul Singh had witnessed the occurrence, then he should have lodged a report with the police. There was no idea for Albel Singh to lodge a report with the police while present near the Bus Stand of Village Chaunda. Evidence on the file shows that as per Parampaul Singh, police party stayed at the place of occurrence for about 3/4 hours. Dead bodies were sent to the police station at 10.00 pm. If Parampaul Singh was present at the time of occurrence, then his statement should have been recorded on 25.1.1995. After recording the statement (Ex.PG) of Albel Singh, police party headed by SI Kirpal Singh came at the spot. Inquest reports (Ex.PB, Ex.PE and Ex.PK) on the dead bodies of Baldev Singh, Harbans Kaur and Manjit Kaur, respectively, were prepared. Dead bodies were identified by Bhajan Singh and Jora Singh, residents of Village Jabo Majra but they were not examined for the reasons best known to the prosecution. According to the inquest reports, no article was found near the dead bodies. After preparing inquest reports, dead bodies were sent to the hospital for post mortem examination along with applications Ex.PC, Ex.PF and Ex.PI. Ex.PA is the post mortem report of Manjit Kaur. Ex.PD is the post mortem report of Baldev Singh and Ex.PJ is the post mortem report of Harbans Kaur. After post mortem examination, dead bodies of Harbans Kaur and Manjit Kaur were received by Avtar Singh, whereas dead body of Baldev Singh was received by Albel Singh, complainant. Dead bodies were Crl.Appeal No. 611-DBA of 2002 19 cremated at Village Jabo Majra. As per Parampaul Singh, Harbans Kaur used to reside at Rampuraphul. After post mortem examination, dead body of Harbans Kaur should have been received by Parampaul Singh for cremation at Rampuraphul or his native Village Mehraj. Manjit Kaur was married at Jalandhar. She was a widow. In case, after post mortem examination, her dead body was not to be cremated at her in-laws place, then Parampaul Singh being real brother of Manjit Kaur, should have cremated the dead body of Manjit Kaur either at Rampuraphul or in Village Mejraj. In a jeep of the son of his maternal uncle, Parampaul Singh had gone to the hospital but son of maternal uncle of Parampaul Singh was not examined to state as to whether his jeep was arranged by Parampaul Singh to visit the hospital, where post mortem examinations on the dead bodies of Baldev Singh, Harbans Kaur and Manjit Kaur were conducted. Parampaul Singh was present in the hospital but no document was signed by him. In Village Jabo Majra on 25.1.1995 till the stay of police party at the spot, no document was signed by Parampaul Singh. On the next day, i.e., 26.1.1995, either in the police station or in the hospital, again no document was signed by Parampaul Singh.
Parampaul Singh stated that after 4-5 minutes, out of fear, he had concealed himself in the bagichi of Dhuman but Dhuman was not examined to state as to whether he had any bagichi and whether in the bagichi, one can conceal himself or not. In case, there was no bagichi of Dhuman, then no question of concealment by Parampaul Singh in the bagichi of Dhuman. Servants of Baldev Singh were inside the house. They had raised an alarm from inside but no one was joined in the investigation of this case. When servants of Baldev Singh were inside the house and they Crl.Appeal No. 611-DBA of 2002 20 had raised an alarm, then they were the best witnesses to state as to whether Iqbal Singh had murdered Baldev Singh, Harbans Kaur and Manjit Kaur or not.
As per Parampaul Singh, police party stayed at the spot for about 3/4hours. It means that statement of Parampaul Singh was recorded on 25.1.1995 because at about 10.00 pm, police party with the dead bodies had gone to the police station. But this part of the statement of Parampaul Singh is not correct. If the police party stayed at the spot upto 10.00 pm, then statement of Parampaul Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C. should have been recorded on 25.1.1995 but his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is dated 26.1.1995. PW10 ASI Nahar Singh was with the Investigating Officer and stated that on 25.1.1995 after recording the statement of complainant Albel Singh near the Bus Stand of Village Chaunda, police party came to the spot. Blood stained earth and empty cartridges were lifted from the spot. Inquest reports were prepared. Foot prints were noticed. Dog Squad was summoned by the IO. Police party stayed at the spot during night time. On the next day at 9.00 am, police party had left the place of occurrence. ASI Nahar Singh did not state a word that when the police party stayed at the spot upto 9.00 am on the next day, then Parampaul Singh was present there and his statement was recorded by the IO.
SI Kirpal Singh is the Investigating Officer and stated that after recording the statement of Albel Singh, police party had gone to the spot. During night time, party stayed at the spot. Next day at about 6.30 pm, police party came back to the police station. SI Kirpal Singh did not state a word that he had recorded the statement of Parampaul Singh either on Crl.Appeal No. 611-DBA of 2002 21 25.1.1995 or on 26.1.1995. He simply stated that after reaching at the spot, dead bodies were noticed. Blood stained earth and empties were lifted from the spot. Inquest reports were prepared. Rough site plan with correct marginal notes was prepared. Vide separate applications, dead bodies were handed over to the police officials for post mortem examination. Occurrence was brought to the notice of the police by complainant Albel Singh. After that, Albel Singh along with police party came back to the place of occurrence. That means, first statement of Albel Singh (Ex.PG) is correct one. As per supplementary statement (Ex.PG/1) of Albel Singh, Baldev Singh developed illicit relations with Manjit Kaur. Manjit Kaur was a widow. That is why, she along with her mother Harbans Kaur was residing with Baldev Singh. Wife of Baldev Singh was turned out of the matrimonial house about 15/20 years back. In examination-in-chief, Parampaul Singh stated that Harbans Kaur and Manjit Kaur were residing with Baldev Singh but in cross-examination, he admitted that Harbans Kaur and Manjit Kaur used to visit the house of Baldev Singh. If Parampaul Singh was having cordial relations with his mother and sister, then Harbans Kaur and Manjit Kaur had no reason to reside with Baldev Singh. After the post mortem examination, dead bodies of Harbans Kaur and Manjit Kaur should have received by Parampaul Singh for cremation at Rampuraphul or in Village Mehraj. According to the story, Manjit Kaur developed illicit relations with Baldev Singh but this fact was denied by Parampaul Singh while appearing as PW5. On 25.1.1995, there was no function at the house of Baldev Singh. So, on a working day, there was no idea to visit Village Jabo Majra to know about the well being of his mother and sister, particularly when Parampaul Singh had number of cases fixed in different Crl.Appeal No. 611-DBA of 2002 22 Courts on that day. In case, he had witnessed the occurrence, then his statement should have been recorded on 25.1.1995. Parampaul Singh being relative of the deceased should have identified the dead bodies or signed any document, but except statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which was not to be signed by the witness, no other document was signed by Parampaul Singh to show his presence at the time of occurrence. Manjit Kaur was married at Jalandhar. She had litigation regarding her property pending at Jalandhar. Baldev Singh was the attorney of Manjit Kaur. Parampaul Singh stated that he has no knowledge whether Manjit Kaur had any litigation with her in-laws, but he was not pursuing litigation on behalf of Manjit Kaur. Manjit Kaur had no issue. She was widow. Parampaul Singh, real brother of Manjit Kaur, who was a practicing Lawyer at Rampuraphul, was expected to help his sister but he was not pursuing litigation of his sister. Parampaul Singh admitted that Manjit Kaur used to visit Village Jabo Majra frequently. That means, Parampaul Singh felt ashamed because his mother and sister were residing with Baldev Singh. His sister had developed illicit relations with Baldev Singh. So, possibility of Parampaul Singh to commit the crime and name the respondent cannot be ruled out. That is why, Parampaul Singh did not sign any document either at Village Jabo Majra or in the hospital and after post mortem examination, did not receive the dead bodies of Harbans Kaur and Manjit Kaur for cremation in Village Mehraj or Rampuraphul. Learned trial Court by keeping in mind all the facts has rightly opined that presence of Parampaul Singh at the time of occurrence is doubtful.
No doubt, three murders but question is what was the motive for the respondent to murder his father and close relations. According to the Crl.Appeal No. 611-DBA of 2002 23 prosecution story, Baldev Singh had turned out his wife Gurdev Kaur from the matrimonial house about 15/20 years back. She was residing with her second son at her parental house. After the present occurrence, second son of Gurdev Kaur had died. Baldev Singh has kept Harbans Kaur and Manjit Kaur in his house because he developed illicit relations with Manjit Kaur. Next allegation of the prosecution is that Baldev Singh was selling land but evidence on the file shows that during his life, Baldev Singh has not sold land to anybody. Ex.PB is the copy of jamabandi for the year 1994-95 but jamabandi no where shows that land was sold by Baldev Singh to anyone. No document was produced from the side of the prosecution that during his life time Baldev Singh had sold land to anybody. According to the supplementary statement (Ex.PG/1) of Albel Singh, Baldev Singh had developed illicit relations with Manjit Kaur. Respondent did not like it. Therefore, this was the reason for the respondent to murder but if the allegation of Albel Singh in his supplementary statement (Ex.PG/1) is correct one, then the respondent had no motive to murder Baldev Singh or Harbans Kaur because Parampaul Singh as PW5 stated that Baldev Singh was not having illicit relations with Manjit Kaur. One thing is clear from the evidence on the file that father of Baldev Singh was also murdered. Parampaul Singh was a practicing Lawyer at Rampuraphul. Mother and sister of Parampaul Singh were staying with Baldev Singh. No evidence on the file that Baldev Singh was treating the respondent like a servant. Baldev Singh had turned his wife out of the matrimonial house about 15-20 years back and if the respondent had a grudge, then he could easily murder Baldev Singh much earlier or during night time. When Baldev Singh was not treating the respondent as a servant, then again the respondent had no idea Crl.Appeal No. 611-DBA of 2002 24 to murder Baldev Singh, Harbans Kaur and Manjit Kaur. Baldev Singh had not sold any land to anyone. So, the respondent had no grudge. On the other hand, Parampaul Singh had a motive to implicate the respondent because his mother and sister were staying with Baldev Singh. Baldev Singh had developed illicit relations with Manjit Kaur. When the respondent was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., then stated that Baldev Singh was a cruel man and was not allowing him to enter in the house. He had developed illicit relations with Manjit Kaur. Parampaul Singh was introduced by summoning from Rampuraphul. One month earlier, he had a dispute with Parampaul Singh. He gave beatings to Parampaul Singh. So, due to this reason, he was named. Prosecution is required to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt. Prosecution cannot take any benefit from the weakness of the defence. Accused is expected to remain silent. In case, the accused failed to produce any evidence in support of his defence version, then on this short ground, prosecution story is not to be accepted.
In 2011(1) RCR (Crl.) 758, State of Haryana vs. Rajbir, Hon'ble Division Bench of this High Court observed that if the prosecution evidence does not inspire confidence to sustain the conviction of the accused, then inculpatory part of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be made the sole basis of his conviction.
Regarding dispute of the respondent with Parampaul Singh, no oral or documentary evidence is on the file but supplementary statement (Ex.PG/1) of Albel Singh is to the effect that Baldev Singh developed illicit relations with Manjit Kaur. Baldev Singh had enmity in the village because his father was also murdered by the residents of Village Jabo Majra.
Three empties were lifted from the spot and were sent to the Crl.Appeal No. 611-DBA of 2002 25 laboratory. Respondent was arrested on 2.2.1995. In pursuance of the disclosure statement dated 2.2.1995 suffered by respondent Iqbal Singh, gandasa was recovered from the room of the house meant to store the chaff, whereas gun along with four live cartridges was recovered from the heap of paddy straw, in the presence of Amarjit Singh and ASI Gurcharan Singh. Amarjit Singh was the independent witness but he was not examined. The gun alleged to have been recovered is owned by Baldev Singh (deceased) but four live cartridges were also recovered. When there was no shortage of cartridges, then by leaving the gun, there was no idea to cause injuries with sharp edged weapon. Parampaul Singh as PW5 stated that the injuries with sharp edged weapon were noticed on the person of Harbans Kaur. Dr. Sheetal Jain (PW4) had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Harbans Kaur and noticed four injuries on her person. Two injuries were found to be incised wounds. As discussed earlier, the respondent had used the gun of Baldev Singh and there was no shortage of cartridges. So, there was no reason to cause injuries with sharp edged weapon.
In 1993 CAR 264 (SC), Varkey Joseph vs. State of Kerala, Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 9 of the judgment observed as under:-
"9. From the above evidence, it is clear that prosecution brought on record the circumstantial evidence from obliging witnesses to the police. Appellant was said to have been seen before or after the occurrence by several tea shop owners and the labourers in the tea stall etc. To corroborate the evidence of tea stall owners, labourers were examined that they had seen the appellant with blood stained clothes and same were recovered pursuant to the statement under S.27 of Crl.Appeal No. 611-DBA of 2002 26 Evidence Act. It is preposterous to place absolute reliance on such suspect evidence. It is curious that the appellant claimed to have gone to each tea stall for tea just to enable them to note his movements. The normal human conduct would be to avoid anybody noticing him either before or after committing the offence. It is highly unbelievable that he had used two types of weapons one stabbing and another cutting weapon."
Gandasa and gun along with four live cartridges were recovered in pursuance of the disclosure statement suffered by the respondent dated 2.2.1995 but Parampaul Singh stated that the police had shown the gandasa after two days. As per Parampaul Singh, foot prints were seen at the place of occurrence but no explanation by the prosecution as to why, moulds of the foot prints were not lifted from the spot. If the occurrence was witnessed by Parampaul Singh and Jagdev Singh (PW3), then there was no question to summon Dog Squad. ASI Nahar Singh as PW10 stated that Dog Squad was also summoned. Foot prints were noticed at the place of occurrence. Three empty cartridges were lifted from the spot but according to the inquest reports, cartridges were not noticed lying near the dead bodies. If due to mistake or inadvertently, the Investigating Officer had failed to mention about the cartridges lying near the dead bodies, even then the prosecution story is doubtful because three empty cartridges were recovered from the spot and were sealed by the Investigating Officer with his own seal. Case property was deposited with the Incharge of Malkhana. Sealed parcel was sent to the laboratory and was deposited in the laboratory on 31.1.1995 through Constable Bhagwant Singh but Constable Bhagwant Singh as PW12 stated that objection was Crl.Appeal No. 611-DBA of 2002 27 raised by the laboratory that there is a shortage of one cartridge. If three cartridges were lifted from the spot and were sealed by the IO with his own seal and the sealed parcel was sent to the laboratory, then the prosecution was to explain how the parcel was found to contain only two cartridges. The gun along with four live cartridges was also recovered on 2.2.1995 and according to the FSL report (Ex.PJJ), parcel of gun was deposited in the laboratory on 9.2.1995 by Constable Bhagwant Singh, whereas affidavit of Constable Bhagwant Singh (Ex.PZ) shows that the parcel of the gun was deposited in the laboratory on 8.2.1995. The prosecution is not clear whether the parcel of gun was deposited in the laboratory on 8.2.1995 or 9.2.1995. If the parcel of three empty cartridges was deposited with the Incharge of the Malkhana by the IO and the same was sent to the laboratory, then how the parcel was found to contain only two empty cartridges. If the parcel was found to contain only two cartridges, as per objection raised by the laboratory, then how the objection was removed by the Incharge of the Malkhana Ex.PL and Ex.PM are the affidavits of MHC Rajinder Singh (PW6), with whom case property was deposited but he stated that he has no knowledge whether there was any objection by the laboratory. When independent witness of the recovery of the weapons was not produced, then the story regarding the recovery of the weapons as per disclosure statement suffered by the respondent is doubtful.
Appeal is against acquittal. When two views as per evidence on the file are possible and possible view is taken by the learned trial Court, then the judgment of acquittal is not to be set aside simply on the ground that there is a possibility of another view.
Crl.Appeal No. 611-DBA of 2002 28
In 2010(5) RCR (Crl.) 370, State of MP vs. Munshi Singh and others, Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 6 observed as under:-
"6. The power of the High Court while hearing an appeal against acquittal is as wide and comprehensive as in an appeal against the conviction and it has full power to re- appreciate the entire evidence, but if two views on the evidence are possible, one supporting the acquittal and the other indicating conviction, then the High Court would not be justified in interfering with the acquittal, merely because it is of the view that sitting as a trial Court, a different view could have been taken. But if the judgment of the trial Court is admittedly perverse, legally erroneous and based on a wrong appreciation of the evidence, then it cannot but be just and proper for the High Court to reverse the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court as otherwise there would be gross miscarriage of justice."
Judgment of acquittal is to be set aside if the Court is of the view that the findings of the trial Court are palpably wrong, erroneous and unsustainable but in the present case, evidence on the file was rightly scrutinized by the trial Court. There is no reason to differ with the same.
For the reasons recorded above, Crl.Appeals No.611-DBA of 2002 and 612-DBA of 2002 without merit are dismissed.
( JORA SINGH )
JUDGE
17.8.2011 ( S.S. SARON )
pk JUDGE