Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satpal Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 12 November, 2010
Author: Jora Singh
Bench: Jasbir Singh
CRA-D-83-DB of 2000 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-D-83-DB of 2000 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 12.11.2010
Satpal Singh and another
....... Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
....... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH
PRESENT: Mr. V.K. Jindal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vipul Jindal, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
JORA SINGH, J.
Initially, on 4.3.2009, appeal was heard and while arguing the appeal, learned defence counsel for the appellant brought to the notice of the Court that Harnek Singh-appellant No.2 had died during the pendency of this appeal. In view of the statement of learned defence counsel for the appellants, this Court opined that appeal qua Harnek Singh-appellant No.2 stands abated. Appeal on behalf of second appellant namely Satpal Singh, was accepted and he was acquitted of the charge levelled against him.
Satpal Singh and his father Harnek Singh, aged about 77 CRA-D-83-DB of 2000 -2- years filed this appeal to challenge the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7.1.2000, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, in Sessions Case No. 9 dated 25.2.1992, arising out of FIR No. 11 dated 5.10.1991, registered under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Longowal.
By the said judgment, they were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and were sentenced as under:
1. Satpal Singh To undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ` 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Harnek Singh To undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ` 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the appellant No.2 - Harnek Singh, filed this application under Section 482 Cr. PC. for rectification of factual error in the judgment dated 4.3.2009, passed in CRA No. 83-DB of 2000, on the allegation that inadvertently under the bona fide belief on 4.3.2009, informed the Court that appellant No.2 - Harnek Singh, had died during the pendency of the appeal and appeal qua Harnek Singh CRA-D-83-DB of 2000 -3- stands abated. Infact Harnek Singh was alive on the day of hearing of the appeal i.e. on 4.3.2009.
Notice of the application was given to the State of Punjab. Prosecution story, in brief, is that Mukand Singh- complainant alongwith Sarpanch Mohinder Singh and Kaur Singh, Member Panchayat, made statement Ex. PD before ASI Baldev Singh and allegation of Mukand Singh was that he is resident of village Namol and they are four brothers. The names of his other brothers are Sardara Singh, Baldev Singh and Jeet Singh and all the four brothers reside together. Sardara Singh was serving in the Military. They are doing the work of agriculture and their fields are known as Tibbian Wala situating towards Sunam side. There was an electric motor installed in the fields and they keep their cattle/animals in the fields by constructing a room. His younger brother Jeet Singh, used to live in the fields to look after the animals and they used to take the meals of Jeet Singh, from village turn by turn. On 4.10.1991, at about 8.00 p.m. he had gone to his fields with the meals of Jeet Singh. Jeet Singh, was present in the fields. In the meantime, Harnek Singh, came with a request that Jeet Singh was being summoned by Satpal Singh @ Jaggar, Kaka Singh and Jora Singh, on the electric motor of Anter Singh. As per request of Harnek Singh, Jeet Singh had gone alongwith him without taking his meals. Mukand Singh, remained on his electric motor and after half an hour he heard the noise of "Marta Marta" from the side of electric motor of Anter Singh but he did not go there out of fear and ran towards the village. Entire episode was brought to the notice of Baldev Singh and CRA-D-83-DB of 2000 -4- Sardara Singh, who was on leave. Baldev Singh and Sardar Singh, told that since the conditions in Punjab are not good due to terrorism so they will enquire in the next morning. On 5.10.1991, complainant alongwith his brothers had gone to the electric motor of Anter Singh, in search of their brother Jeet Singh. Dead body of Jeet Singh was found with injuries on his person. Sardara Singh and Baldev Singh, were deputed to guard the dead body. Mukan Singh, had gone to lodge the report alongwith Sarpanch Mohinder Singh and Member Panchayat Kaur Singh. Near the bridge of drain in the area of village Longowal statement of Mukand Singh Ex. PD was recorded.
Land of Anter Singh was on lease with Jora Singh. Harnek Singh, got executed a Will regarding the land of their uncle Jaggar Singh @ Jagga in his own favour. Complainant and his brothers had right in the land of Jaggar Singh, also. Due to this grudge Harnek Singh, Satpal Singh, Jora Singh and Kaka Singh, have murdered Jeet Singh. After making endorsement Ex. PD/1 statement was sent to the police station on the basis of which formal FIR was recorded.
ASI Baldev Singh alongwith the police party had gone to the spot. After inspection rough site plan Ex. PK with correct marginal notes was prepared. Inquest report Ex. PB was prepared. Dead body was sent to Civil Hospital, Sangrur, for post mortem examination. Blood stained earth was lifted from the spot and made into a parcel, which was sealed by ASI Baldev Singh, with his own seal bearing impression 'BS'. Sealed parcel was taken into police possession vide memo Ex. PJ, attested by the witnesses.
CRA-D-83-DB of 2000 -5-
On 7.11.1991, Satpal Singh was arrested and was interrogated. Satpal Singh suffered disclosure statement and in pursuance of the disclosure statement got recovered Kulhari from the specified place. Sketch of Kulhari was prepared and the same was made into sealed parcel. Sealed parcel was taken into police possession vide memo Ex. PH attested by the witnesses. Harnek Singh was also arrested in this case but during investigation Jora Singh and Kaka Singh, were found innocent. After completion of investigation challan was presented in the Court.
Accused were charge-sheeted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined number of witnesses.
PW-1 Dr. K.C. Goyal, had conducted Post-mortem Examination on the dead body of Jeet Singh, on 5.10.1991. Three injuries were noticed on the person of Jeet Singh. Cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to injuries. Injuries were ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
PW-2 Mukand Singh, is the complainant and has reiterated his statement as per complaint Ex. PD.
PW-3 Mohinder Singh, stated that Satpal Singh and Harnek Singh are known to him. They belonged to his village. His land is adjoining the land of Mukand Singh. About 1¾ years back at about CRA-D-83-DB of 2000 -6- 8.00/8.30 p.m. he was going towards his fields to make an enquiry about the Combine. When he was present near the motor of Anter Singh, then heard shrieks 'Marta Marta'. He had gone towards the motor of Anter Singh then sighted Satpal Singh, while giving Kulhari blows on the head of Jeet Singh. Harnek Singh, had caught hold Jeet Singh from his legs. He raised raula then two more blows with Kulhari were given by Satpal Singh on the forehead and face of Jeet Singh. When he raised raula then accused also threatened to eliminate him. Out of fear he ran towards Sunam and stayed for night at Sunam. On the next day, after selling his paddy at about 2.00 p.m. he came back to his village.
PW-4 Narsingh Dass, had prepared scaled site plan Ex. PF.
PW-5 Satgur Singh, stated that on 4.10.1991, Satpal Singh came to his house and made extra judicial confession before him by saying that he has taken the possession of the land of his uncle and his sister had illicit relations with a doctor. Satpal Singh further stated that after giving Kulhari blows Jeet Singh was murdered and requested him to produce before the police. Harnek Singh, also came there and made extra judicial confession that Jeet Singh was killed by Satpal Singh by giving Kulhari blows and he had caught hold Jeet Singh from his legs. After murder dead body was thrown into the well. Accused were produced before the police by him.
PW-6 Jora Singh, did not support the prosecution story and was declared hostile.
CRA-D-83-DB of 2000 -7-
PW-7 Garib Dass stated that on 7.11.1991, Satpal Singh was interrogated in his presence and in pursuance of the disclosure statement Kulhari Ex. P-1 was got recovered from the specified place.
PW-8 ASI Baldev Singh, was the Investigating Officer. PW-9 Sardara Singh, is the brother of the deceased. He has supported the version of Mukand Singh.
PW-10 Inspector Shamsher Singh, stated that after completion of investigation challan was presented in the Court by him.
PW-11 Bhura Singh, stated that in the year 1991, 4½ killas of the land of Antar Singh were on Theka at the rate of Rs.5000/- per acre with Jora Singh vide writing dated 17.5.1991.
After close of the prosecution evidence, statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded wherein they denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent.
After hearing learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, learned defence counsel and going through the record, the appellants were convicted and sentenced vide order, as stated aforesaid.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant No.2 - Harnek Singh, learned State counsel and have carefully gone through the evidence available on the file.
Learned defence counsel for the appellant No. 2 argued that the present appellant and Satpal Singh were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Both the appellants had filed joint appeal. Appeal CRA-D-83-DB of 2000 -8- on behalf of Satpal Singh was accepted vide judgment dated 4.3.2009. According to the prosecution story on 4.10.1991, Harnek Singh, came to the fields of Jeet Singh. Mukand Singh, was present in the fields. Jeet Singh was requested to accompany him because he was being summoned by Satpal Singh, Kaka Singh and Jora Singh. On the request of Harnek Singh, Jeet Singh had gone to the motor of Anter Singh. After half an hour Mukand Singh heard raula 'Marta Marta' but out of fear he had not gone to the electric motor of Anter Singh. Out of fear Mukand Singh came back to his residential house. On the next day all the brothers had gone to the motor of Anter Singh and dead body of Jeet Singh was found lying in the bore of tube well of Anter Singh. Harnek Singh - appellant had also made extra judicial confession before Satgur Singh but evidence on the file inspires no confidence because main accused namely Satpal Singh was acquitted of the charge levelled against him. As per Satgur Singh, PW-5 on 4.10.1991, Harnek Singh-appellant had made extra judicial confession but in view of the extra judicial confession there was no recovery. According to the prosecution story, at about 8.00 p.m. Jeet Singh had gone with Harnek Singh and after half an hour raula was heard from the side of motor of Anter Singh. In case Jeet Singh had gone towards the motor or Anter Singh as per request of Harnek Singh and raula was heard by Mukand Singh, then he should have gone to the motor of Anter Singh to save his brother but on hearing raula Mukand Singh came back to his house. On the next day all the brothers namely, Sardara Singh, Baldev Singh and Mukand Singh, had gone to the motor of Anter Singh, then noticed CRA-D-83-DB of 2000 -9- the dead body of Jeet Singh, while lying in the bore of tube well, but Satgur Singh, stated that on 4.10.1999, Harnek Singh and Satpal Singh, made extra judicial confession that by giving Kulhari blows Jeet Singh was murdered by them. Satgur Singh, was not a Panch or Sarpanch. He was not a Lambardar. Criminal case under the Excise Act, was pending against him. House of the accused was at a distance of about half mile from the house of Satgur Singh. In cross-examination stated that accused came at 7.30 a.m. and at 10.30 a.m. were produced before the police. Village Nimol is a big village. There are respectable persons like Panch, Sarpanch and Lambardar. He did not disclose this fact to anybody. So statement of Satgur Singh, inspires no confidence when he stated that on 4.10.1991, appellants had made extra judicial confession but in cross-examination stated that accused had came at 7.30 am. that means on the next day had made extra judicial confession.
PW-3 Mohinder Singh, claims to be the eye-witness. In examination-in-chief stated that when he was near the motor of Anter Singh, then sighted Satpal Singh, while armed with Kulhari giving blows to Jeet Singh. Harnek Singh at that time had caught hold Jeet Singh from his legs but in cross-examination stated that he did not report the matter to the police. He did not talk about this incident with anybody. In cross-examination admitted that he appeared as a prosecution witness in a murder case registered against Chand Singh and others. In examination-in-chief stated that he was going to enquire about combine but in cross-examination he did not state a word that he had gone to CRA-D-83-DB of 2000 -10- enquire about combine. Argued that if the occurrence was witnessed by Mohinder Singh then he should have reported the matter to the police or to the complainant party. There was no idea to remain silent. Except the extra judicial confession when no recovery before Satgur Singh and the statement of Mohinder Singh, no other evidence on the file connecting the appellant with the crime.
Learned State counsel argued that appellant was seen while present at the spot alongwith Satpal Singh. Satpal Singh was giving Kulhari blows to Jeet Singh (deceased) whereas Harnek Singh had caught hold the deceased from his legs. Before arrest appellant had made extra judicial confession before Satgur Singh. No doubt Satpal Singh was acquitted of the charge levelled against him but evidence on the file shows that on the request of present appellant Jeet Singh had gone to the motor of Anter Singh. Murder of Jeet Singh was at the motor of Anter Singh. Dead body with injuries was recovered from the bore of tube well of Anter Singh.
Admittedly, Harnek Singh and his son Satpal Singh, were convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, and against the judgment appeal was filed jointly by the appellants. Appeal of Satpal Singh, co-accused was accepted. He was acquitted of the charge levelled against him. When the appeal was being argued then learned defence counsel for the appellants stated that Harnek Singh - appellant No. 2 had died, so in view of the statement of learned defence counsel for the appellants, this Court observed that appeal filed on behalf of Harnek Singh stands abated. In CRA-D-83-DB of 2000 -11- fact Harnek Singh was alive.
According to the prosecution story, Jeet Singh was taken away by Harnek Singh by saying that he was being summoned by Satpal Singh, Kakka Singh and Jora Singh at the motor of Anter Singh. Mohinder Singh, had seen the appellant when he had caught hold the deceased from his legs when second accused namely Satpal Singh had given Kulhari blows. On 4.10.1991, appellant had made extra judicial confession before Satgur Singh whereas allegation of the appellant is that case is false. Appellant is to be presumed innocent unless the guilt is proved. Court is to see whether the prosecution story inspires confidence or not.
Undisputedly, complainant party was owning land and cattle/animals were kept in the fields. Jeet Singh, used to stay in the fields during the night time. Turn by turn brothers used to take the meals of Jeet Singh from their village.
Mukand Singh, is the complainant and real brother of the deceased and in Court stated that when he had gone to the fields then Harnek Singh came and requested Jeet Singh to accompany him by saying that he was summoned by Stapal Singh, Kaka Singh and Jora Singh at the motor of Anter Singh. So without taking meals Jeet Singh had gone with Harnek Singh and after half an hour he had heard raula 'Marta Marta' from the motor of Antar Singh. Instead of going towards the motor of Antar Singh to enquire as to what has happened, Mukand Singh, came back to his house. In case as per request of Harnek Singh, Jeet Singh, had accompanied him to the motor of Antar singh CRA-D-83-DB of 2000 -12- then Mukand Singh was expected to go towards the motor of Antar Singh to enquire as to whether injuries were caused to Jeet Singh or somebody else.
Jaggar Singh, was owning land. Harnek Singh got executed Will in his favour qua the land owned by Jaggar Singh. Complainant party was also claiming share in the land of Jaggar Singh. That means there was enmity amongst the parties because as per Will Harnek Singh claimed to be the owner of the property owned by Jaggar Singh. Complainant party was also intending to get share in the land. Meaning thereby complainant party was not having cordial relations with Harnek Singh. When Harnek Singh was not having cordial relations with the complainant party then Jeet Singh was not expected to accompany Harnek Singh to the electric motor of Anter Singh. As per Harnek Singh, Jeet Singh was being summoned by Satpal Singh, Kakka Singh and Jora Singh. After half an hour complainant had heard the noise 'Marta Marta'. When Jeet Singh had gone towards the motor of Anter Singh and there was previous enmity amongst the complainant party and Harnek Singh then Mukand Singh should have gone towards the motor of Anter Singh to enquire as to whether Jeet Singh is safe or not. Instead of going towards the motor of Anter Singh, to save his brother Jeet Singh, Mukand Singh, came back towards his house. Story regarding last scene seems to be not genuine one.
Next allegation of the prosecution was that Satpal Singh and Harnek Singh were seen while murdering Jeet Singh by PW-3 Mohinder Singh but statement of Mohinder Singh is also without any CRA-D-83-DB of 2000 -13- evidentiary value because if Mohinder Singh had seen the appellant while holding the legs of Jeet Singh, when Kulhari blows were being given by Satpal Singh then Mohinder Singh should have made an effort to rescue Jeet Singh. If due to fear he was not in a position to save Jeet Singh because Satpal Singh was armed with Kulhari then Mohinder Singh should have immediately informed the complainant party by saying that he had seen Satpal Singh and Harnek Singh while murdering Jeet Singh. Instead of informing the complainant party Mohinder Singh had gone to Sunam. Mohinder Singh was going from his fields towards other side to make enquiry about the combine but after witnessing the present occurrence he had not gone to make enquiry about combine. While acquitting the main accused, namely, Satpal Singh statement of Mohinder Singh was found doubtful.
Next allegation of the prosecution was that appellant made extra judicial confession before Satgur Singh on 4.10.1991 but statement of Satgur Singh, was also disbelieved while acquitting the co- accused. Satgur Singh was not a Panch, Sarpanch or Lambardar. He had no say in the Police Department. One criminal case under the Excise Act was registered against Satgur Singh. No evidence on the file that Satgur Singh was in a position to save the appellant from torture by the police. According to the prosecution story, at 8.00 p.m. on 4.10.1991, Mukand Singh was in his fields alongwith Jeet Singh. Harnek Singh, came and requested Jeet Singh to accompany him because he was summoned by Satpal Singh, Kakka Singh and Jora Singh and after half an hour Mukand Singh had heard raula 'Marta CRA-D-83-DB of 2000 -14- Marta'. So at 8.30 p.m. Jeet Singh was murdered at the electric motor of Anter Singh whereas Satgur Singh stated that on 4.10.1991, appellant had made extra judicial confession before him but in view of the extra judicial confession there was no recovery. Extra judicial confession qua commission of crime is without any evidentiary value. In cross-examination Satgur Singh, admitted that he was not a Panch, Sarpanch or Lambardar. His house was at a distance of half mile from the house of the appellant. One criminal case under the Excise Act was registered against him. In cross-examination admitted that at 7.30 a.m. accused came to him and at 10.30 a.m. accused was produced before the police. If on 5.10.1991, i.e. after the murder appellant had gone to the house of Satgur Singh to make extra judicial confession then statement of Satgur Singh is not correct one because in examination-in- chief he has stated that on 4.140.1991 accused came and made extra judicial confession. Extra judicial confession was to be made before a person who is politically or financially sound or had say in the Police Department to save him from torture at the hands of police. But in the present case one criminal case under the Excise Act, was pending against Satgur Singh. Satgur Singh, had no say in the Police Department. He was not holding any post like Panch, Sarpanch or Lambardar. When he was not in a position to save the accused then there was no idea to make extra judicial confession. Statement of Satgur Singh was also disbelieved when co-accused Satpal Singh was acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Except evidence of last scene, extra judicial confession and the evidence of the eye-witness CRA-D-83-DB of 2000 -15- namely Mohinder Singh, no other evidence on file to connect the accused with the crime. As discussed earlier statements of Mukand Singh, Mohinder Singh and Satgur Singh were disbelieved while giving benefit of doubt to the co-accused - Satpal Singh, all this shows that there is no legal evidence on the file to connect the accused with the crime.
In view of all discussed above, we are of the opinion that evidence on file was misread. Impugned judgment sufferes from infirmity and illegallity. Impugned judgment is to be set aside if the Court is of the view that judgment is perverse and evidence on file was not rightly scrutinized. Impugned judgment is set aside.
For the reasons recorded above, Harnek Singh - appellant No.2, is acquitted of the charge levelled against him.
Appeal filed on behalf of Harnek Singh is allowed.
( JORA SINGH )
JUDGE
November 12, 2010 ( JASBIR SINGH )
rishu JUDGE