Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab on 21 July, 2011
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta
Crl. Appeal No.365-DB of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: July 21, 2011
Crl. Appeal No.365-DB of 2008
Harpreet Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
1. Whether Reporters of 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?
Present: Mr. P.S.Hundal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Premjit Singh Hundal, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. S.S.Dhaliwal, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab,
for the respondent-State.
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
Harpreet Singh son of Joginder Singh and husband of the deceased Amarjit Kaur is in appeal aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.04.2008 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Barnala, convicting and sentencing him for life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC for causing death of his wife Amarjit Kaur. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The appellant was also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. In default of Crl. Appeal No.365-DB of 2008 2 payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.
Initially, the appellant made statement to ASI Gurdial Singh on 06.12.2004 in relation to abduction of his wife Amarjit Kaur at about 8.30 pm. On the basis of such statement, ruqa Ex.PW/1 was sent to the Police Station for registration of an FIR at about 10.15 pm. On receipt of such ruqa, FIR Ex.PW/2 under Sections 366/341/323 and 149 IPC was registered at about 10.40 pm. In his statement (Ex.PW), the appellant stated that he is resident of Kaunke Kalan, Jagraon but residing in Norway since the year 1977, as a citizen. His marriage with Amarjit Kaur daughter of Balour Singh, resident of Diwana was solemnized in the year 1997 and has two children, who are also citizens of Norway. He came to Punjab along with his family on 10.11.2004 on the eve of marriage of his sister-in-law Jasbir Kaur, which has taken place on 04.12.2004. He further stated that today i.e 06.12.2004, he along with his wife Amarjit Kaur has gone to Barnala to distribute sweets in Ford Escort Car bearing registration No.DL-3CL-1767. After distributing sweets and doing some other business work, they were coming from Barnala to his in-laws village Diwana at about 7.30 pm via Tallewal bridge towards Gehal. At about 8.30 pm, when their car was 300 yards short of Bihla, three scooterists came from behind. He slowed down the speed of his car and gave them side. But one scooterist came ahead of the car as a result, he stopped his car. In the meantime, 5/6 persons, who have muffled their faces, caught hold the windows of the car and started dragging out his wife Amarjit Kaur. He caught hold his wife. They dragged him also and threw him on the ground with face downwards. Two persons sat on his shoulders. Crl. Appeal No.365-DB of 2008 3 Because of fall, his spectacle also fell there and his eye sight was adversely affected. He further stated that 5/6 persons forcibly abducted his wife on a scooter. He also gave description in respect of his wife and the clothes worn by her. He further stated that he called his relative Chamkaur Singh son of Balour Singh at the spot, as he was in perplexed condition.
After recording the said statement, ASI Gurdial Singh visited the place of occurrence i.e. in the area of village Behla situated on Behla-Gehlan road and noticed blood stains on the seat adjoining the driver seat on the front side of the car make Escort Ford No.DL-3CJ- 1767. The rexin and sponge piece of the seat, which was stained with blood and one jersey of Harpreet Singh, which was also stained with blood was taken into possession after converting into separate sealed parcels vide recovery memo Ex.PY. He also prepared rough site plan Ex.PY-1 with correct marginal notes. He also took Harpreet Singh to the hospital for medico-legal examination, which was conducted by PW-4 Dr. Raj Kumar at about 11.35 pm on the same day. He found the following four injuries:
1. An abrasion 1cm present over left side of cheek.
2. An abrasion 5 cm present over left lower arm in its center.
3. Five abrasions of varing length 5 cm to 8 cm vertical in direction present over right lower arm in its lower 1/3rd.
4. Complain of pain over tip of right index finger. Movements were slightly painful.
After depositing all the recovered articles with MHC Kewal Ram, he handed over the investigations to SI/SHO Jasbir Singh Crl. Appeal No.365-DB of 2008 4 on 07.12.2004. It was on 07.12.2004, when the police party headed by SHO Jasbir Singh was present at the bridge of Canal known as Tallewal Pull, Jarnail Singh got recorded his statement at about 3.00 pm. In his statement (Ex.PS/1), Jarnail Singh stated that yesterday i.e. 06.12.2004, he and Nachhattar Singh, Ex-sarpanch were going on his scooter to Hathur through canal bank via Gehal from bridge of chak in order to enquire about his brother-in-law Jagjit Singh. At about 8.30 pm, when they reached near the canal kothi within the limits of village Behla, they noticed a white car parked towards the side of canal and the window of driving seat was open. They saw that one person had thrown a dead body into canal from the seat adjacent to the driver seat. On seeing the head light of their scooter, the person ran towards the side of driver's seat. They identified him to be Harpreet Singh son of Joginder Singh, who was married to the daughter of Balour Singh and lives in foreign country. They tried to stop him, but he drove away his car No.DL-3CJ- 1767. He further stated that since they were in trouble, they did not tell anything to anybody and went to their sister. He further stated that today i.e. 07.12.2004, when they were going back to Barnala from Hathur, one Baldev Singh son of Jangir Singh met them and told that when daughter of Balour Singh and his son-in-law were returning after distributing sweets on the eve of marriage of his younger daughter, 5/6 persons riding three scooters stopped the car in between Behla and Gehlan and forcibly kidnapped the girl and caused injuries to his son- in-law. On hearing this, both of them were astonished and he got recorded his statement to the effect that they have seen Harpreet Singh throwing a dead body into a canal after taking out from car No.DL-3CJ- 1767. On the basis of such statement, ruqa Ex.PS/2 was sent to the Crl. Appeal No.365-DB of 2008 5 Police Station. On receipt of ruqa, offence under Sections 302/201 IPC was added. In pursuance of such statement, SI Jasbir Singh went near canal rest house in Village Gehlan. He inspected the spot and prepared rough site plan Ex.PKK. He also taken into possession one sleeper of right foot, one mould of naked right food and mould of right tyre of car vide memo Ex.PA.
It was on 09.12.2004, Baldev Singh and Parvinder Singh produced Harpreet Singh before SI/SHO Jasbir Singh along with car No.DL-3CJ-1767. Harpreet Singh was arrested, whereas car along with Registration Certificate was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PJ/1. On interrogation during custody, Harpreet Singh suffered disclosure statement and in pursuance of such statement, got recovered one blood knife from the disclosed place. The accused also got recovered one blood stained light green colour dupatta having human hair; blood stained earth and stones; one purse of black colour of Amarjit Kaur containing one passport issued by Norway Government along with visa, one mobile phone, insurance policy, one golden locket chain, one diary along with some papers, photographs of children and their negatives some cosmetics and one spectacle pertaining to the accused. All the articles were taken into possession after converting into separate sealed parcels.
The dead body of Amarjit Kaur was retrieved on 12.12.2004 from the canal near the canal rest house in the area of Village Gehla and sent for post-mortem examination to Civil Hospital, Barnala. The post-mortem on the dead body of Amarjit Kaur was conducted by a Board consisting of PW-3 Dr. Tarloki Nath, Dr. Mrs. Crl. Appeal No.365-DB of 2008 6 Asha Gupta and Dr. Rajiv Bhambri. PW-3 Dr. Tarloki Nath found the following injuries in the post mortem examination:
1. Oval shape penetrating wound was present at the left side of chest. It was about 1.5 x .5 cm in size and was present 5 cm above left nipple and 6 cm from midline. On dissection, it was found directing down wards and was piercing the pericardium and heart.
2. Lacerated wound above 1 cm to 1/2 cm on size was present at the right ear lobule and was below the ear.
The cause of death in the opinion of the medical board is shock and haemmorhage as a result of injury No.1, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The viscera were sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis. However, the report ruled out poisoning. Probable time that elapsed between injury and death was immediate, whereas between death and post mortem examination was within three to seven days. In cross-examination, PW-3 Dr. Tarloki Nath stated that injury No.1 could be result of knife, which is Ex.P1. He stated that Ex.P2 is the vial containing sample of blood, whereas Ex.P3 is the vial containing sample of heirs of the deceased. He further stated that he did not detect any water in the lungs and that at the time of post-mortem examination, he did not notice any salwar being worn on the body. In response to a question, the witness answered that there were no sign on the dead body, which could suggest rape having been committed. He examined the clothes of the dead body and opined that there was nothing to suggest commission of rape. He admitted that the post mortem examination does not show that this examination was for the purposes of assessing if rape has been committed or not. When asked about the corresponding cut on the kameej (shirt), as the Court Crl. Appeal No.365-DB of 2008 7 observed that the shirt produced is in a tattered condition, the witness is unable to give any opinion in respect of the presence of cut.
On 13.12.2004, SI Jasbir Singh sought the presence of an Executive Magistrate to obtain moulds of foot of the accused and of tyres of the car vide request memo Ex.PII. It was in pursuance of such request, the sample moulds of the right foot of the accused and tyres of the car were taken in the presence of Shri Jagsir Singh, Naib Tehsildar. In pursuance of another request made to the Court, samples of blood and hair of Harpreet Singh were taken by Dr. Satwant Singh Ahuja vide Ex.PBB.
On completion of necessary investigation, the accused namely Harpreet Singh along with Paramjit Singh @ Pamma, Manjit Singh, Ram Singh, Jagroop Singh and Karamjit Singh, to whom he had given a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for committing the murder of his wife were made to stand trial. However, Manjit Singh, Ram Singh and Karamjit Singh were acquitted vide judgment dated 29.02.2008, as no incriminating evidence was found against them even before recording their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Forensic Science Laboratory in its report Ex.PPP observed that moulds of foot and tyres were received in unsealed and unmarked condition. But it was reported that the impression of right naked foot on crime mould C-1 is from the right naked foot of suspect Harpreet Singh from the rest impression. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 22 witnesses.
After going through the evidence produced before it, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant Harpreet Crl. Appeal No.365-DB of 2008 8 Singh, as mentioned above. However, Paramjit Singh @ Pamma and Jagroop Singh were acquitted of the charges framed against them by granting benefit of doubt.
PW-15 is Jarnail Singh, who along with Nachhattar Singh has seen the accused while throwing the dead body of his wife Amarjit Kaur into canal on 06.12.2004. He has been cross-examined at length in respect of shortest route from village Manal to village Hathur. It is sought to be suggested that the route taken by the said witness is zig- zag route, whereas the shortest route is through metalled road. Therefore, it is improbable that in the evening time of the winter month, the witness would drive in such manner. It is against normal human behaviour. He is chance witness whose presence at the spot is not believable. He has not reported about the incident of throwing dead body from 8.30 pm till 3 pm next day.
PW-6 Baldev Singh has deposed that the accused has confessed before him on 07.12.2004 at about 8.00 am to the effect that yesterday i.e. 06.12.2004 he along with his wife were coming on a car after distributing sweets on the eve of marriage of his sister-in-law and while going to his in-laws village Diwana, he and his wife had a tiff and his wife kept on grudging and slapped him. Between village Behla and Gehlan, he stopped his car and took out the knife lying therein and put the same in the pocket of his trouser and after alighting from the car, he went to the side of the car, where his wife was sitting and after opening the door dragged her out and gave blows of knife around the neck of his wife. The accused is said to have confessed before him that he gave another blow of knife on the left side of the chest of his wife and Crl. Appeal No.365-DB of 2008 9 thereafter he smothered the mouth and the nose of his wife until she died. Thereafter, he put the dead body into the car and went towards the bridge of canal of village Chak and near the irrigation rest house, he took out the dead body and threw the same in the canal. He, thereafter, rushed to village Behelawal and telephoned his relation Chamkaur Singh and told him in respect of abduction of his wife. He deposed that the accused has confessed before him that he has done a wrong partly because of the heated exchange of words between them and partly out of greed and that he be produced before the police. After saying so, the accused went away telling him that he will come up for this purpose some time later. Such information was disclosed by PW-6 Baldev Singh to SI/SHO Jasbir Singh on 08.12.2004. He was told to produce Harpreet Singh. He tried and was able to produce Harpreet Singh on 09.12.2004. He is also the witness of the disclosure statement of Harpreet Singh leading to recovery of knife as well as recovery of blood stained dupatta and stones. The cross-examination is in respect of the fact that the witness is related to the family of the deceased. It has further come in his evidence that Harpreet Singh came to them on 07.12.2004 and stated that the motive for murder was the greed for insurance money that was to come from the policy taken on the life of Amarjit Kaur though he has not seen the documents of insurance. He further stated that Jasvir Kaur, younger sister of Amarjit Kaur was residing with Amarjit Kaur at Norway.
PW-7 Chamkaur Singh is real brother of the deceased Amarjit Kaur. He deposed that at about 9.00pm on 06.12.2004, he received a telephonic call from Harpreet Singh that 5/6 persons with muffled faces have abducted Amarjit Kaur. He went to the place of Crl. Appeal No.365-DB of 2008 10 occurrence i.e. between Behla and Gehlan and thereafter he along with Harpreet Singh went to Police Station Bhadaur. After recording the statement of Harpreet Singh, they both came to the place of occurrence along with police. He further deposed that police prepared rough site plan and taken into possession blood stained jersey and piece of the seat cover including rexin and sponge. In his cross-examination, he stated that he met police at 9.45 pm and again reached at the place of occurrence at 10.00/10.45 pm. He further stated that from 06.12.2004, they were looking out for Amarjit kaur. Harpreet Singh went on his own and he made his own efforts. He has further admitted that the room as well as bed room from where the articles in pursuance of the disclosure statements of the accused were not locked.
PW-8 Charanjit Kaur has identified the dupatta (chunni) Ex.P-10, recovered from the place of occurrence as that of Amarjit Kaur. She is wife of PW-7 Chamkaur Singh. In cross-examination, she stated that the appellant has used to sleep in their house from 06.12.2004 till his arrest.
PW-14 is Jasvir Kaur whose marriage was solemnized on 04.12.2004. She deposed that on 01.12.2004, Harpreet Singh borrowed a sum of 25,000/- krones (Norway currency) from her for spending on marriage and when she questioned him that when will he return the money, Harpreet Singh remarked that Amarjit Kaur is heavily insured and that he will repay after finishing Amarjit Kaur. In her cross- examination, she stated that the appellant was instrumental in her paper marriage with Norwegian groom and that she never cohabited in Norway with such person as it was only a paper marriage and sought Crl. Appeal No.365-DB of 2008 11 divorce after three years. She further stated that she used to earn 25,000/- krones per month before her marriage. She further stated that Harpreet Singh was not carrying on any job at Norway when she went there. She further stated that she is maintaining two children of her sister in Norway and that she gets financial assistance for the said purpose from the Norway Government.
The appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in answer to question No.39, reiterated the stand taken by him in his statement Ex.PW. He also stated that SI Jasbir Singh took up the investigation of this case on 07.12.2004 and that the prosecution witnesses namely Jarnail Singh, Nachhatar Singh, Baldev Singh Chugh and Parwinder Singh, who are inter se related and also related to his in- laws were also present when he, his father Joginder Singh and Chamkaur Singh reached P.S.Bhadaur in the morning. They have conspired with SI Jasbir Singh to extort money from him. SI Jasbir Singh demanded Rs.17,00,000/- from him and his father in order to accept the version given by him in the FIR. Since he refused to oblige SI/SHO Jasbir Singh, he was arrested from the house of his in-laws at village Diwana in the evening of 09.12.2004. He denied having suffered any extra judicial confession before Baldev Singh or Parwinder Singh. He alleged that Baldev Singh is a person of doubtful integrity as per CID reports, he was refused visa to visit Pakistan. He also stated that his foot-prints, blood and hair samples were taken by police, when he was in police custody. He also denied having made any disclosure statement or recovery of articles in pursuance of such statement. He also denied having borrowed any money from Jasbir Kaur or conspiracy with his co-accused to murder his wife and the Crl. Appeal No.365-DB of 2008 12 payment of any money to them. He denied that Amarjit Kaur was never insured for life and no insurance policy was ever issued to her by any insurance company.
In his defence, the appellant has examined DW-1 Mahesh Kumar, who has proved the plan of the roads of District Barnala as Ex.DE. DW-2 Dharminder Singh-draftsman, has proved the plan Ex.DF of an area around the place of occurrence. DW-3 is Nirmal Singh, who was chowkidar in the Forest Rest House at village Gehlan from 2001 to 2005. He denied having any knowledge of throwing of a dead body in December, 2004.
The learned trial Court considered the entire evidence and found that the injury on the chest is in the open portion of the neck, as is evidence from the photographs Exs.P19 to P21, therefore, the corresponding cut on the shirt is not necessary. The learned trial Court also found that the piece of rexin and sponge of the seat cover as well as the jersey of the appellant taken into possession on the date of occurrence itself were stained with human blood, which clearly supports the prosecution case that the accused has transported the dead body in the car and consequently the blood spilled over the seat. The learned trial Court believed testimony of Jarnail Singh and that Harpreet Singh was lastly seen in the company of the deceased. The court also believed testimony of PW-6 Baldev Singh, before whom the appellant has suffered extra judicial confession. It found that he is member of SGPC, remained Sarpanch and is also member of Block Samiti. The court found that witness has said that he was to lead jatha to Pakistan, but he was not granted visa. He denied that visa denial was Crl. Appeal No.365-DB of 2008 13 on account of any doubtful antecedents. At least none has been brought on record. The court found that Baldev Singh was holding respectable position in the Society, has acquaintance with police and could have rendered assistance to the accused.
Before this Court, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the prosecution has changed its stand time and again. Initially, the prosecution was launched not only against the appellant, but five other accused said to be hired assassins, but three of the assassins were acquitted, since there was no evidence against them, whereas in respect of remaining, the learned trial Court has itself granted benefit of doubt. Therefore, the prosecution story as propounded has not been proved. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant is not sustainable. It is also argued that PW-15 Jarnail Singh is an interested witness. It is impossible to imagine that such witness would keep quite for about 19-20 hours and when the appellant was residing with in-laws before his arrest. All the prosecution witnesses are related to each other and also related to his in-laws and, thus, are interested witnesses. The prosecution has failed to prove the motive of appropriating the insurance amount, as no evidence has been led in this respect. The recovery of chunni (dupatta) and the purse of Amarjit Kaur-deceased are from the house of his in-laws, which was not locked. Therefore, recoveries of such articles cannot be considered to be incriminating circumstance, as normally such articles would be kept in the house itself. It is also argued that the prosecution has failed to complete the chain of circumstances, so as to unquestionably return a finding that it is the appellant and the appellant alone, who has committed the crime. Lastly, it is argued that from the testimony of Crl. Appeal No.365-DB of 2008 14 PW-6 Baldev Singh, it transpires that it was a case of sudden fight between husband and wife, which led to high-tempers and consequently, the conviction of the appellant is liable to be converted for an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in the present appeal.
The prosecution has worked on the theory of hired assassins and found some evidence of payment of part money and also the photograph of the wife of the appellant. But such circumstances by itself have been rightly found to be not conclusive to return a finding that Amarjit Kaur has been done to death by the hired assassins. It appears that the appellant has decided to take life of his wife may be through hired assassins, but before such hired assassins could act, the appellant has an opportunity to take life of his wife in the winter month of December, 2004 on a lonely road near canal rest house. The appellant has directed investigation to a particular course. It is so evident from his first statement introducing the theory of abduction. The site plan Ex.DF shows that the appellant along with his wife was coming from Barnala and had to take turn to road to village Diwana near crossing on a road over which old rest house is situated. The location of old rest house is said to be less than half a kilometer on a katcha path. The canal rest house is situated on a katcha path, but adjacent to canal. Though there could be some traffic on the metalled portion of the road, but on a katcha path adjacent to canal, traffic is hardly expected. Therefore, the appellant got an opportunity to finish his wife on such lonely road.
Crl. Appeal No.365-DB of 2008 15
The stand of the appellant in his statement Ex.PW and in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is that 5/6 persons with muffled faces came on scooters and stopped his car. As per his version, he and his wife both were dragged, whereas two persons sat on his shoulder with his face downwards and his spectacle also fell there as a result of which his eye sight was adversely affected. The said 5/6 persons are said to have forcibly abducted his wife Amarjit Kaur on a scooter. The said part of the statement would show that at the time of occurrence, Amarjit Kaur was with the appellant in the car driven by him. The burden of prove the fact that his wife Amarjit Kaur has been abducted was on the appellant in terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, as nobody else was present at the time of alleged abduction. After his wife was allegedly abducted by 5/6 unidentified persons, the appellant has not tried to caught hold any of them nor raised alarm so as to attract the inhabitants such as chowkidar of the canal rest house. The stand of the appellant stands belied for the reason that the front seat next to drive was found to be blood stained. It is not his case that the car was also taken by the assailants. How the blood would appear on the seat of the car or on the jersey of the appellant has not been explained. The blood stains on the seat as well as on the jersey of the appellant support the prosecution case that the accused-appellant has given knife blow on the neck of his wife and thereafter put her back in the car, moved ahead and thrown the dead body. Still further, the blood stains are on the seat of the car and not on the back support of the seat. Such blood stains were taken into possession by the police on the date of occurrence itself i.e. 06.12.2004 though the car remained with the appellant and or his brother-in-law Chamkaur Singh till 09.12.2004. Crl. Appeal No.365-DB of 2008 16
It is well-settled that man may lie, but the circumstances do not. The appellant has started from Barnala along with his wife and was alone with his wife at the time of occurrence. There is no explanation or reason as to why the assailants will try to abduct Amarjit Kaur. It is not even contended that the robbery was the motive. It is sought to be argued that since there was no salwar on the dead body of the deceased, therefore, the sexual assault would be motive. We do not find any merit in the said argument. Dr. Tarloki Nath while appearing in the witness-box as PW-3 has categorically ruled out any sexual assault on the deceased Amarjit Kaur. Mere fact that the salwar was not found on the dead body does not lead to inference that she was sexually assaulted. As a matter of fact, the Medical Board consisting of PW-3 Dr. Tarloki Nath, Dr. Mrs. Asha Gupta and Dr. Rajiv Bhambri has taken into possession shirt Ex.P5, underwear Ex.P8 and brassiere Ex.P7. It has come on record that the dead body was retrieved after 6 days i.e. on 12.12.2004. Since the body was in water for about 6 days, the salwar could come out because of water pressure and gravitational force. The shirt cannot come out because of the body contours and that the arms will permit to come out. The shirt was found in tatters. The Medical Board has taken into possession underwear Ex.P8, which supports the medical evidence that there was no attempt of sexual assault. The appellant has also not explained that how the blood stains came on his jersey and on the seat of the car, when he was the only one and when no injury was caused by the assailants in his presence. In fact, his statement is that the assailants have forcibly taken her wife on their scooter. Such circumstances are by themselves sufficient to return Crl. Appeal No.365-DB of 2008 17 a finding that the accused is the only person, who has taken the life of his wife.
As per DW-4 Dr. Raj Kumar, the appellant has suffered abrasions on the upper part of the body. Such injuries which are minor in nature could be result of dispute between the husband and wife in a car. Such injuries could not be caused in the manner suggested by the appellant.
Apart from the said fact, the statement of Jarnail Singh (Ex.PS/1) to the effect that he has seen the appellant throwing the dead body in the canal is also relevant. No doubt, the conduct of Jarnail Singh in not reporting in respect of throwing of dead body into canal raises suspicion. But the fact remains that the appellant is son-in-law of Balour Singh, a close relation. The natural tendency of close relation is not to report the involvement of the relations to the police immediately. Still further, he was going to attend to his ailing brother- in-law. The fact remains that he has given his statement next date i.e. on 07.12.2004 and even when the dead body was not recovered and the accused was living with his in-laws in their house. As per SI Jasbir Singh, the accused was not available on 08.12.2004, when he went to the house of his in-laws. Since the needle of suspicion was moving towards the appellant, the police has taken guarded steps to arrest the accused on 09.12.2004. The allegation that SI Jasbir Singh demanded money from him has been rightly negated by the learned trial Court. It has been found that SI Jasbir Singh has recorded the statement (Ex.PS/1) of Jasbir Singh on 07.12.2011 at about 3.00 pm and sent the same to police station after making his endorsement Ex.PS/2. On the Crl. Appeal No.365-DB of 2008 18 basis of such statement, offence under Section 302/201 IPC was added. The special report was sent to the Illaqa Magistrate, which was received at 9.00 pm on 7.12.2004. Therefore, the argument that statement of Jarnail Singh was ante-dated or SI Jasbir Singh set the prosecution against the appellant on his refusal to pay money on 09.12.2004 is not tenable.
PW-15 Jarnail Singh has been cross-examined in detail. No doubt, the witness has taken a longer route, but is a matter of choice for a person to take a route, which he finds convenient, may be lack of traffic on such longer route was a motive to take such route. Therefore, we do not find that the statement of PW-15 Jarnail Singh is any way that of an unreliable witness. It may be kept in view that such statement is not the sole basis of conviction of the appellant. It corroborates the other circumstances, as noticed above. Therefore, even if the statement of PW-15 Jarnail Singh is considered with suspicion, but still it is sufficiently incriminates the appellant. Similarly, PW-6 Baldev Singh though a relation of his in-laws, has supported the extra judicial confession suffered by the appellant before him. The circumstances, which has come on record support such extra judicial confession made before PW-6 Baldev Singh.
The statement of PW-14 Jasvir Kaur is material to understand the character of the appellant. The appellant manages the paper marriage of Jasvir Kaur for her immigration. Her marriage was dissolved with such Norwegian. As per her statement, the appellant was not earning, when she was staying with the appellant. Though Jasvir Kaur has taken it to be a statement made in a lighter way that Crl. Appeal No.365-DB of 2008 19 Amarjit Kaur was heavily insured and that he will repay the amount taken on loan from her after finishing Amarjit Kaur, but may be it was a statement of fact. Though the appellant has denied that Amarjit Kaur was insured, but the fact remains that Amarjit Kaur had insurance even for the period she was visiting India. Therefore, Harpreet Singh is aware of the insurance policies. The appellant is again instrumental in advising Charanjit Kaur and Chamkaur Singh to take divorce to facilitate their immigration. Such conduct of the appellant shows that he has a mind of manipulation may be his wife and his near relations have fallen prey it, but the fact remains that the master mind is the appellant and the appellant alone.
The appellant has disclosed the name of other co-accused as hired assassins. It is an attempt by the appellant to misdirect the investigations. The evidence on record conclusively establishes that the act of taking life of the wife of the appellant was his and his alone.
The argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that from the evidence on record particularly of PW-6 Baldev Singh, it transpires that it was a sudden dispute, which started with slap by Amarjit Kaur to the appellant and consequent knife blow by the appellant. Therefore, the conviction can at best be of for an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC. We do not find any merit in the said argument as well. The first version of the appellant is that 5/6 muffled assailants have abducted his wife. Throughout the trial and during the cross-examinations of the prosecution witnesses, the stand of the appellant is that of denial of any covert and overt act in taking life of his wife. Even in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., Crl. Appeal No.365-DB of 2008 20 the appellant has propounded the abduction theory. In fact, the action of the appellant in taking life of his wife was not on account of a sudden fight. The manner of occurrence; place of occurrence i.e. a short distance from the metalled road; causing of injuries by a knife;, throwing of the dead body in the canal and then propounding a story of abduction shows that it was not a case of sudden fight, but taking the life by carefully and meticulously planning. Therefore, the said argument is found to be without merit and the same is rejected.
In view of the above, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, which may warrant any interference by this Court in appeal.
Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
21.07.2011 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK)
Vimal JUDGE