Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dharminder Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab on 22 January, 2009
Author: Jora Singh
Bench: Jasbir Singh
Crl. Appeal No. 172-DB of 2006 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No. 172-DB of 2006
Date of decision : January 22, 2009
*****
Dharminder Singh and others
............Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab
...........Respondents
*****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH
*****
Present: Mr. A.P.S Deol, Senior Advocate with Mr. Devinder Bir
Singh and Mr. Dharminder Randhawa, Advocate for
appellants No. 1, 2 and 5.
Mr. M.S Khaira, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dharminder
Singh, Advocate for appellant No.4.
Ms. Manjari Nehru Kaul, Deputy Advocate General,
Punjab.
*****
JORA SINGH, J.
Dharminder Singh alias Bhupinder Singh son of Kala Ram, Suraj Parkash son of Kala Ram, Bhola Ram alias Bhalla Ram son of Kala Ram, Rani widow of Kala Ram and Nazar Singh son of Budh Ram have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 7.2.2006 and order dated 8.2.2006 in Sessions Case No.32 of 18.10.2000 in FIR No.283 dated 24.6.2000 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Bathinda under Sections 302/201/419/404 read with Crl. Appeal No. 172-DB of 2006 2 Section 120-B IPC, whereby they were convicted under Sections 302/404/419/201 IPC and sentenced as follows:
Dharminder Singh (1)To undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to make the payment of Rs.5000/- (Five thousands) by way of fine and in default of payment of the same to further undergo RI for a period of three years for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. (2)To undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to make the payment of Rs.1000/- (one thousand) by way of fine and in default of payment of the same to further undergo RI for a period of six months for an offence punishable under Sec.404 IPC.
Suraj Parkash, Bhola Ram @ Bhalla Ram and Rani (1)To undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to make the payment of Rs.5000/- (Five thousands) by way of fine and in default of payment of the same to further undergo RI for a period of three years for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
(2)To undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years for an offence punishable under Section 419 Cr.P.C.
(3)to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years and to make the payment of Rs.3000/- (Three thousands) by way of fine and in default of payment of the same to further undergo RI for a period Crl. Appeal No. 172-DB of 2006 3 of two years for an offence punishable under Sec. 201 IPC.
Nazar Singh (1) To undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to make the payment of Rs.5000/- (Five thousands) by way of fine and in default of payment of the same to further undergo RI for a period of three years for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
(2) To undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to make the payment of Rs.1000/- (one thousand) by way of fine and in default of payment of the same to further undergo RI for a period of six months for an offence punishable under Sec.404 IPC. (3) to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years and to make the payment of Rs.3000/- (Three thousands) by way of fine and in default of payment of the same to further undergo RI for a period of two years for an offence punishable under Sec. 201 IPC.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Prosecution story, in brief, is that initially Suraj Parkash son of Kala Ram resident of Mohalla Guru Nanakpura, Bawianwali street, Bathinda lodged a report to the effect that he is the owner of Suraj furniture shop situated in Mohalla Guru Nanakpura. Bholla Ram is his elder brother and is residing separately. Dharminder Singh is younger to him. His mother Rani Devi is a Pujaran at Kali Crl. Appeal No. 172-DB of 2006 4 Mata Mandir situated in Kartar Basti. Dharminder Singh had relation with Ranju, daughter of their neighbour, Gurnam Singh. Dharminder Singh used to write her name on the kites and various other places. He along with his brother, Bhalla Ram and mother, Rani had requested Dharminder Singh not to do so but he did not care. On 22.6.2000 at about 8:00 P.M, his mother came back to house from the temple and after taking meals, all the family members had gone to their beds. But Dharminder Singh did not return till late hours. At about 10:00 P.M, Bimla Devi along with her son Harjinder Singh, our neigbours came and reported that smoke is coming from the chaubara of the temple. Then he along with his mother had gone to Chaubara of the temple. Smoke was found coming from the chaubara. Dharminder had set himself on fire and was lying dead. There was a writing on the wall with blood "Ranju, I love you". He doubted that firstly, Dharminder had caused injuries to himself with sharp edged weapon and then wrote " Ranju I love you" with his blood. After that Dharminder had set himself on fire by pouring kerosene on his person. No one is at fault. Statement of Suraj Parkash was recorded by Mohinder Kumar, Inspector on 23.6.2000 while present near Sirki Bazar, Neemwala Chowk, Bathinda. Endorsement was made at 3:30 A.M. After making endorsement, statement was sent to the police station to register formal FIR.
Police party headed by Mohinder Kumar had gone to the spot and prepared the inquest report. Dead body was identified by Suraj Parkash and Bhalla Ram. Dead body was handed over to police officials for post mortem examination. After post mortem Crl. Appeal No. 172-DB of 2006 5 examination, dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased for cremation. After conducting the proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C, Mohinder Kumar, Inspector had gone to the place of occurrence from where, he recovered one iron file (reti), one piece of cloth stained with blood and a match box. Recovered articles were taken into police possession after making the same into sealed parcel sealed with the seal bearing impression `MK'.
On 24.6.2000 at about 6:00 P.M, Dharminder Singh was seen by Jagjit Singh at the railway station, Bhatinda. He made extra judicial confession before him that on the intervening night of 22/23.6.2000, he along with Nazar Singh had murdered Gurdip Singh in the temple of Kali Mata and to save themselves, they had written on the wall "I love you, Ranju" with blood. He had planned to abduct Ranju by eliminating Gurdip Singh. So story was concocted with the connivance of Bhalla ram and Suraj Parkash who had identified the dead body of Gurdip Singh to be of Dharminder Singh. Jagjit Singh gave this information to Gurmit Singh. Then Gurmit Singh accompanied by Harbhajan Singh and Jagjit Singh had gone to the Police Station, Kotwali, Bathinda and had reported the matter to the police that Gurdip Singh his younger brother was 19/20 years old. On 22.6.2000, he along with Gurdip Singh was present in his house. At about 7:00/8:00 P.M, Dharminder Singh and Nazar Singh came and requested Gurdip Singh to accompany them. Gurdip Singh at that time was wearing a gold ring and gold kara. Name of his brother was inscribed on the gold ring in small letters i.e `gs'. Gurdip Singh was also having a purse in his pocket containing his photograph, a Crl. Appeal No. 172-DB of 2006 6 driving license and some currency notes. When Gurdip Singh did not return then an effort was made to trace him but Gurdip Singh was not available. Today i.e on 24.4.2000, Jagjit Singh met him and reported that Dharminder Singh was seen at the Railway Station. Jagjit Singh further reported that on the intervening night of 22-23.6.2000, Dharminder Singh and Nazar Singh had murdered Gurdip Singh at Kali Mata Mandir. Dharminder Singh had also written on the walls of the temple "I love you Ranju" just to show that he (Dharminder Singh) is dead because Dharminder Singh used to love Ranju. Gurdip Singh had also relation with Ranju. To kidnap Ranju, Gurdip Singh was murdered. Bhalla Ram and Suraj Parkash had initiated the proceedings to show him (Dharminder Singh) dead. Statement of Gurmit Singh was recorded by Mohinder Kumar, Inspector on 24.6.2000 in police station. As per statement, FIR under Sections 302, 201, 506, 519, 465, 120-B/34 IPC was registered. AMHC Darshan Singh had produced a parcel containing the clothes of the deceased along with a photograph. Clothes and the photograph were shown to Harbhajan Singh and Jagjit Singh, who identified the same to be of Gurdip Singh. Memo was prepared regarding identification of shirt and the photograph. Inspector, Mohinder Kumar along with other police officials and Harbhajan Singh, Jagjit Singh and Gurmit Singh had gone to the place of occurrence. Blood was lifted from the spot. Plain earth was also lifted from the place of occurrence. Blood and the plain earth were made into sealed parcels sealed with the seal bearing impression MK. Sealed parcels were taken into police possession vide separate recovery memos Crl. Appeal No. 172-DB of 2006 7 attested by the witnesses.
On 25.6.2000, Rajinder Kumar had produced Dharminder Singh before the police. Ranjit Singh had produced Nazar Singh, accused. On the same day, police party headed by Mohinder Kumar had gone to the cremation ground. Last remains of the dead body were collected and were put into a polythene bag. Bag was sealed with the seal bearing impression `MK' and was taken into police possession. On 26.6.2000, Dharminder Singh suffered disclosure statement that he has kept one pair of shoes, purse, a ring of gold of the deceased near the canal. He knew about the same and could get the same recovered. As per disclosure statement, a pair of shoes, purse, ring were got recovered from the specified place. Recovered articles were made into sealed parcel and the parcel was taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. On 26.6.2000, Nazar Singh suffered a disclosure statement that he has kept concealed a shirt worn by the deceasd stained with blood along with a kara of gold behind the shop of Bhola Ram by the side of canal. He knew about the same and could get the same recovered. In pursuance of the disclosure statement, accused got recovered shirt and kara from the specified place. Recovered articles were taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. On 27.6.2000, Suraj Parkash and Bhalla Ram were arrested. Accused Rani was produced by Bikkar Singh. She was also arrested in this case.
Dharminder Singh had made extra judicial confession before Jagjit Singh that Gurdip Singh was murdered by him on Crl. Appeal No. 172-DB of 2006 8 22.6.2000 with the connivance of Rani, Suraj Parkash, Bhalla Ram and Nazar Singh. On 25.6.2000, Nazar Singh had made extra judicial confession before Ranjit Singh that Rani asked Dharminder Singh to sacrifice Gurdeep Singh before the Goddess Kali and after the sacrifice his body will be set on fire so that the same could not be identified. Later on dead body of Gurdip Singh will be identified as of Dharminder Singh and then Dharminder Singh shall entice away Ranju. As per planning, Gurdip Singh was summoned from his house and was murdered in the kali mata mandir. Body was set on fire by pouring petrol and thereafter with the blood of Gurdip Singh, Dharminder Singh had written the words "I Love you, Ranju" on the wall. On 25.6.2000, Rani had also made extra judicial confession before Bikkar Singh as to how Gurdip Singh was murdered on 22.6.2000 with the connivance of Dharminder Singh, Bhalla Ram and Najar Singh.
After the completion of investigation, challan was presented.
As per order dated 14.10.2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda, the case was committed to the Court of Session.
After hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State, learned counsel for the appellants-accused and from the perusal of the evidence on file, trial Court opined that a prima facie case is made out against the accused under Sections 120-B, 302, 201, 419 and 404 IPC. Charge was accordingly framed under the aforesaid Sections to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Crl. Appeal No. 172-DB of 2006 9
In order to substantiate the charges, prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses.
PW-1, Dr. Pawan Kumar Bansal had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Dharminder Singh on 23.6.2000 identified by Bhalla Ram and Suraj Parkash and found the following injuries on his person:
1. An incised wound on the right lower leg.
It was in front and middle measuring 5 cm x .2 cm.
Clotted blood was present. With the covering of black sooty material burn pieces of cloth with black stain, leather belt and underwear were sealed.
As per doctor, cause of death was due to neurogenic shock due to burn injuries. Injuries were found to be ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Probable time between death and post mortem was within 24 hours and between injury and death was within few hours.
PW-2, Jagjit Singh stated that on 24.6.2000 at about 6:00 P.M, Dharminder Singh was seen at the Railway station, Bathida. Dharminder Singh made extra judicial confession that on the intervening night of 22/23.6.2000, he along with Nazar Singh had murdered Gurdip Singh in the temple of Kali Mata and with his blood he had written "I love you Ranju" because both of them used to love Ranju and to abduct Ranju, Gurdip Singh was murdered. Information was given to Gurmit Singh, brother of Gurdip Singh about this.
PW-3, Gurmit Singh is the brother of the deceased and stated that on 22.6.2000 at 6:00/7:00 P.M, Dharminder Singh and Crl. Appeal No. 172-DB of 2006 10 Nazar came to his house. They requested Gurdip Singh to accompany them. At that time, Gurdip Singh was wearing a ring and kara of gold. He was also having a purse in his pocket in which there was a photograph, a driving license and some currency notes. Gurdip Singh did not return during the night. He had gone to the house of Dharminder Singh. Rani, Suraj Parkash and Bhalla Ram were present in the house. They reported that Dharminnder Singh, Gurdip Singh and Najar Singh came at about 8:00 P.M and left the house together. After that he had gone to the house of Najar Singh. Najar Singh was not present in the house. On 24.6.2000, Jagjit Singh informed about the occurrence. Then the matter was reported to the police. Shirt stained with blood was identified to be of Gurdip Singh. From the photographs he had identified the dead body of Gurdip Singh.
PW-4, Rajinder Kumar stated that on 25.6.2000, Dharminder Singh came to his house and had made extra judicial confession as to how Gurdip Singh was murdered. Dharminder Singh was produced before the police.
PW-5, Harbhajan Singh, uncle of Gurdip Singh sated that on 22.6.2000 at about 7:00 P.M, Gurdip Singh had gone with Dharminder Singh and Najar Singh. But Gurdip Sigh failed to return. They had gone to the house of Rani to enquire about Gurdip Singh. Rani, Suraj Parkah, Bhalla Ram were present in the house and they reported that Gurdip Singh along with Dharminder Singh and Najar Singh have gone somewhere. On 23.6.2000, again he had gone to the house of Rani to enquire about Gurdip Singh but Rani reported Crl. Appeal No. 172-DB of 2006 11 that Dharmindra Singh has committed suicide. They were directed to trace Gurdip Singh. On 24.6.2000, they had gone to the police station to report the matter.
PW-6, Naresh Kumar stated that on 22.6.2000 at about 8:30 A.M, he was near the Kali Mata temple. He sighted Dharminder Singh, Najar Singh and Bhalla Ram going towards the temple. On the next day, he came to know that Dharminder Singh had committed suicide.
PW-7, Jasbir Singh was with the police and in his presence, Dharminder singh got recovered a pair of shoes, purse, containing driving license and currency notes, a gold ring and Najar Singh got recovered a gold kara.
PW-8, Bikkar Singh stated that on 28.6.2000, Rani had made extra judicial confession as to how Gurdip Singh was murdered.
PW-9, Ranjit Singh stated that on 25.6.2000, Najar Singh had made extra judicial confession before him qua murder of Gurdip Singh.
PW-10, Nardev Singh, Constable tendered his affidavit Ex.PL.
PW-11, Darshan Singh, Head Constable had tendered his affidavit Ex.PM.
PW-12, Harbhajan Singh gave report Ex.PN regarding the blood group of Gurdip Singh.
PW-13, Mohinder Kumar is the IO.
PW-14, Davinder Kumar, Clerk, DTO Office, Sangrur Crl. Appeal No. 172-DB of 2006 12 stated that driving license is of Gurdip Singh.
PW-15, ASI, Rajvir Singh was with the I.O.
PW-16, Bhupinder Singh, DSP had only recorded the statements.
PW-17, Head Constable, Sukhmander Singh had taken the photographs.
PW-18, Head Constable, Balbir Singh tendered his affidavit Ex.PW18/A. After the close of prosecution evidence, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent.
Defence version of Dharminder Singh, accused was that he is innocent. Gurdeep Singh had an affair with Ranju but Ranju's parents had strong objection to their affair. Gurdip Singh was frustrated and out of frustration, he had committed suicide after writing on the walls of temple with his own blood, "I love you Ranju". Body of Gurdip Singh was completely burnt and was not identifiable. Jaspal Singh, Harbhajan Singh, Gurmeet Singh and Jasbir Singh had participated in the cremation on 23.6.2000. He was detained by the police on the night of 24.6.2000 and the recovery of purse containing Driving License, currency notes, gold ring and a pair of black shoes was planted to connect him with the crim. Evidence of extra judicial confession was fabricated.
Defence version of Bhalla Ram was that he was employed as Chowkidar in Gurunanak Devi Thermal Plant, Bathinda in PSEB Department. On 22.6.2000, he was on duty from 5:00 P.M Crl. Appeal No. 172-DB of 2006 13 to 9:00 A.M. On the next day, after returning to home, he came to know that his brother Dharmider Singh has committed suicide by setting himself on fire. He participated in the cremation along with other persons of the mohalla believing that the dead body is of his brother, Dharminder Singh. He further stated that he was falsely implicated in this case.
Defence version of Suraj Parkash was that he was running furniture shop under the name and style of Suraj Furniture Maker near Killa gate, Bathida. On the intervening night of 22/23.6.2000 at about 11:00 A.M, he along with his mother Smt. Rani was sleeping in their house. Suddenly, neighbours came and informed us that smoke is coming out of the room of the chaubara of the temple. He along with his mother, Rani went to the temple and saw a dead body which appeared to be of Dharminder Singh. He along with his family members, neighours of the mohalla and relatives of Gurdip Singh participated in the cremation on 23.6.2000 believing it to be the dead body of Dharminder Singh. He along with Rani and Bhalla Ram were detained by the police on 25.6.2000 and their arrest was shown later on after fabricating the evidence of extra judicial confession. He further stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case.
Defence version of Rani was that she was Pujaran of Kali Mata Mandir in Kartar Basti. On the intervening night of 22/23.6.2000 at about 1:00 A.M, she along with her son Suraj Parkash was sleeping in her house. Then Bimla Devi along with her son Harjinder Singh, her neighbours came and informed us that Crl. Appeal No. 172-DB of 2006 14 smoke is coming out of the chaubara of the temple. She along with her son, Suraj Parkash went to the temple and saw a dead body which appeared to be of Dharminder Singh. Her son Suraj Parkash went and informed the police regarding that incident on the same night and police recorded his statement in this regard and conducted proceedings on the dead body. She along with her sons namely, Suraj Parkash and Bhalla Ram were detained by the police on 25.6.2000 and their arrest was shown later on after fabricating the evidence of extra judicial confession.
Defence version of Najar Singh was that he is innocent. He had no connection with this case and had been falsely implicated on the basis of suspicion only. He had no motive whatsoever to join hands with Dharminder Singh. He was detained by the police on 24.6.2000 and was falsely implicated after fabricating the evidence of extra judicial confession and recovery of shirt and gold kara. He further stated that he was not present at the time of cremation.
In defence DW-1, Jugraj Singh, Upper Division Clerk, Guru Nanak Dev Thermal Plant, Bathinda appeared and stated that on 22.6.2000 from 5:00 P.M to 9:00 A.M, Bhalla Ram, Chowkidar was on duty.
DW-2, Constable, Jasvir Singh had brought the record of FIR No. 284 of 24.6.2000 and stated that application dated 1.7.2000 moved by Chiman Lal was received to the effect that Bhalla Ram, Suraj Parkash and Rani are innocent. Ex.D1 is the copy of the application.
Defence counsel for the accused-Bhalla Ram argued that Crl. Appeal No. 172-DB of 2006 15 Bhalla Ram was on duty from 5:00 P.M to 9:00 A.M on the day of occurrence. When he came back to his house, then came to know about the present occurrence. He identified the dead body under bona fide belief. Defence counsel for the remaining appellants- accused argued that there is no evidence of conspiracy. Conspiracy is always before the commission of the crime. Prosecution was required to produce cogent and convincing evidence that before the present occurrence, accused had conspired to commit the crime and as per conspiracy, crime was committed and after the commission of crime, evidence was destroyed. No PW stated that he had overheard the accused while hatching conspiracy to commit the crime. Direct evidence qua conspiracy is missing. Naresh Kumar was the main witness who could state that the appellants-accused had conspired to commit the crime, but statement of Naresh Kumar is doubtful. Secondly main evidence is the extra judicial confession by Smt. Rani. But extra judicial confession by Rani cannot be used against the co-accused. In State of M.P vs. Paltan Mallah and others etc., 2005 Criminal Law Journal, 918, it was held that extra judicial confession of co-accused - Admissibility in case of conspiracy to commit murder - Extra judicial confession of co- accused that the other accused gave him money to murder trade union leader- However, no substantive evidence against the other accused persons - No conviction can be based on extra judicial confession of co-accused. In case appellants-accused had made extra judicial confession then it should have been mentioned in the application for remand when the accused was produced in the Court. Crl. Appeal No. 172-DB of 2006 16 Some other persons had also identified the dead body but they were not challaned. Statements of those persons who had identified the dead body under Section 161 were not got recorded. Statement of only Bimla Devi was recorded under Section 175. Suraj Parkash and Bhalla Ram cannot be convicted under Section 302 IPC. Therefore, at the most appellants-accused, Suraj Parkash and Bhalla Ram are liable for punishment under Section 201 IPC.
Learned counsel for the State argued that as per evidence on file, Gurdip Singh deceased and Dharminder Singh had relation with Ranju, daughter of Gurnam Singh. Dharminder Singh appellant-accused was against Gurdip Singh's affection towards Ranju. Occurrence was in the room of temple of Kali Mata on 22.6.2000. Gurdip Singh was taken away by Dharminder Singh and Nazar Singh from his house in the presence of Gurmit Singh. At about 6:00/7:00 P.M, Gurdip Singh was set on fire in a room of temple of Kali Mata. Suraj Parkash lodged report with the police on the intervening night of 22/23.6.2000 at about 3:30 A.M on the allegation that Dharmider Singh used to love Ranju and out of frustration, Dharminder Singh had committed suicide. Dead body was identified by Suraj Parkash and Bhalla Ram who were the real brother of Dharminder Singh. But on 24.6.2000 at about 6:00 P.M, Dharminder Singh was seen at Railway Station, Bathinda by Jagjit Singh. Dharminder Singh made an extra judicial confession before Jagjit Singh about the whole incident. Information was given to Gurmit Singh, brother of Gurdip Singh by Jagjit Singh. Gurdip Singh lodged report with the police on 24.6.2000 at 7:00 P.M. Dharminder Crl. Appeal No. 172-DB of 2006 17 Singh, Najar Singh and Rani had made extra judicial confession before PW-2, PW-9 and PW-8 respectively. PWs are not related to the deceased. They had not enmity with the appellants. Appellants- accused were produced before the police and as per their disclosure statements, different articles were got recovered. As per photographs dead body was identifiable. Doctor has not stated a word that dead body was not identifiable. Evidence on the file, extra judicial confessions and recovery of different articles of the deceased shows that as per conspiracy, crime was committed.
First submission of the learned defence counsel was that Bhalla Ram was a Chowkidar at Guru Nanak Dev Thermal Plant, Bathinda and he was on duty from 5:00 P.M to 9:00 A.M on the day of occurrence. Bhalla Ram under bona fide belief had identified the dead body. Therefore, he is not liable under Section 302 IPC. Submission of the learned defence counsel for the accused-Bhalla Ram seems to be reasonable one. DW-1 brought record and stated on oath that Bhalla Ram was serving as Chowkidar at Guru Nanak Dev Thermal Plant, Bhatinda and his duty hours were 5:00 P.M to 9:00 A.M. He further stated that on Saturdays and Sundays duty hours used to be for 24 hours. Bhalla Ram did not make extra judicial confession before any PW. Bhalla Ram did not suffer disclosure statement. No article of the deceased was recovered at the instance of Bhalla Ram. But evidence on the file shows that Bhalla Ram had identified the dead body to be of Dharminder Singh. Doctor who had conducted post mortem examination did not state that body was not identifiable. No direct evidence that Bhalla Ram Crl. Appeal No. 172-DB of 2006 18 was overheard while hatching conspiracy with the co-accused. Deceased was not seen last time in the company of Bhalla Ram. But Bhalla Ram had identified the dead body. Therefore, he is liable under Section 201/419/404 and not under Section 302 IPC. Suraj Parkash and his mother, Rani, on receipt of information at about 10:00 P.M on the intervening night of 22/23.6.2000 had gone to temple Kali Mata. In a room of that temple, dead body was noticed. Dead body was identified to be of Dharminder Singh by Suraj Parkash and Bhalla Ram. Suraj Parkash lodged report with the police on 23.6.2000 at about 3:30 A.M. Suraj Parkash had not made extra judicial confession before any witness. No recovery was effected at the instance of Suraj Parkash. But, Suraj Parkash had also identified the dead body to be of Dharminder Singh. When no oral or documentary evidence on the file to suggest that Suraj Parkash had conspired with the co-accused to commit the crime then Suraj Parkash is also liable under Section 201/419/404 IPC.
Next submission of the learned defence counsel was that there is no oral or documentary evidence on the file that before the occurrence, accused had conspiracy to commit the crime and in pursuance of the conspiracy crime was committed. But submission of the learned defence counsel seems to be not reasonable one. Gurmit Singh, PW-3, is the complainant and as per this witness on 22.6.2000, Dharminder Singh and Nazar Singh came at about 6:00/7:00 P.M and requested Gurdip Singh to accompany them. Gurdip Singh had gone with Dharminder Singh and Nazar Singh. On the intervening night of 22/23.6.2000, Suraj Parkash had lodged Crl. Appeal No. 172-DB of 2006 19 report with the police at 3:30 A.M. After recording the statement, police party came to the spot then inquest report was prepared.
On 22.6.2000, Harbhajan Singh, uncle of Gurdip Singh came to know that Gurdip Singh had gone with Dharminder Singh and Nazar Singh. Then, Harbhajan Singh along with his relations had gone to the house of Rani. But Gurdip Singh was not available there. On 23.6.2000 again enquiry was made from the house of Rani as to where Gurdip Singh was. Then Rani replied that Dharminder Singh has committed suicide and he was directed to trace Gurdip Singh. After post mortem examination, dead body was cremated. On 24.6.2000, Dharminder Singh was seen at the Railway Station, Bathinda by Jagjit Singh, PW-7. Dharminder Singh made extra judicial confession before Jagjit Singh as to how Gurdip Singh was murdered. When Gurmit Singh came to know from Jagjit Singh that Dharminder Singh is live then report was lodged with the police on 24.6.2000 at 7:00 P.M. On 25.6.2000, Dharminder Singh had made extra judicial confession before PW-4, Rajinder Kumar that on 22.6.2000 at about 6:00 P.M, Gurdip Singh was murdered. Dharminder Singh was produced before the police by Rajinder Kumar, PW-4.
Nazar Singh appellant-accused had made extra judicial confession before Ranjit Singh, PW-9 on 25.6.2000 as to how the crime was committed. Nazar Singh was produced by Ranjit Singh before the police. On 28.6.2000, Rani had made extra judicial confession before Bikkar Singh that Gurdip Singh was murdered as per conspiracy. Rani was produced before the police by Bikkar Crl. Appeal No. 172-DB of 2006 20 Singh, PW-8. IO as per disclosure statements had effected recovery of different articles. As per disclosure statement, Dharminder Singh got recovered shoes, purse containing Driving licence, photograph and some currency notes and one gold ring. Najar Singh, appellant got recovered one kara of gold and a shirt. Articles recovered as per disclosure statements were identified by Jaspal Singh, father of the deceased as of Gurdip Singh. Defence counsel argued that extra judicial confession is a weak type of evidence. Extra judicial confession alone is not sufficient for conviction of the appellants. In support of this contention, defence counsel cited Pradeep Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Crl) 604, Criminal trial - Circumstantial evidence - Guilt established - Last seen together - Extra-judicial confession - Recovery of incriminating articles - Pws 3 and 7 claiming to have seen the deceased with appellant P on date prior to the recovery of dead body - Their testimony found reliable - Recovery of bloodstained knife, pants and shirt of P at his instance - No explanation about presence of blood stains on pants and shirt - Evidence of PW-5 regarding extra judicial confession made y P to him, further corroborated by testimony of PW 1- Conviction of P based on said circumstances, held proper - Hence, upheld - Penal Code, 1860, S.302 - Evidence Act, 1872, S.
24. Driving licence recovered was of Gurdip Singh and this fact is clear from the statement of PW-4, Davinder Kumar.
Suraj Parkash, Bhola Ram @ Bhalla Ram stated that they were arrested on 25.6.2000 whereas Dharminder and Nazar Singh Crl. Appeal No. 172-DB of 2006 21 stated that they were arrested on 24.6.2000. But DW-2 stated that an application dated 1.7.2000 was received in the office of SSP, Bathinda on 3.7.2000 to the effect that Bhola Ram @ Bhalla Ram, Suraj Parkash and Rani are innocent. No reference of Nazar Singh and Dharminder Singh. In case there was false implication, then names of Dharminder Singh and Nazar Singh should have also been mentioned in the application dated 1.7.2000. As discussed earlier, arrest of the appellants-accused was on 24.6.2000 and 25.6.2000. But the application was moved on 1.7.2000. Indirectly that means appellants admitted that crime was committed by Dharminder Singh and Nazar Singh. Evidence further shows that at about 10:00 P.M on the intervening night of 22/23.6.2000, Suraj Parkash and Rani received message from Bimla Devi and Harjinder that the smoke is coming from the room of temple but they were not produced in defence to state that in fact intimation was given to the accused-party at 10:00 P.M when they had noticed smoke from the room of Kali Mata temple. Non-examination of Bimla Devi and Harjinder Singh in defence shows that defence version seems to be not reasonable one. Dharminder Singh and Gurdip Singh had affair with Ranju. Dharminder Singh intended to abduct Ranju. Therefore, the appellants-accused had the motive to commit the crime. Firstly, injury was caused with a sharp edged weapon and thereafter with blood of Gurdip Singh, "I Love you Ranju" was written on the walls of the temple. After murder body was set on fire to destroy the evidence. Later on story was concocted that body is not identifiable but from the shirt body was identified to be of Dharminder Singh. Crl. Appeal No. 172-DB of 2006 22
No other submission was put forward. All this shows that Suraj Parkash and Bhola Ram @ Bhalla Ram had committed offence punishable under Sections 404/419/201 IPC. In the absence of cogent and convincing evidence qua conspiracy, Suraj Parkash and Bhalla Ram are acquitted of the charges levelled against them under Section 302/120-B IPC.
With this modification Suraj Parkash and Bhola Ram @ Bhalla Ram are directed to undergo RI for two years each for the offence punishable under Section 419/404 I.P.C. They are further directed to undergo RI for a period of five years in stead of seven years each for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC.
Appeal filed by Dharminder Singh, Rani and Nazar Singh, appellants without merit is dismissed.
( JASBIR SINGH ) ( JORA SINGH )
JUDGE JUDGE
, 2009
ritu