Punjab-Haryana High Court
Paramjit Kumar Alias Pamma vs State Of Punjab on 12 February, 2015
Author: Shekher Dhawan
Bench: T.P.S. Mann, Shekher Dhawan
Crl. Appeal No.948-DB of 2002 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No.948-DB of 2002
Date of Decision: 12.02.2015
Paramjit Kumar @ Pawan
..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
State of Punjab
..... RESPONDENT
PRESENT: - Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate as amicus
curiae and Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate.
Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Additional Advocate
General, Punjab for the respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEKHER DHAWAN
1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment?
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3) Whether the judgment should be reported in
the Digest?
SHEKHER DHAWAN, J.
Appellant Paramjit Kumar has preferred the present appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 08.11.2002 and order of sentence of even date whereby JYOTI 2015.02.21 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.948-DB of 2002 2 appellant was held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of `2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant was also convicted for the offence under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. Appellant was also convicted for the offence under Section 364 IPC but he was not awarded any sentence as the appellant was sentenced for major offence under Section 302 IPC.
Briefly, the prosecution case is that Sunita Thakur, complainant in this case moved written application dated 11.10.1999 before the Superintendent of Police and the same was forwarded to SHO Police Station, 'A' Division, Amritsar on 23.10.1999. As per complainant, appellant Paramjit was employed in Punjab Police and was in the habit of black mailing innocent girls. He used to proclaim himself to be a hockey coach or CBI Officer. About 1-1/2 years prior to the filing of the complaint, appellant Paramjit promised Sunita to give her a job and committed rape upon her. On 23.08.1997, she gave birth to a child. The said child was taken away by Paramjit and same was not returned to her and the complainant apprehended that the said child JYOTI 2015.02.21 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.948-DB of 2002 3 was murdered by Paramjit. The dead body of the child could not be recovered during investigation. Appellant was arrested and investigation formalities were completed. During the process of the trial, charge was framed against the appellant for commission of offences under Sections 364/302/201 IPC and accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
During trial, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses in all.
In this case, process of law was set into motion by Sunita Thakur by making written complaint Ex.PG/1 to Superintendent of Police, Amritsar with above detailed allegations.
At trial stage, Sunita Thakur could not put her appearance as a witness in support of her case as she died. The prosecution case rest upon the testimony of PW-7 Hardial Singh. Paramjit allegedly confessed his guilt before him of having committed murder of son of Sunita Thakur and also prayed that he be produced before the police. He had gone with the promise to come back after 6/7 days but, thereafter, he had not come back. Police had recorded his statement. However, during the cross-examination, the witness shown his ignorance about all these material facts. JYOTI 2015.02.21 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.948-DB of 2002 4 He took the plea that he was not aware about the posting of the accused in the year 2000. PW7 Hardial Singh was not in a position to tell the date and month of extra judicial confession. He had made statement to the police on 03.06.2000.
Apart from that, prosecution case is based upon testimony of PW-6 Asha Rani, who deposed that Sonia lived in her house for a week along with her husband. Her statement was recorded by the police. However, in the cross-examination the witness admitted that no rent note was executed. She was not a medical expert so as to tell that Sonia was in fact pregnant when she stayed in her house. The prosecution also examined PW-8 Jagir Singh but he had not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile. He denied the suggestion put to him that the appellant along with his wife were taking their child wrapped in a towel. He resiled from his earlier statement in toto and, as such, no reliance can be placed upon testimony of said evidence.
Apart from that the prosecution led medical evidence by way of statement of PW-1 Dr. Jaswinder Kaur, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Amritsar, who as a Member of the Board of Directors had medico legally examined Sunita JYOTI 2015.02.21 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.948-DB of 2002 5 Thakur on 30.10.1999 and found the following on examination:
" She was conscious, co-operative, well oriental in time, space and person. There was no evidence of fresh external injury on her body. Secondary sex characters were well developed. Breast was pendulous, areola was dark brown in colour as compared to generalise skin colour. On per adbomen examination stria gravidara with colour change (brown in colour) were present. There was no evidence of caesarean or operative scar mark on the abdomenal part. On examination of genetalia hymen margins were torn and vagina admitted two fingers. No scar mark episiotomy. In our opinion, Sunita Thakur was pregnant and it may be a normal delivery. For blood grouping she was referred to Pathology."
However, in the cross-examination the witness admitted that she was not in a position to tell when Sonia delivered a child. There is no fixed time the lady can feed to a newly born child. She had not even checked whether Sunita Thakur was able to feed the child. PW-2 Dr. Swami Sharan was examined, who had tested the blood group of Sunita Thakur and found the same to be "B+". PW-3 Jaspal Singh Clerk, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar was examined to prove Birth Certificate of child of Sonia Sharma. As per PW-3 birth certificate Ex.PD was issued as per record and JYOTI 2015.02.21 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.948-DB of 2002 6 same was signed by Dr. Charanjit Singh, Local Registrar, Birth and Deaths, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar. As per said record, male child was born to Sonia Sharma on 24.08.1999, Sandhu Colony, Gopal Nagar, Amritsar and the father's name of the child is Paramjit . As the witness admitted in the cross-examination that the information was supplied in the official record by one Raj Kumar. However, neither father's name nor address of said Raj Kumar has been mentioned in the record and no reliance can be placed that such a record was prepared on the basis of information supplied by Raj Kumar, whose whereabouts are not known.
PW-4 HC Pardip Kumar was examined at the trial stage, who simply stated that dead body of Sunita Thakur was identified by Smt. Urmila Thakur, mother of Sunita Thakur. PW-5 Mrs. Vibhu Raj, SP (Head Quarters), Hoshiarpur made the deposition that Anita Thakur @ Sonia had complained against Paramjit Kumar and at that time Anita Thakur appeared to be pregnant. However, the witness admitted in the cross-examination that she is not a medical expert and she had not got Sunita Thakur medically examined from any doctor. No inquiry was marked against Paramjit.
PW-9 Sh. Gurmit Chand, DSP deposed that on JYOTI 2015.02.21 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.948-DB of 2002 7 27.10.1999, he had arrested accused Paramjit and on 30.10.1999 he moved an application Ex.PB/3 for medico legal examination of Sunita Thakur. He had taken the birth certificate of male child of Sunita @ Sonia Sharma Ex.PD. PW-10 Jasdeep Singh, DSP had recorded formal FIR Ex.PG/1 on 23.10.1999. PW-11 Mandeep Singh, SHO, Division No.6, Jalandhar had investigated the matter and deposed that Paramjit Kumar was challaned for the murder of Smt. Sunita Thakur as she was murdered in Grand Hotel.
Against this evidence, the defence version was plea of denial as put forward in the statement of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Appellant simply took the plea that he was innocent and he had not committed the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated.
Satnam Singh DW-1 simply stated that complaint made by Sonia Sharma against Paramjit Sharma was taken by hand by Sonia complainant. DW-2 Mukhdev Singh stated that on the basis of complaint made by Sonia Sharma, inquiry was conducted by ASI Balwinder Singh and DW-3 K.K. Batra, Ahlmad from the Court of Sh. G.S. Saran, Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar. Paramjit appellant was arrested on 01.06.2000 and Ex.DX is the correct copy of JYOTI 2015.02.21 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.948-DB of 2002 8 memo of arrest.
Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the appellant took the plea that the appellant has been wrongly held guilty for commission of offence under Sections 302,364 and 201 IPC.
Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab learned State counsel took the plea that learned trial Judge had rightly held the appellant-accused guilty and convicted and sentenced him because the medical evidence establish on the file that Sunita Thakur was pregnant.
In the present case, the prosecution failed to prove that complainant Sunita Thakur was pregnant and that pregnancy was because of sexual relationship between Sunita Thakur and appellant Paramjit. The prosecution was also required to prove that Sunita Thakur gave birth to a male child and that male child was murdered by the appellant. The body of male child was not recovered during investigation. There is absolutely no evidence that such child was seen by anybody during his life time. The medical evidence by way of statement of PW-1 Dr. Jaswinder Kaur and PW-2 Dr. Swami Sharan no where connect the accused with the alleged crime. Similarly, testimony of PW-3 Jaspal JYOTI 2015.02.21 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.948-DB of 2002 9 Singh regarding birth certificate in the municipal record does not connect the accused with the alleged crime. PW5 Mrs.Vibhu Raj has simply stated that by appearance Sunita was pregnant but she had not specific means of her information. At the best, the prosecution evidence is by way of statement of PW-7 Hardial Singh before whom accused had made extra judicial confession but the said witness could not stand by the test of cross-examination as he pleaded complete ignorance about the time and date of such extra judicial confessional statement having been made before him. At any rate, the chain of circumstantial evidence is not complete in any way. The investigation done by Pws-9, 10 and 11 does not establish the guilt of the accused.
Learned trial Court has completely ignored these facts while holding the appellant accused guilty and convicting and sentencing him thereunder.
We are of the considered view that Sunita Thakur was the star witness of this case who was to prove the allegations put forwarded by her in her written complaint Ex.PG/1. Unfortunately, she never appeared during the trial as she had died. Only she could depose that she was sexually assaulted by Paramjit and she had been JYOTI 2015.02.21 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.948-DB of 2002 10 blackmailed by Paramjit. She was the best witness to depose that she had given birth to a male child born out of her wedlock with Paramjit but no such evidence has come on the file because of death of Sunita Thakur. Thereafter, the prosecution case is left on the testimony of PW-7 Hardial Singh before whom Paramjit had made disclosure statement. First of all, the only piece of evidence by way of extra judicial confession having been made before PW-7 Hardial Singh itself is not sufficient to complete the chain of circumstances so as to convict anybody. More so, the testimony of Hardial Singh when put to cross-examination establish that his statement is not worthy of credit, so as to make the basis for conviction of Paramjit. He had simply pleaded denial of knowledge of all the material facts. Testimony of PW-6 Asha Rani landlady does not help the prosecution case in any way because as per Asha Rani, Sunita Thakur and Paramjit stayed at their house for just about 7 days. There is no rent receipt or rent deed showing relationship of landlady and tenant between Asha Rani, Sunita Thakur and Paramjit. She had no special means of knowledge to say that Sunita Thakur was pregnant at that time. No reliance can be placed upon testimony of PW-8 Jagir Singh as he had not supported the prosecution case at JYOTI 2015.02.21 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.948-DB of 2002 11 all and was declared hostile witness.
As regards to medical evidence by way of statement of PW-1 Dr. Jaswinder Kaur from the same no where leads to the conclusion that Paramjit had actually given birth to male child, who was murdered by Paramjit. In the opening line of cross-examination Dr. Jaswinder Kaur had admitted that she was unable to tell the time as to when Sonia delivered the child. Learned trial Judge fell in error while placing reliance upon testimony of PW-1 as well as testimonies of PWs 2,3 and 5. On this point, even the investigation done by PWs 9 to 11 no where establish the guilt of accused that appellant had kidnapped newly born child of Sunita Thakur and thereafter murdered him and destroyed the evidence. There is no body who had deposed before the Court that male child of Sunita was actually born and same was seen by any body.
These facts assume much importance specially when appellant Paramjit does not admit Sunita Thakur as his wife. The case being based on circumstantial evidence cannot be said to have been proved especially when the chain of circumstances does not lead to any inference. The complaint Ex.PG allegedly made by Sunita Thakur cannot be made the basis for conviction of appellant. JYOTI 2015.02.21 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.948-DB of 2002 12
Learned trial Judge has completely ignored these facts while recording the judgment of conviction dated 08.11.2002 and sentencing the appellant for commission of offence under Sections 364,302,201 IPC. The prosecution case is certainly doubtful and benefit of doubt is to be given to the appellant accused.
In view of the above, the present appeal is accepted. The judgment of conviction dated 08.11.2002 and order of sentence of even date are hereby set aside. The appellant be released from custody forthwith, unless wantd in some other case.
( T.P.S. MANN ) (SHEKHER DHAWAN)
JUDGE JUDGE
February 12, 2015
jt
JYOTI
2015.02.21 14:17
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
High Court Chandigarh