Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab ..........Prosecutor vs State Of Punjab on 20 September, 2013
Author: S.S. Saron
Bench: S.S. Saron
MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
1. MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013
State of Punjab ..........Prosecutor
Versus
Khushwinder Singh s/o Raghbir Singh, resident of village Suhavi,
Police Station Khamanon, District Fatehgarh Sahib.
........Convict-Accused /respondent
AND
2. CRA NO.D-385-DB OF 2013
Decided on:- 20.09.2013
Khushwinder Singh s/o Raghbir Singh, resident of village Suhavi,
Police Station Khamanon, District Fatehgarh Sahib.
.........Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
............Respondent
CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SARON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. BANGARH
Present:- Mr. PPS Thethi, Additional Advocate General, Punjab
for State in Murder Reference No.3 of 2013 and for
respondent-State in CRA No. D-385-DB of 2013.
Ms. Puneeta Sethi, Advocate, for the respondent in
Murder Reference No.3 of 2013 and appellant
in CRA No. D-385-DB of 2013.
Mr. Tarunveer Vashisht, Advocate for the complainant.
****
S.P.BANGARH, J.
Amit Khanchi Murder Reference No.3 of 2013, titled State of Punjab v. 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 2
Khushwinder Singh and Criminal Appeal No. D-385-DB of 2013, titled Khushwinder Singh versus State of Punjab arise from the common impugned judgment and order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib. Therefore, the murder reference and the appeal are being disposed of by this common judgment.
Case of the prosecution, as per statement Ex.P5 of Jasmeen Kaur @ Jagmohan Kaur @ Soni daughter of Gurmail Singh resident of Mukandpur, Police Station Dehlon, District Ludhiana is that she was married with Rupinder Singh son of Jeet Singh of village Bhojewal, in the year 2005. Two children, the elder a son namely Jaskirat Singh, aged about seven years and a daughter namely Prabhsimran Kaur aged about six years were born from the said marriage. Since the atmosphere in the family of the in-laws of the complainant was not good, Jasmeen Kaur along with her husband and children had been living at her natal place at village Mukandpur for the last about six years prior to the occurrence. Gurinder Singh @ Babbu, brother of Jasmeen Kaur used to consume liquor in excess. He was dissuaded by the family from doing so and was also made to understand in this regard. Thereafter, Manjit Kaur wife of appellant Khushwinder Singh, resident of village Suhavi, police station Khamanon, who is the daughter of maternal uncle of the complainant, came to see her (complainant) alongwith her husband Khushwinder Singh (appellant). The latter informed the family of the complainant that he knew one 'baba' (holy Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 3 man), who lives in their area. He can make persons get rid of their habit of drinking permanently. Khushwinder Singh (appellant) further informed that he also knew one travel agent, who could send Rupinder Singh, husband of the complainant, abroad. Thereafter, Khushwinder Singh (appellant) alone started visiting their house. About three months prior to the incident, Khushwinder Singh (appellant) came to the house of the complainant and informed that he had made arrangements with an agent for sending Rupinder Singh to Canada. He demanded `2,00,000/- and the passport of Rupinder Singh. He also informed that the remaining amount of `14,00,000/- was to be paid on getting visa. Thereupon, the family of the complainant pledged their gold ornaments with a goldsmith and borrowed `2,00,000/- which, along with the passport of Rupinder Singh were handed over to Khushwinder Singh (appellant). The appellant further informed the complainant's family that the job would be done within two months. He further informed that he had also got in touch with 'baba' (holy man) to enable Gurinder Singh to give up his habit of drinking and for that purpose, the complainant's family would have to offer 'dhala' (offering certain pulses, rice etc. in running water).
On this in the evening of 25.06.2012 at about 06:00 p.m, the appellant came to village Mukandpur to the house of the complainant in his car and informed the family of the complainant that 'dhala' was to be offered on that night at about 02:30 a.m and for this purpose, the appellant made Paramjit Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 4 Kaur - mother, Gurinder Singh @ Babbu - brother and Rupinder Singh - husband of complainant respectively to accompany him. Gurmail Singh, father of the complainant, also accompanied them as he was to pay obeisance at Gurudwara Rara Sahib. Then on 26.06.2012, at about 11:30 a.m, the appellant came back in his car to village Mukandpur and informed the complainant that Gurinder Singh, Paramjit Kaur and Rupinder Singh had been left with 'baba ji'. In the evening, the complainant should accompany him to the 'baba' for offering 'dhala'.
On 26.06.2012, at about 06:30 p.m, the complainant Jasmeen Kaur, along with her father Gurmail Singh, son Jaskirat Singh and daughter Prabhsimran Kaur accompanied the appellant in his Maruti car bearing No. PB- 10-AM-9371. On the way, the appellant informed that he had received a phone call from 'baba ji', that Gurinder Singh would permanently get rid of his drinking habit, but in turn Gurmail Singh, father of the complainant, would have to take a drink. Gurmail Singh on this got into a fix as he in fact never used to drink liquor, but he under compulsion agreed to consume liquor. Thereafter, on the way, the appellant purchased a half liquor bottle and given to Gurmail Singh, father of the complainant, for drinking. He gradually consumed the half liquor bottle. Thereafter, the appellant took some rounds and got the complainant, her children and Gurmail Singh towards the canal ahead of Bassi Pathana where, he turned his car towards the bridge of the canal on its Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 5 bank and he informed the complainant that they were to first offer 'dhalla', on this at about 09:30 p.m Jasmeen Kaur (complainant) and her father Gurmail Singh got down from the car and the children kept sitting in the car. They came to the bank of the canal and when they were to offer 'dhala' in the running water, then the appellant pushed both of them in the canal and on this both of them fell in the canal. Jasmeen Kaur, however, fell on one side of the canal near the edge and she, therefore, started to save herself. At some considerable distance, she was able to catch an iron bar, which had been fixed in the canal and from there, she came out of the canal and by coming along the canal she disclosed the entire occurrence to the officials of the canal department who were present there. They further informed the parental family of complainant at village Mukandpur. They with the complainant also searched for her father and children but she could not get to know anything about them. The place of occurrence was near the bridge of Bhakra canal of village Thablan.
The complainant had a firm belief that the appellant by cheating their entire family on a false pretest had thrown her husband Rupinder Singh, her brother Gurinder Singh, mother Paramjit Kaur, son Jaskirat Singh and daughter Prabhsimran Kaur had been illegally detained somewhere or they had been thrown in the canal. The complainant further alleged that her father Gurmail Singh was also along with her thrown in the canal by the appellant and had killed him so that his dead body may be untraceable. Complainant further Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 6 informed in her statement that they had sold their land for `37,00,000/- and that money was lying at their home and the appellant only knew about it. The appellant, therefore, had finished her entire family as he wanted to misappropriate the amount of `37,00,000/-. He carried out this exercise by keeping the entire family in deceit. Action may be taken against him and they be imparted justice. She had given her statement in the presence of her brother Jang Bahadur Singh. She had heard her statement and it was correct. She signed her statement in Punjabi which was affirmed by Jang Bahadur Singh and was attested by SI Shamsher Singh SHO, Police Station Bassi Pathana (PW-7).
The said statement Ex.P5 ibid of Jasmeen Kaur was recorded by Shamsher Singh, SI (PW-7) who read over and explained the contents, thereof, to her and she (complainant) after admitting the genuineness and correctness, thereof, signed the same. Later, Shamsher Singh, SI put his endorsement Ex.P9, thereon, to the effect that on 27.6.2012 he had received a telephonic message in police station that some persons had been thrown in the canal. Thereupon, he accompanied by other police officials visited the Bhakra main line near the bridge at village Thablan, where several persons had gathered along the canal bank. Jasmeen Kaur (complainant) got her statement recorded. Endorsement Ex.P9 was completed on 27.06.2012 at 11:30 a.m. The statement was sent to police station Bassi Pathana through Constable Sikander Singh. Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 7 On the basis of the said statement Ex.P5, formal FIR Ex.P10 for the offences under Sections 302, 307 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' - for short) was registered against the appellant. From the place of incident, police recovered pulses, 'mah chole', rice (MO/11) and one blue colour 'chappal' (MO/10), which was identified by the complainant as belonging to her son Jaskirat Singh. The 'chappal' and scattered rice were taken in possession vide recovery memo Ex.P6. The recovery memo was witnessed by Jasmine Kaur and ASI Kaur Singh. Jaswinder Singh, Photographer was called at the spot who took photographs of the place. A rough site plan (Ex. P11) of the place of occurrence with correct marginal notes was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded.
Shamsher Singh SI (PW-7) then on the same day set out for search of the accused. Manjit Singh, resident of village Nogawan who is ex-Sarpanch met him near the bridge of village Thablan of Bhakra Canal and he informed that Khushwinder Singh (appellant) came to him on the morning of 27.6.2012 and told him that he had thrown his relations Gurinder Singh, Rupinder Singh, Paramjeet Kaur, Gurmail Singh, Prabhsimran Kaur, Jasmine Kaur and Jaskeerat Singh in the Bhakra Canal. He (Manjit Singh) further informed that Khuswinder Singh (appellant) had requested him to produce him before the Police. Manjit Singh informed that Khushwinder Singh (appellant) had stated this after coming to his residence. When he was getting ready to take Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 8 Khuswinder Singh (appellant) to the police, he went away. Shamsher Singh SI (PW-7) then started searched for the accused. He along with his fellow police officials was present at the bridge of village Ganduan on Bhakra Minor Canal. A white colour Maruti car was seen coming which was signalled to stop. It was found that accused Khuswinder Singh (appellant) was driving the Maruti car No.PB10 AM 9371. He was apprehended and interrogated. He disclosed that he had thrown his relations Rupinder Singh, Gurinder Singh and Paramjeet Kaur of village Mukandpur in the Bhakra Canal in the morning and in the evening he had thrown Jasmine Kaur, Gurmail Singh, Jaskirat Singh and Prabhsimran Kaur in the Bhakra Canal. He also disclosed that he was carrying a bunch of keys which he had stolen from the house of Gurmail Singh at Mukundpur, besides, he had stolen `36,70,000/- from the house of Gurmail Singh and he had concealed the money in his house in a bag which was lying in the almirah of his house and he could get the same recovered. His disclosure statement (Ex.P12) was recorded. It was signed by the accused and witnessed by ASI Kaur Singh. It was attested by Shamsher Singh SI (PW-7). The accused then accompanied the police to his house and led them to the almirah from where Rs.36,70,000/- contained in a maroon colour bag (MO/9) were got recovered. The bunch of keys were also lying in the almirah and was also got recovered. These keys belong to the house and almirah of Gurmail Singh (deceased). The notes were examined and it was found that they were 2100 Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 9 notes of the denomination of Rs.1000/-, 2940 notes of the denomination of Rs.500/- and 1000 notes of the denomination of Rs.100/-. The notes were packed in three plastic containers and were sealed with the seal 'SS' of Shamsher Singh SI (PW-7) and containers and bunch of keys were taken in possession through recovery memo Ex.P13. The memo was witnessed by ASI Kaur Singh and attested by Shamsher Singh SI (PW-7). Site plan of the place of recovery (Ex.P14) with correct marginal notes was prepared. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The Maruti car (MO/12) was taken in possession through recovery memo Ex. P15 which was signed by the accused and witnessed by ASI Kaur Singh. The accused was arrested. His personal search was conducted, however, nothing was recovered. Memo (Ex.P16) was prepared. Arrest-cum-intimation memo (Ex.P17) was prepared. The memo was signed by the accused and witnessed by ASI Kaur Singh. Intimation regarding arrest was given to Sarpanch Jarnail Singh. On the identification (sic. demarcation) of the accused, the site plan (Ex.P18) of the place where he had thrown the victims Rupinder Singh etc. in the canal in village Khalaspur was prepared with correct marginal notes. The case property was deposited with MHC Harminder Singh. On 28.06.2012, the appellant was produced before the Court and his police remand was obtained. He was interrogated and search of the corpses was started. On 29.06.2012, supplementary statement of Jasmeen Kaur complainant was recorded, wherein, Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 10 she disclosed regarding the theft of ornaments and money. Shamsher Singh, SI learnt that corpse of Gurinder Singh was floating in the canal near village Bhedwal Khurd, police station Ganda Kheri. He along with Harjit Singh ASI, Balbir Singh HC, Mukesh Kumar HC and other police officials reached that village near the canal. HC Jaswinder Singh, Photographer was also called and photographs of the corpse floating in the canal were taken. The corpse was identified by Ranjit Singh and Baljinder Singh, residents of village Mukandpur, whose statements Ex.P20 and Ex.P21 under Section 175 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C' - for short) were recorded by Shamsher Singh, SI, who also prepared inquest report Ex.P19 of corpse of Gurinder Singh, that was signed by Ranjit Singh and Baljinder Singh. Corpse of Gurinder Singh was then brought to civil hospital Bassi Pathana and put in the mortuary for autopsy.
On 30.06.2012, police papers were produced before the doctor and request Ex.P22 was made for conducting autopsy to the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Bassi Pathana on the corpse of Gurinder Singh deceased. On the request, application Ex.P22, a board of doctors was constituted, who conducted autopsy on the corpse of Gurinder Singh (deceased). After the autopsy, the corpse along with autopsy papers were handed over to Shamsher Singh, SI (PW-7) by the board of doctors, who later handed over the corpse of Gurinder Singh to his family vide receipt Ex.P8. The doctor handed over a parcel of Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 11 viscera of the deceased duly sealed with sixteen seals and one envelope duly sealed with six seals and parcel of the clothes of the deceased that were seized vide memo Ex.P23, which was witnessed by Harjit Singh, ASI.
On the same day, the corpse of Prabhsimran Kaur was found from the Bhakra canal near the bridge of village Adampur. Shamsher Singh, SI along with other police officials reached at the spot. The photographs of the corpse were got clicked and inquest report (Ex.P24) was prepared. The corpse was identified by Jatinder Singh and Darshan Singh, who also signed the inquest proceedings and made their statements Ex.P25 and Ex.P26 respectively under Section 175 Cr.P.C, which were recorded and attested by Shamsher Singh, SI (PW-7) who later brought the corpse to the mortuary of Civil Hospital, Bassi Pathana for autopsy.
On 01.07.2012, Shamsher Singh, SI (PW-7) moved an application Ex.P27 before the Medical officer Civil Hospital, Bassi Pathana for getting autopsy on the corpse of Prabhsimran Kaur (deceased) conducted. The police papers in this regard were submitted to the doctor. Dr. Jashanpreet Singh conducted autopsy on the corpse of Prabhsimran Kaur and after autopsy, he handed the post-mortem report, the police papers and clothes of Prabhsimran Kaur to Balbir Singh HC, who later handed over the parcel of clothes to Harjit Singh, ASI and the latter produced the said parcel before Shamsher Singh SI (PW-7). The same was taken in possession vide memo Ex.P28 by the latter. Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 12 The corpse of Prabhsimran Kaur was handed over to Jatinder Singh and Darshan Singh vide receipt Ex.P29. On return to the police station, Shamsher Singh SI handed over the said parcels to MHC.
On 02.07.2012, Shamsher Singh, SI (PW-7) took the appellant out from lock up and interrogated him. During interrogation, the appellant confessed that on 26.06.2012, after throwing Jasmeen Kaur alias Soni and her family members in the canal, he stole an amount of Rs.36,70,000/- along with the bag from their house at village Mukandpur. He had also stolen one small saffron colour purse in which ornaments were lying. These were stolen from the almirah and he had concealed those in an iron 'petti' (box) under the clothes at his house and he could get those recovered as he only knew about them. His disclosure statement Ex.P30 was recorded by Shamsher Singh, SI, that was signed by the appellant and witnessed by Harjit Singh, ASI and Baljit Singh, HC. Thereafter, the appellant as per his disclosure statement led the police party to his house and got recovered from the iron 'petti' (box), one saffron colour purse in which ornaments were lying. On checking the purse, three gold rings, two pairs of small ear rings ('wallian'), one pair of big ear rings, one big chain along with locket and a small chain along with locket total weighing 68 grams 200 mgs were recovered. Later, these ornaments were put in the purse which was put in a parcel that was sealed with seal 'SS' of Shamsher Singh, SI (PW-7). He later seized that parcel vide memo Ex.P31, which was witnessed Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 13 by ASI Harjit Singh and Vivek Kumar Ex.MC, who is a goldsmith by occupation and he had weighed the recovered articles. Site plan Ex.P32 with correct marginal notes of the place of recovery was prepared by Shamsher Singh SI (PW-7). He also recorded the statements of witnesses and on return to police station, he deposited the case property with MHC of police station Bassi Pathana. The parcel of jewellery Ex.MO13 was produced during the deposition of Shamsher Singh, SI.
On 03.07.2012, Shamsher Singh, SI (PW-7) went to the office of District Transport Officer for verification of the ownership of car. An application Ex.P33 was moved by him, whereon, report Ex.P33/A was made. The car, as per the report, was owned by Khushwinder Singh (appellant) son of Raghbir Singh. Shamsher Singh, SI (PW-7) recorded the statement of Ashok Kumar, Clerk. On that day, the appellant also confessed regarding murder of Kulwant Singh and family resident of village Nogawan of case FIR No. 59 of 2004. His confessional statement Ex.P34 was recorded. (This aspect was objected to before the learned trial Court). On 04.07.2012, Jasmeen Kaur complainant was medically examined at Civil Hospital, Bassi Pathana regarding injuries suffered by her and her medico-legal report was taken in police possession.
On 05.07.2012, Shamsher Singh SI (PW-7), interrogated the appellant, who during interrogation, confessed that he had kept concealed the Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 14 'chappals' and shoes of Gurinder Singh, Paramjit Kaur and Rupinder Singh near the canal minor falling in the area of village Guru Nanakpura underneath the bushes and he only knew about the same. He had concealed the said 'chappals' and shoes after throwing Gurinder Singh etc. in the canal on 26.06.2012 and he could get the same recovered. His disclosure statement Ex.P35 was recorded, the same was signed by him and witnessed by Harjit Singh ASI and Balbir Singh, HC, and was attested by Shamsher Singh SI (PW-7). Thereafter, the appellant led the police party to the disclosed place and he got recovered one pair of sandal and one 'punjabi jutti' (embroided country made footwear) and one pair of black colour 'chappal' (slippers). Jasmeen Kaur complainant had also accompanied them and she identified the sandal, 'punjabi jutti' and pair of 'chappal'. Shamsher Singh, SI (PW-7) made a parcel of these recovered articles and sealed the same with his seal bearing impression 'SS'. The parcel was seized vide memo Ex.P7. Jasmeen Kaur, Harjit Singh ASI and Balbir Singh HC witnessed the said memo which was attested by Shamsher Singh SI (PW-7). Pair of 'punjabi jutti' MO/1, pair of 'chappal' MO/2, pair of 'sandal' MO/3 were produced during the deposition of Shamsher Singh SI in the Court. He also prepared site plan (Ex. P36) of the place of recovery of the articles (supra) with correct marginal notes, besides, he recorded the statements of witnesses and deposited the case property with MHC.
Amit Khanchi2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 15
On 06.07.2012, Shamsher Singh, SI (PW-7) interrogated the appellant, who during interrogation suffered statement (Ex.P37) that on 26.06.2012 in the morning, he administered sleeping pills Anzilum 05 along with 'mishri' (sugar lump) to Rupinder Singh, Gurinder Singh and Paramjit Kaur before offering 'dhala' and empty strips lying in the envelope were kept concealed underneath the driver seat of car No.PB-10AM-9371 and he could get those recovered. His disclosure statement Ex.P37 was recorded, that was signed by him and witnessed by ASI Harjit Singh and HC Balbir Singh. Thereafter, he got recovered six strips from the car parked in the police station and Shamsher Singh SI (PW-7) prepared parcel of these articles who sealed that parcel with his seal bearing impression 'SS' and later he seized that parcel vide memo Ex.P38. The parcel MO/14 was produced during deposition of this witness. He had deposited that parcel with MHC.
During investigation, Shamsher Singh SI (PW-7) recorded the statement of Rajinder Singh HC regarding the special reports. The statements of Mohan Lal and Rajinder Singh employees of the Bhakra Canal BBMB. The Gauge Reader obtained their duty record of the relevant date. Scaled site plan from the concerned Patwari was got prepared. Report of the mechanic about the car was obtained from Rajinder Kumar, HC. Statements of other witnesses were recorded. He also obtained the certified copy of sale deed Ex.P39 of land sold by Rupinder Singh and recorded the statement of the registration clerk. Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 16 The statements of the purchaser of the said land the goldsmith were also recorded.
On 01.08.2012, complainant Jasmeen Kaur came at the police station and asked for recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. She was taken to he court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib by Shamsher Singh SI (PW-7), where he moved an application for recording the statement of Jasmeen Kaur under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Her statement was recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faehgarh Sahib. Three parcels containing currency notes bearing seals 'SS' were produced in the Court at the time of recording of statement of Shamsher Singh SI (PW-7). These contained currency notes that were ordered to be counted on an electric counting machine, which was produced by the prosecution. From one plastic container, notes of the denomination of `1,000/- in 21 bundles totaling `21,00,000/-. From the second plastic container, currency notes of denomination of `500/- in 30 bundles totaling `15,00,000/- were found and from the third plastic container, currency notes of the denomination of `100/- in 10 bundles totaling totaling `1,00,000/- were found. Sealed parcels of gold ornaments sealed with the seal bearing impression 'SS' were also opened during the deposition of Shamsher Singh, SI (PW-7). From these a saffron colour purse was found from which one pair of big ear rings was found, one big chain with locket, one small chain with locket, one pair of very small ear rings and Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 17 three ladies rings were found. These were marked as MO/15 to MO/21. Other three parcels containing bunch of keys, pulses and rice etc. and strips of medicine sealed with seal bearing impression 'SS' were also opened at the time of deposition of Shamsher Singh SI (PW-7) in the Court. Rice and pulses were MO/22, bunch of keys containing four keys in three rings were MO/23, one plastic envelope containing six empty strips of Anzilum 05 (MO/24 to MO/29) and a plastic envelope MO/30 were found. Two parcels MO/31 and MO/32 duly sealed were opened containing clothes of Gurinder Singh and Prabhsimran Kaur. Shamsher Singh, SI (PW-7) also took into police possession photographs and CDs. He also seized registration certificate of the car Ex.P40.
After completion of investigation, Station House Officer of police station Bassi Pathana, filed police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C before the learned Illaqa Magistrate to the effect that it appears hat the appellant had committed offences under Sections 302, 201 and 307 IPC.
On presentation of police report, copies of documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C, were furnished to the appellant and the case was committed by the learned Illaqa Magistrate to the Court of Session vide order dated 29.09.2012 after coming to the conclusion that the offences attributed to the appellant were exclusively triable by the Court of Session.
The learned Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, on receipt of Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 18 sessions case, framed charges against the appellant for commission of offences punishable under Sections 364/302/307/201 and 380 IPC, whereto, the latter pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Manjit Singh ex-Sarpanch of village Nogawan (PW-9) made his statement (Ex.D1) before the Police on 27.6.2012. It was inter alia stated by him that on the said day i.e. 27.06.2012, he was at his house, then Khuswinder Singh (appellant) son of Raghbir Singh resident of Sohavi came. He was personally known to him being a co-villager. He confessed that on 26.6.2012 at about 2.30 a.m. from village Mukandpur he took Paramjit Kaur, mother of his sister-in-law (wife's sister) and husband of his sister-in-law namely Rupinder Singh and her brother Gurinder Singh in his Maruti car No.PB-10 AM 9371 for offering 'dhala'. He by deceit threw them in the canal near the canal bridge of village Khalaspur. Then at about 11.00 a.m. he again reached village Mukandpur and informed his sister-in-law (wife's sister) Jasmeen Kaur (complainant) that he had left Paramjit Kaur, Rupinder Singh and Gurinder Singh with the 'Baba' and he had asked them also to come there. At about 6.00 p.m. his sister-in-law (wife's sister), her father Gurmail Singh and children i.e. son Jaskirat Singh and daughter Prabhsimran Kaur had got them to offer 'dhala'. On the way he gave a liquor bottle for drinking to Gurmail Singh. Then after roaming around here and there they reached the bridge of the canal at Thablan and little ahead of the footpath along the canal at the time while Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 19 offering 'dhala' he pushed Gurmail Singh and Jasmeen Kaur in the canal and also threw the children in the canal. While coming he had got along with him the cash bag and the keys of the house by keeping them in the car and the cash bag he had kept in the almirah of his house. He had committed a mistake. He (Manjit Singh) was visiting the Police and had good relations with them. Therefore, he be produced before the Police. Manjit Singh informed him not to worry and that whatever had happened was very bad and he had done a very bad act. Now, he should come in one hour's time and he would produce him before the police. He got his statement recorded which was correct.
At the trial, prosecution examined twenty three witnesses, who deposed as under:-
PW-1 Pritpal Singh, Halqa Patwari, Nogawan, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib deposed that on 09.08.2012, he was holding additional charge as Patwari Halqa of village Kishanpura (Ganduan Khurd), which falls in revenue area of Halqa Wazidpur. On 09.08.2012, he reached canal bridge of village Kishanpura Ganduan Khurd and at the instance of Shamsher Singh SI (PW-7), he prepared the scaled map Ex.P1. His statement was recorded. In cross he stated that he had no personal knowledge of the facts of the case. Whatever was stated by the Investigating Officer, he had prepared site plan accordingly. The complainant was not present at the time of preparation of site plan. It was wrong to suggest that the site plan was prepared Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 20 while sitting in office.
he prepared scaled map Ex.P2 of the house of Khushwinder Singh (appellant) son of Balbir Singh, (sic Raghbir Singh) resident of village Sohavi on the order of Tehsildar Khamanon after visiting the village. As per record, the house was located in khasra no.9//22 and that was constructed in about area of 10 marlas. He handed over the scaled map to the police and it bears his signatures. He also handed over the Jamabandi of the property of Khushwinder Singh Ex.P3 to the police. He deposed that the scaled map was prepared at the instance of Shamsher Singh SI.
PW-2 Charanjit Singh, Patwari halqa (area), Hargana, Tehsil Khamanon, District Fatehgarh Sahib deposed that on 07.09.2012, he was posted as Patwari in Patwar halqa (area) of village Hargana and village Sohavi falls in the said halqa. He was ordered by Tehsildar Khamanon to go to village Sohavi and prepare the scaled map of the house of Kushwinder Singh (appellant) son of Balbir Singh (sic. - Raghbir Singh) of village Sohavi. As per record, his house is situated in Khasra No.9//22 and the said house was constructed in about area of 10 marlas. He handed over the scaled map to the Police which was in his hand and was signed by him. The same is Ex.PQ. He also handed over jamabandi (Ex.P3) of the properties of Khuswinder Singh (appellant). The scaled map was prepared at the instance of Shamsher Singh (PW-7). In cross it is stated that the site plan does not bear the signature of Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 21 Lambardar or Sarpanch of the village. It was wrong to suggest that he had prepared the alleged site plan while sitting in his office.
PW-3 Rajinder Kumar, HC No. 342/Patiala, Motor Mechanic Police Line Patiala deposed that on 09.08.2012 he had mechanically tested car bearing No. PB-10AM-9371, that was parked in the premises of police station Bassi Pathana. The same was found in working condition. He gave his report Ex.P4 in his regard that bears his signatures and his statement was recorded.
PW-4 Naresh Kumar HC No. 381/FGS, police station Fatehgarh Sahib deposed that on 02.07.2012, he was posted as Head Constable Bassi Pathana and on that day, MHC Harminder Singh had handed over to him one parcel containing viscera of deceased Gurinder Singh son of Gurmail Singh, resident of Mukandpur which was sealed with 16 seals of doctor. He was also handed over one sealed envelope along wih that parcel for depositing those in the office of Chemical Examiner, Kharar. Road Certificate No. 166 dated 02.07.2012 was also handed over to him. On the same day, he deposited the said parcel along with sealed envelope in the office of Chemical Examiner, Kharar in an intact condition and obtained the receipt on the road certificate, that was handed over by him to MHC Harminder Singh on the same day. He deposed that so long as, the case property (ibid) remained with him, neither he nor anyone else tampered with the same and his statement was recorded. He also deposed that the case property (ibid) was handed over to him by MHC in Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 22 an intact condition. In cross examination he stated that he did not bring the road register in Court on that day. Neither did he bring the road certificate in Court on that day. He also did not bring any DDR in Court regarding his departure or arrival and handing over the articles to him on that day.
PW-5 Jasmeen Kaur complainant narrated the prosecution version during trial that has been reproduced in the earlier parts of this judgment. She was cross examined at considerable length. However, nothing favourable for the appellant could be brought out. In the cross-examination, it is stated that after she came out of the canal she had to walk a great distance when 'baildars' (Canal Officials) met her. She started searching for her children. She did not know when the 'baildars' informed the police but the police came next morning at about 8.30 a.m. The 'baildars' might have informed her elder brother Jang Bahadur. She could not recollect whether her brother Jang Bahadur case on the same night. The public started gathering at the spot next morning at about about 6.00/7.00 a.m. It is stated as to wrong to suggest that her brother Gurinder Singh under the influence of liquor through the entire family into canal and later on committed suicide.
PW-6 Baljinder Singh deposed that Gurinder Singh son of Gurmail Singh was his uncle from distant relation. On 29.06.2012, he identified his corpse that was lying in the canal near the canal bridge, village Ganda Kheri. His statement under Section 175 Cr.P.C was recorded there. He Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 23 also deposed that Ranjit Singh Ex-Sarpanch of their village also identified the corpse, whose statement was also recorded by the police. The writing work was also done by the police. He further deposed that the corpse was sent to Civil Hospital Bassi Pathana and autopsy on the corpse of Gurinder Singh was conducted at civil hospital Bassi Pathana on 30.06.2012 and after the postmortem examination, the corpse was handed over to them vide receipt Ex.P8, whereon, he identified his signatures.
PW-7 Shamsher Singh, SI deposed on the lines of investigation conducted by him, which has been referred to in the earlier parts of this judgment. He was cross-examined at considerable length. However, nothing favourable for the appellant could be brought out.
PW-8 Jang Bahadur deposed that he is Ex-Sarpanch of the village i.e village Mukandpur. Jasmeen Kaur (complainant) was married with Rupinder Singh of village Bhojowal; she was having two children namely Jaskirat Singh and Prabhsimran Kaur. Due to some domestic problem in her in-laws house, Jasmeen Kaur and Rupinder Singh started residing at village Mukandpur, natal village of Jasmeen Kaur. Her brother namely Gurinder Singh who had earlier gone to Italy got addicted to liquor. He was many times dissuaded from taking liquor. He also deposed that Manjit Kaur, a cousin of Jasmeen Kaur (mother's brother's daughter) was married at village Sohavi with Khushwinder Singh (appellant/accused), who had been visiting the house of Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 24 Gurmail Singh, father of Jasmeen Kaur and telling them that he could get Gurinder Singh cured from the habit of taking liquor, as he was known to a 'Baba' (holy man) and that 'Baba' had advised that they should go to the canal and offer 'dhala' (offering of pulses and rice etc.). He deposed that the appellant was also telling Gurmail Singh, father of Jasmeen Kaur that he knew certain travel agents and could arrange to send Rupinder Singh husband of Jasmeen Kaur to a foreign country, for which `2,00,000/- should be paid in advance and `14,00,000/- are to be paid later and passport should also be handed over to him. PW-8 Jang Bhadur further deposed that he was on visiting terms to the house of Gurmail Singh and once or twice he had seen Khushwinder Singh (appellant) in the house of Gurmail Singh telling them the above noted facts. He also deposed that on 25.06.2012, at about 06:00 a.m, he was going towards the High School of village Mukandpur, where he saw a white colour Maruti car bearing No. PB-10AM-9371 belonging to the appellant, parked outside the house of Gurmail Singh. When he returned after 15/20 minutes, the car was not there. On 26.06.2012, he again saw the car of the appellant parked in front of the house of Gurmail Singh at about 11:00/11:30 a.m and then at about 06:00/06:30 a.m, he found that car was not there and the house of Gurmail Singh was locked. Then on 27.06.2012 at about 03:00/03:30 a.m, police came to the house of Capt. Jasbir Singh, whose house was near the house of Gurmail Singh and then Captain Jasbir Singh telephoned Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 25 him about the arrival of the police. Then he came to the house of Gurmail Singh and found that Jasmeen Kaur was with the police and she told him that on 26.06.2012, in the morning at about 02:30 a.m, Rupinder Singh, Gurvinder Singh, Paramjit Kaur and Gurmail Singh were taken by the appellant in his car for the purpose of offering 'dhala' in the canal. She further informed that Gurmail Singh had taken lift in the car of the accused to visit Rara Sahib and had got down at the Gurudwara and the remaining three were left with the 'Baba'. She further told him that on 27.06.2012, in the evening, the appellant had taken her along with Gurmail Singh, Jaskirat Singh and Prabhsimran Kaur in their car for offering 'dhala' in the canal. He further deposed that Jasmeen Kaur (complainant) further told him that the appellant pushed her and Gurmail Singh in the canal and that she was able to catch hold of an iron bar and came out of the canal. Thereafter, he (PW-8) along with Jasmeen Kaur and the police party visited the canal where the occurrence had taken place and he (PW-8) came to the conclusion that the appellant had pushed Gurmail Singh in the canal and caused his death and that the remaining members of the family had either been detained by him or had been murdered. This later portion was objected to being hearsay. He (PW-8) was cross-examined at some length. But nothing favourable for the appellant could be brought out.
PW-9 Manjit Singh Ex-Sarpanch of village Nogawan in his deposition stated that on the morning of 27.06.2012, he was at his home at Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 26 Nogawan. He got up around 3.30/4.00 a.m. as usual. At about 3.30 a.m., the appellant had knocked at his door. His wife is Sarpanch of the village. They knew the appellant and he asked him (PW-9) for help. On enquiry he informed that he had committed a big mistake. He had thrown three persons in the canal and then thrown his sister-in-law (wife's sister) and her two children and her father in the canal on the next day. He was having a white colour Maruti car. Manjit Singh (PW-9) asked him to come in and have a cup of tea. The appellant was puzzled and he asked Manjit Singh (PW-9) to produce him before the police. The appellant had told him (PW-9) that he had thrown those persons in the canal on the pretext of 'dhala' in the greed of money. The appellant then promised to come after one hour and he went away. Thereafter, he did not return. The appellant had informed Manjit Singh (PW-9) that on the first day he had thrown mother of his sister-in-law (wife's sister) and her brother and the husband of his sister-in-law. The appellant also informed him that he had taken away the money from the house of his sister-in-law and had kept in his house. On hearing the story, Manjit Singh (PW-9) got perplexed and he made his statement to the Police. In cross-examination it was stated that he had no relations with Amar Singh, ex-Sarpanch and he had not come with him to the Court on that day. Besides, he had no relations to Jaspal Singh. It was correct that eight years back a case was registered against Jaspal Singh that he had killed his entire family. He did not know as to what investigation Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 27 was done in that case. It was wrong to suggest that he was wrongly denied relations with Jaspal Singh as he was present in Court. It is stated that he mentioned the time of arrival of the accused (appellant) in his statement before the Police. He was confronted with his statement Ex.D-1 where the time of arrival of the accused (appellant) is not recorded. After the departure of the appellant, he did not make a telephone call to Police Station Bassi Pathana. His statement was recorded in the morning time on 27.6.2012. He had correctly made statement portion A to A. In the portion A to A it is recorded that while coming in the car, he (appellant) had brought the cash bag and keys of the house along with him and the cash bag had been kept in the almirah of his house.
PW-10 Darshan Singh son of Arjan Singh deposed that Jasmeen Kaur was daughter of his younger brother Gurmail Singh. She was married at Bhojewal with Rupinder Singh and she had two children namely Jaskirat Singh (son) and Prabhsimran Kaur (daughter). Jasmeen Kaur along with her husband and children was residing at village Mukandpur. It is stated that the appellant, present in the Court had thrown his relatives Gurmail Singh and his wife, his son and also Prabhsimran Kaur, Jaskirat Singh and Rupinder Singh in the canal. He (appellant) had also thrown Jasmeen Kaur in the canal, who, however, had survived and the other six had expired. He also deposed that corpse of Harsimran Kaur (sic. Prabhsimran Kaur) was recovered from the Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 28 canal and he had identified her corpse on 30.06.2012 at Civil Hospital, Fatehgarh Sahib. His statement was recorded. He was not cross-examined, though an opportunity was given.
PW-11 ASI Kaur Singh deposed that on 27.06.2012, he was posted at police station Bassi Pathana. On the said day, Shamsher Singh, SI and other police officials were present at canal minor bridge Thablan. Jasmeen Kaur @ Jagmohan Kaur @ Soni daughter of Gurmail Singh, resident of Mukandpur, police station Dehlon met the police party there. Her statement was recorded by Shamsher Singh, SI. The latter sent the said statement to the police station through Sikander Singh, Constable. On the basis of the said statement, formal FIR Ex.P10 was recorded. Thereafter, a part of the police party went to the spot along with Jasmeen Kaur. Investigations were thereafter conducted by Shamsher Singh, SI, which has been reproduced in the earlier part of this judgment. In cross-examination, he inter alia stated that the police party reached at the spot at about 11.00 a.m. on 27.6.2012. There was a huge gathering of people there. It is stated as correct that in the site plan (Ex.P-
11), no stairs had been mentioned.
PW-12 Rajinder Singh, Head Constable deposed that on 27.06.2012, he was posted at police station Bassi Pathana. On the said day, Major Singh, ASI had handed over special reports of the case for delivering them to the Illaqa Magistrate and the higher officers. He handed over the Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 29 same to the Illaqa Magistrate and higher officers on the same day. His statement was recorded. He was not cross-examined.
PW-13 Harbhajan Singh, Clerk, Tehsil Office, Dhuri brought the original record from the Tehsil Office Fatehgarh Sahib, pertaining to sale deed No. 1118 dated 22.06.2012. As per the said sale deed, Rupinder Singh son of Jit Singh, resident of Kahandar Bhutna, Khewatdar of village Bhojowali, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur had sold his land measuring 3 bighas, 1 biswa and 14 biswasi to Sukhwinder Kaur wife of Darshan Singh, resident of Samundgarh, Tehsil Dhuri vide sale deed (supra), copy of the sale deed had already been exhibited as Ex.P30. In cross-examination he stated that he did not identify the signatures of the Sub-Registrar. He did not have personal knowledge of the concerned sale deed.
PW-14 Rajinderpal Singh, Regulation Beldar, Punjab Irrigation Department, Saunda deposed that on 26.06.2012, he along with Mohan Lal, Gauze (sic. Gauge) Reader was on duty on Thablan waterfall in the area of Bassi Pathana. Their duty started at about 10:00 p.m on that day. At about 10.00 p.m., a lady with clothes drenched with water came to them weeping. On their asking as to what had happened to her, she informed that Khushwinder Singh (appellant) had taken her along with her father and two children at Nogawan waterfall for offering 'dhala' and he pushed her, her father and children in the canal while they were brought there for offering Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 30 'dhala'. She further informed that she rescued herself from the canal with the help of stairs, as she was able to catch hold of the stair of the canal. She requested them to search for her children. He along with Mohan Lal searched for them, but they could not locate them. Then they informed the relatives of Jasmeen Kaur at village Mukandpur and they also informed the police regarding the incident. He also deposed that the lady had disclosed her name to them as Jasmeen Kaur. His statement was recorded. In cross-examination, it is stated that Jasmeen Kaur complainant met him at 10.00/10.15 p.m. They informed her relatives telephonically. After about 10 minutes of informing the relatives of the complainant at Mukandpur, they informed the police of the Police Station Bassi Pathana. The police arrived at the spot after fifteen minutes of their telephone. The police did not record the statement of the complainant at the canal at that time. It is correct at that time his statement and that of his co-employee was recorded.
PW-15 Gurmail Singh, Patwari Halqa, Lohari, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib deposed that revenue record pertaining to village Mehdoodan was handed over by him. On 09.08.2012, he had gone to Canal Bridge Mehdoodan and had prepared separate map Ex.P42 at the instance of the police officials of police station Bassi Pathana. He had seen the scaled map in court which was in his hand and bears his signatures. It was prepared with correct marginal notes. His statement was recorded. In cross- Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 31 examination he stated as wrong to suggest that the site plan was not as per factual position.
PW-16 Harminder Singh, Head Constable, Police Station Bassi Pathana tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.P43 that was signed by him and attested by Magistrate and his statement was recorded. In terms of his affidavit, he deposed that on 27.6.2012 Shamsher Singh SI (PW-7) in connection with the present case deposited a parcel in which pulse 'mah-chole' and rice having seal SS, one blue colour pair of chappal, Maruti car No. PB 10 AM 9371 along with registration certificate, one plastic box with 2100 currency notes of the denomination of `1000/- each, total `21 lacs with seal SS, besides, with one plastic box with 2940 currency notes of `500/- denomination each, total `14,70,000/- having seal SS, one greenish maroon bag and keys of almirah were deposited with him in the Malkhana. Other case property was also deposited with him. He had taken out the same and given it for sending them for chemical examination. In cross-examination he stated as wrong to suggest that he had tendered false affidavit to complete the chain of prosecution evidence.
PW-17 Dr. Harinder Singh, Medical Officer, Slum Area Dispensary, Ropar deposed that on 30.06.2012, a board of doctors which included him, Dr.Kuldeep Singh and Dr.Harpreet Kaur was constituted to conduct autopsy on the corpse of Gurinder Singh, aged about 32 years, resident of Mukandpur. Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 32 The dead body was identified by Balwinder son of Prem Singh and Ranjit Singh Ex-Sarpanch son of Kartar Singh. It was brought from 'Burji' No. 70, Nirwana Branch, Bhakra Canal near village Bhedwal Khurd, police station Kanda Kheri (sic. Ganda Kheri), District Patiala. It was a case of alleged drowning. No injury was seen on the corpse. He further deposed that in their opinion, the cause of death in the case was asphyxia due to ante mortem drowning, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The viscera was sent for chemical analysis as requested by the police. On receipt of Chemical Examiner's report Ex.P44, no poison was detected in the contents sent to the Chemical Examiner. He also deposed the time that elapsed between drowning and death was immediate and between death and post mortem examination was within 3/5 days. He (PW-17) had brought the original post mortem report in the Court, which was in his hand, as well as, in the hands of Dr. Harpreet Kaur and Dr. Kuldeep Singh. He also produced carbon copy Ex.P45 of the original post mortem report. In cross-examination he deposed that no liquor was detected and the possibility of deceased himself falling in the water could not be ruled out. He also deposed that there was no external mark of injury.
PW-18 Ashok Kumar, Senior Assistant, District Transport Office, Fatehgarh Sahib was examined. He brought the original record pertaining to Maruti car No. PB-10AN-9371 (sic. PB-10AM-9371). As per record, the said Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 33 car was in the name of Khushwinder Singh son of Raghbir Singh resident of village Sohavi, Tehsil Khamanon, District Fatehgarh Sahib. He also proved registration certificate Ex.P40. He was not cross-examined.
PW-19 Sh. Jaspinder Singh, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib deposed that on 01.08.2012, Jasmeen Kaur complainant was produced before him by Shamsher Singh, SI (PW-7) vide application Ex.P46 for recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He, accordingly, recorded her statement Ex.P41. The same was read over and explained to her and she after admitting it to be correct, signed the same. He (PW-19) passed order Ex.P47 in this regard. In cross-examination, he stated that he had ascertained from the complainant that she was making her statement voluntarily. He had given her sufficient time to think over for making the statement. The statement was recorded on his dictation in open Court. No other private person was accompanied Jasmee Kaur.
PW-20 Dr. Jashanpreet Singh, Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Nandpur Klaur deposed that on 01.07.2012, he was posted at PHC Nandpur Klaur and was on emergency duty at CHC Bassi Pathana. On the said day, he conducted the autopsy on the corpse of Prabhsimran Kaur daughter of Rupinder Singh aged about six years, female, resident of Bhojewali, District Sangrur, but at that time residing at village Mukandpur, Police Station Dehlon, District Ludhiana. The dead body was brought by Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 34 Balbir Singh, HC and identified by Jatinder Singh and Darshan Singh. He further deposed that it was an alleged case of death due to drowning in the water. On examination, lacerated wounds over both cheek were found. In his opinion, cause of death in this case was asphyxia leading to cardio respiratory failure due to drowning in the water, which was ante mortem and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The probable time that elapsed between injury and death was immediate and death and post mortem examination was within 4/5 days. He (PW-20) brought the original post mortem report and proved the carbon copy, thereof, Ex.P48 and pictorial diagram showing the seats of injury Ex.P49. In cross-examination he stated that the possibility of deceased herself accidentally fall in the water could not be ruled out.
PW-21 Harjit Singh, ASI also joined the investigation along with Shamsher Singh, SI (PW-7). He deposed on the lines of investigation conducted by Shamsher Singh, SI (PW-7) that has been reproduced in the earlier parts of this judgment.
PW-22 Jaswinder Singh, Constable No. 485 deposed that he had clicked four photographs of the place of occurrence in the month of July, 2012 with digital camera. The photographs were handed over to the Investigating Officer. The same were Ex.P50 to Ex.P53. In three photographs, the accused (appellant) was present and he was indicating where he had thrown the victims Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 35 in the canal. He identified the appellant present in the Court. He had also clicked 11 photographs Ex.P54 to Ex.P64 at the place of occurrence, as also, of the corpse. He did not tamper with the digital photographs and his statement was recorded. In cross-examination he stated that he had no knowledge as to who had committed the crime. He took the photographs as per direction of the Investigating Officer.
PW-23 Dr. Harpreet Kaur, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Nawan Sahar deposed through video conference via video contact between District, Courts Fatehgarh Sahib while witness was sitting in the video conference room of District Courts, Kapurthala on 02.03.2013. She (PW-23) stated that on 04.07.2012, she was posted as Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Bassi Pathana. On that day, she medico-legally examined patient Jasmeen Kaur wife of Rupinder Singh, aged 32 years, female, resident of village Mukandpur, Tehsil Dehlon, District Ludhiana. It was a case of alleged history of being pushed into the canal on 26.06.2012. Patient was conscious, cooperative, well oriented to time, place and person. On examination, the following injuries were found on her person:-
1. A 5.5 cms x 2 cms wound with scab over it over the dorsal side of the left elbow measuring 2.5 cms below the elbow;
2. A 1.5 cms x 1 cm wound with scab over it over the dorsal surface of right elbow just below the elbow joint;
3. A 1.5 cms x 1 cm wound with scab formation over the dorsal surface of Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and right elbow just below the joint (elbow);integrity of this document
High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 36
4. A 2 cms x 1 cm wound with scab formation below the right knee joint measuring 3 cms below the knee joint.
5. 0.5 cm wound with scab over left knee joint.
All the injuries were simple caused with blunt weapon and probable duration of injury was within 8 to 10 days. She (PW-23) proved the copy of the medico-legal report Ex.P65 and pictorial diagram Ex.P66 showing the seats of injury. In cross-examination she stated that it was correct that the injuries were on the accessible part of the body. It was correct that scab formation starts formation within 4-7 days. It was correct that whenever the scab was removed, the injury below was either pink or livid red. It was correct that the patient was brought before her (PW-23), her body parameters were normal. It was also correct that colour bruises or contusions remained dark red within 18-24 hours of the injury. These become blue, bluish black, brown, livid red within 1-4 days of the injury. The colour of the injury becomes greenish after 5-6 days of the injury and it becomes yellowish within 7-12 days of injuries. This yellow colour slowly fades in tint within 14-15 days when the skin regains its normal appearance. It was correct that all the bruises were well defined.
After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C and the substance of the evidence appearing against him was put to him. He denied the allegations of Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 37 the prosecution, besides, pleaded innocence and false implication in this case. He gave his own version that he does not know why the witnesses had deposed against him. However, he had no enmity with any of the witnesses. He further stated that Gurinder Singh @ Babu, brother of Jasmeen Kaur was addicted to alcohol and she (Jasmeen Kaur) was staying with her parents. Her entire family was under tension. Her brother Gurinder Singh under the influence of liquor threw the entire family in the canal and later on he (Gurinder Singh) committed suicide. Jasmeen Kaur made a false complaint to the police to save herself. She became inimical to him, as in the family dispute, he (appellant) used to support Gurinder Singh @ Babu. He further deposed that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. The police was threatening his family that he (appellant) had also thrown four members of the family of village Nogawan, in the canal and the CBI would come to their house. He further stated that his family was also threatened that if they came in his defence, they would be involved in the said case regarding killing of four persons and the present case. Therefore, none of his family members were willing to come for his defence.
Appellant was called upon to enter in defence, but he closed the same without examining any defence witness.
After hearing both the sides, as also, after perusing the evidence and documents on record, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant for Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 38 commission of offences punishable under Sections 364, 302, 307, 201 and 380 IPC vide impugned judgment of conviction. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of `10,000/- and in default, thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for commission of offence punishable under Section 364 IPC; he was sentenced to death (to be hanged by neck till death) and pay a fine of `10,000/- and in default, thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC; he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay a fine of `5,000/- and in default, thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the commission of offence punishable under Section 307 IPC; he was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and pay a fine of `2,000/- and in default, thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the commission of offence punishable under Section 201 IPC and lastly, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and pay a fine of `2,000/- and in default, thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the commission of offence punishable under Section 380 IPC.
Aggrieved against the order of his conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed the present appeal for its acceptance and for his acquittal of the offences for which he has been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court. Murder Reference No.3 of 2013 has also been submitted for seeking Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 39 confirmation of the death sentence imposed on the appellant for the commission of the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC.
Ms. Puneeta Sethi, Advocate learned counsel for the appellant contended that the findings of the learned trial Court are based on conjectures and surmises and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, these are liable to be set aside. She also contended that neither the name of 'baba' with whom the appellant is said to be in touch with so as to enable the brother of the complainant give up the habit of drinking nor the name of the travel agent who was to send the husband of the complainant abroad has been mentioned. It is submitted that it is quite unbelievable that any person without knowing about or meeting the agent would be ready to pay up such alleged huge amount. She also contended that it is also unbelievable that the husband of complainant would have sold his land for a substantial amount of money that was required to go abroad and also for the alleged sufferings of his brother-in-law (i.e. brother of the complainant) and that too, without meeting the travel agent. It is further contended that the prosecution case is full of discrepancies inasmuch as the complainant Jasmeen Kaur (PW-5) has stated that she made her statement Ex.P5 to the police on the next day of the incident i.e. on 27.6.2012 in the morning at about 8.00/8.30 p.m. near the canal in the area of the bridge of village Thablan, besides, she also states in her cross-examination that she did not know as to when the Beldar informed the Police but the police came on the Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 40 next morning at 8.30 a.m.; while Rajinder Pal Regulation Beldar Punjab Irrigation Department (PW-14) in his cross-examination has stated that the complainant met him on 26.6.2012 at about 10.00/10.15 p.m. and after about ten minutes they informed her relatives telephonically. Then after ten minutes of informing the relatives of the complainant at Mukandpur they informed the police of Police Station Bassi Pathana. The police arrived at the spot after fifteen minutes of the telephone. Therefore, it is submitted that there is a material discrepancy as to when the police had come to the place of occurrence. It is also contended that no motive has been established or alleged for the appellant to commit the murder of six family members of the complainant. She also contended that the appellant in his statement under Section 313 CrPC stated that the complainant was inimical to him, as he was helping the brother of complainant in inter se property dispute between the complainant and deceased Babu @ Gurinder Singh. She also contended that the learned trial Court also failed to appreciate and take into consideration the factum that there was no eye witness to the alleged murders and no independent witness was examined to prove the case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. She also contended that the case is solely based on circumstantial evidence that could not be corroborated by any other evidence. She also contended that only two corpses of Gurinder Singh, brother of the complainant and Prabhsimran Kaur, daughter of the complainant were found Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 41 and no other corpse was recovered. It is also contended that mere recovery of footwear which was not compared with the other footwear of the deceased found from near the bushes of the alleged place of occurrence is a weak type of evidence to prove the factum of alleged murders by the appellant. She also contended that the version of the prosecution that the appellant mixed sleeping pills with 'mishri' and made the deceased consume the same was not proved in the autopsy report; besides, the alleged place of recovery of medicine from the car of the appellant after lapse of so many days goes to show the false implication of the appellant in the case. She also contended that the place from where the liquor was purchased for consumption by Gurmail Singh, father of the complainant has not been disclosed. She also contended that there is inordinate delay in lodging the report. The occurrence allegedly took place at 09:30 p.m on 26.06.2012, while the FIR was recorded on 27.06.2012 after 11:30 a.m. She also contended that the supplementary statement was recorded later on regarding theft of money without conducting any proper investigation and it was presumed without any proper investigation that the appellant had committed the murder and theft. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the learned trial Court erred in using the disclosure statement of the appellant against him. She also contended that the appellant disclosed that he stole keys of the house of the complainant and that being so, there was no need for him to break the lock to steal `37,00,000/- and put it in his house and Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 42 later to get the said amount recovered. She also contended that the disclosure statement made to the police cannot be used against the appellant and as such, order of conviction and sentence is bad in the eyes of law. She also contended that there were a number of material discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses regarding conduct of investigation, as also, of places of recoveries and, therefore, the impugned judgment and order are liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the extra judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant to PW-9 Manjit Singh could not be used for basing conviction of the appellant, as the latter had no reason to go and confess before PW-9 at 03:30 a.m. She also contended that conviction of the appellant on the basis of extra judicial confession of PW-9 is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. She also contended that the learned trial Court erred in convicting the appellant for offence of kidnapping, as the persons allegedly accompanied the appellant with their own free will without any force or threat, ingredients of Section 364 IPC are not made out. Therefore, charge of kidnapping is not proved against the appellant and he is entitled for acquittal. Learned counsel has further contended that the learned trial Court, in any case, gravely erred in awarding death sentence to the appellant, which is to be awarded in the rarest of rare cases. She further contended that the present case does not fall within the category of rarest of rare cases and as such, the death sentence imposed upon the appellant, in any case, is liable to be set aside. Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 43
Mr. PPS Thethi, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, learned counsel appearing for the State in response contended that the case of the appellant is based on cogent and corroborating evidence of unimpeachable character and, therefore, the appellant has rightly been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court. It is submitted that the contentions raised and the discrepancies pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant are baseless and do not merit any consideration. In any case, it is submitted that the said discrepancies do not go to the root of the case and being immaterial do not affect the prosecution case. Such like discrepancies, it is submitted, do occur in the prosecution case. The case of the prosecution, it is submitted, is based on the eye witness account of Jasmeen Kaur, complainant (PW-5) and there is no reason for her to make false allegations. It is submitted that the fact that four bodies were not found is inconsequential as these were not traced due to the current in the canal and they must have been washed further downstream. He also contended that since the appellant is guilty of commission of murder of six people, learned trial Court rightly held that the present case falls within the category of rarest of rare cases. He also contended that in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C, appellant stated that prosecution witnesses are not inimical towards him and he does not know, why they are deposing against him. He also admitted the deaths of all the six persons through drowning, though, he has ascribed these deaths to Gurinder Singh deceased who allegedly Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 44 under the influence of liquor threw the entire family into the canal and later committed suicide. From this it is contended that the appellant accepts that all the family members of the complainant had been thrown in the canal which is indicative of the fact that he was aware of the facts and circumstances leading to death of six persons and that too by throwing them in the canal. It is submitted that the appellant had earlier also thrown four people of village Nogawan in the canal. In this regard a reference has been made to the statement of the appellant under Section 313 CrPC in which he has inter alia stated that the police was threatening his family that he had also thrown four members of the family of village Nogawan in the canal and the CBI would come to their house and that his family was also threatened that if they came in his defence, they would be involved in the said case regarding killing of four persons and the present case. Besides, a reference has been made to the disclosure statement of the appellant (Ex.P34) wherein the appellant had thrown four members of the family of Kulwant Singh of village Nogawan in the canal in a similar manner. The said disclosure statement, it is submitted, is a discovery of fact of which the police had no prior knowledge and therefore, even though its admissibility was objected to by the learned defence counsel, it would be admissible in evidence in terms of Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 45 of the learned trial Court with their assistance.
The prosecution case is that the complainant was married with Rupinder Singh in the year 2005 in village Bhojewal. From the marriage, they had a son and a daughter namely Jaskirat Singh and Prabhsimran Kaur who were aged 7 years and 6 years respectively at the time of incident. They were living at her parents' village Mukandpur for the last about six years as the circumstances in her in-laws family were not proper. The parents of the complainant namely Gurmail Singh, father and Paramjit Kaur, mother, besides, her brother Gurinder Singh alias Babu were also living with them. Gurinder Singh alias Babu, brother of the complainant Jasmeen Kaur (PW-5), was habitual in taking drinks and liquor. They were quite worried about his drinking habits. The first cousin of the complainant Jasmeen Kaur namely Manjeet Kaur who was her maternal uncle's daughter along with her husband Khuswinder Singh (appellant) used to visit them at village Mukandpur. The family had disclosed about their concern of Gurinder Singh alias Babu habit of drinking. Khushwinder Singh, appellant on this by taking the family of the complainant into confidence had held out an assurance that he was known to one 'baba' who was a holy man and would make Gurinder Singh alias Babu get rid of his drinking habit. The appellant also represented that he knew a travel agent who would arrange to send Rupinder Singh, husband of the complainant abroad. In the end of March or beginning of April 2012, Khuswinder Singh Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 46 alone came to their house and asked for passport of Rupinder Singh, husband of the complainant, besides, `2 lacs for sending him abroad. Balance of `14 lacs was to be paid after visa was granted. The parents of complainant pledged their gold ornaments with the goldsmith and arranged `2 lacs which they gave to the appellant. He assured that the work of sending Rupinder Singh abroad will be completed in two months. As regards Gurinder Singh problem he represented that he had spoken with a 'baba' and that they would have to make prayers by offering coconut, pulse of 'mah' (a variety of pulse) and rice in flowing water. On 25.06.2012 at about 05:30/6.00 p.m. the appellant alone came to village Mukandpur to the house of the complainant (PW-5) in his white colour Maruti car bearing registration No. PB-10AM-9371. As per record of the District Transport Officer as deposed by Ashok Kumar, Senior Assistant, DTO Fatehgarh Sahib (PW-18), the said car belonged to the appellant. Though Ashok Kumar, Senior Assistant mentioned the car number as PB10-AN9371 instead of PB10-AM9371, the same would not be of much significance as it is only a typographical error. Besides, the registration certificate of the car was tendered in evidence as Ex.P40 in which the car number is mentioned as PB10-AM9371. Even otherwise, it is not the case of the appellant that the said car did not belong to him or that it belonged to someone else. On 25.06.2012, at 06:00 p.m., the appellant came to the house of complainant in village Mukandpur. In any case, he informed that they were Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 47 to leave at 2.30 a.m. in the morning to offer 'dhala' (prayer by immersing pulses etc. in flowing water). At about 2.30 a.m. Paramjeet Kaur, Gurinder Singh alias Babu and Rupinder Singh, mother, brother and husband respectively of the complainant Jasmeen Kaur were asked by the appellant to accompany him. Gurmail Singh, father of the complainant stated that he was to pay obeisance at Gurudwara 'Rara Sahib' and he also accompanied them in the car of the appellant. The appellant took all the four persons in his car then on 26.6.2012, the appellant came back at about 11.00/11.30 a.m. that he had left the husband brother and mother of the complainant with the 'baba'. Her father had returned back as he accompanied them upto Gurudwara 'Rara Sahib' only. The appellant then asked Gurmail Singh, father of the complainant, the complainant herself and her two children to accompany him at about 6.30 p.m. to offer 'dhala' in running water. The father of the complainant, the complainant herself and her two children went with the appellant in the same white Maruti car. The appellant drove the car. On the way, the appellant made Gurinder Singh consumed liquor with a false representation that he had received a phone call from the 'baba' that Gurinder Singh, brother of the complainant would be permanently cured from the habit of drinking liquor if Gurmail Singh who was otherwise an 'amrit dhari' (one who is baptised and initiated to a pious life and abstains from liquor and is a vegetarian) consumes liquor on that day. The father of the complainant under compulsion and on the asking of the appellant Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 48 consumed liquor which was brought by him on the way from village Nogawan. The appellant then took the car on the pathway along the canal. He asked them to offer 'dhala' in the running water of the canal. The canal was 'Bhakra' main near village Thablan bridge. It was about 9.30 p.m., the complainant and her father came out of the car to offer 'dhala' in the flowing water. The children of the complainant remained sitting in the car. On the canal bank, the complainant and her father were standing and had stepped forward to offer 'dhala' in the flowing water than the appellant pushed them in the flowing water. The complainant fell on one side of the canal and at a short distance there was an iron bar which was part of an iron ladder in the canal. She was able to catch hold of the iron bar and come out of the canal. Her father was washed away in the water. There was a huge water flow in the canal. Then nearby the complainant found some employees of the canal department and narrated the occurrence to them. They then informed her relatives at village Mukandpur. With the help of the canal employees she tried to find her children who were sitting in the car but they were not traceable. The car was not there. Many people had gathered at the spot. Then those people called the police. She suspected that the appellant had thrown her father and children as also her husband, mother and brother who had accompanied the appellant earlier occasion in the car. The motive was that husband of the complainant had sold his land for `37,00,000/- for making payment of `14,00,000/- to the Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 49 appellant. The said money was lying in their house at village Mukandpur. The land had been sold 2-3 days earlier to the incident and the appellant knew about it and he wanted to grab the same. The police recorded the statement of the complainant on the next day on 27.6.2012 in the morning at about 8.00/8.30 a.m. near the canal in the area of village Thablan. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the complainant Jasmeen Kaur (PW-5) stated that she made her statement (Ex.P5) to the Police on the next day of the incident i.e. 27.6.2012 in the morning at about 8.00/8.30 p.m. near the canal in the area of village Thablan while Rajinder Pal, Regulation Beldar, Punjab Irrigation Department (PW-14) in his cross-examination stated that the complainant (PW-5) met him on 26.6.2012 at about 10.00/10.25 p.m. and he informed her relatives telephonically and then informed the police which came at the spot after 15 minutes of the telephone. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the arrival of the police is not in the morning but in the night of the incident itself. In this regard, it may be noticed that the same is not such a discrepancy so as to hold that the prosecution case is false. The fact that Jasmeen Kaur and her father Gurmail Singh had been pushed in the canal, besides, her children who were in the car of the appellant were not traceable, she must have been under a great shock and trauma as to even comprehend as to who had come immediately after the incident. Moreover, Rajinder Pal (PW-14) in his cross-examination in Court that the police did not Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 50 record the statement of the complainant (PW-5) at the canal at that time. Therefore, the stand of the complainant (PW-5) that her statement was recorded on 27.6.2012 in the morning is not in any manner discrepant. The other contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that neither the name of the 'Baba' with whom the appellant is said to be in touch with so as to enable the brother of the complainant give up his drinking habit nor the name of the travel agent who was to send husband of the complainant abroad has been mentioned. In this regard, it may be noticed that the appellant being a relative of the complainant had conducted himself in a manner that he was able to win over the trust and confidence of the entire family of the complainant. The appellant is the husband of Manjit Kaur and said Manjit Kaur is the daugther of the maternal uncle of the complainant (PW-5). Therefore, with his peasant cunningness and deceit, he planned and executed stealthily the entire crime. The family of the complainant must have had so much confidence in him that they due to their simpleness did not bother to ask the name of the 'baba' or of the travel agent who was to send the husband of the complainant abroad. In the circumstances, the fact that the complainant side did not ask the name of the 'baba' or the travel agent is not of much significance and it cannot be said that this state of affairs to be unbelievable in view of the close relationship of the parties which in the villages and rural areas is given due importance, besides, there is an in built sense of confidence that a relative would act and Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 51 help for the betterment of the family and would not in any manner act adversely to their interest. It is in this said situation that the name of the 'baba' or the travel agent had not been asked by which the case of the prosecution cannot be said to be in any manner affected. The contention that the husband of the complainant would not sell his land for going abroad and also for helping his brother-in-law (brother of the complainant) to give up his drinking habit to be unbelievable is also of not much consequences. As already noticed, the appellant had been able to win over the trust and confidence of the family of the complainant due to the close relationship of his wife Manjit Kaur with the complainant. He had represented himself as a 'messiah' for the family of the complainant. It is in this confidence that Rupinder Singh sold his land for a consideration of `37,00,000/-. A sale deed No. 1118 dated 22.06.2012 (Ex.P39) was executed in this regard. An amount of `14,00,000/- was to be given to the appellant so as to enable Rupinder Singh, husband of the complainant to go abroad. It is due to the overwhelming trust and confidence that the appellant in a surreptitious manner had managed to gain that the land was sold by Rupinder Singh so as to raise money to go abroad. The balance amount it must have been felt was retained by the family for the expenses which would require to be initially borne while they were abroad. It must have been kept as savings. Therefore, the fact that the land was sold for a substantial amount is not for the help of the brother-in-law of Rupinder Singh Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 52 but for himself so as to go abroad with the help and assistance of the appellant who was to get the needful done through a travel agent.
The testimony of Jasmeen Kaur (PW-5) during her cross examination as regards the manner in which the incident had occurred and the sequence of events which led to the murders could not be discredited or in any manner proved wrong. In fact the appellant even in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C candidly stated that he does not know, why the witnesses deposed against him with whom he has no enmity. It follows from the statement of appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C that Jasmeen Kaur complainant (PW-5) had no animus or hostility towards the appellant. From her (PW-5) testimony, it is established that the appellant took Paramjit Kaur mother, Gurinder Singh @ Babu brother and Rupinder Singh, husband of the complainant (PW-5) to accompany him for offering pulses, rice etc. in the flowing water at about 2:30 a.m. on 26.06.2012. The appellant kept his plans to himself as these are not disclosed or shared with others. Such ceremonies of offerings are normally done in private and are not disclosed to others. So, no one else except the family of the complainant could know about the ceremony of offerings. No motive can be ascribed to the complainant (PW-5) to depose falsely in the case. The complainant (PW-5), therefore, is a witness to the incident in which she and her father were pushed in the canal. Her children were also thrown into the canal. They were in the company of the appellant and Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 53 it was for him to explain as to what happened to them. When the appellant had taken Jasmeen Kaur, complainant (PW-5) and her father on the bank of the canal for offering making offerings, the children were left in the car of the appellant. On both the occasions, the company of all the six deceased with the appellant is proved from the testimony of the complainant (PW-5). It was for the appellant to explain the circumstances, as to when, the deceased in the first incident parted from his company. The appellant has not been able to satisfactorily explain as to whom he had handed over the custody of Rupinder Singh, Babu @ Gurinder Singh and Paramjit Kaur. Even, he himself admitted that during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C that Gurinder Singh @ Babu, brother of Jasmeen Kaur was addicted to alcohol and the latter was staying with her parents and the entire family was under tension. According to the appellant, Gurinder Singh under the influence of liquor threw the entire family in the canal and later committed suicide. In this view of the candid statement made by the appellant in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C, he can not say that the others whose dead body has not been found were not murdered by drowning them in the canal. Though the prosecution is to prove its case on its own and it cannot rely on the statement of an accused, however, the statement of the accused gives an assurance to this Court that the case of the prosecution and particularly the deposition of Jasmeen Kaur, complainant (PW-5) goes on to establish that the family of Jasmeen Kaur, complainant Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 54 (PW-5) was thrown in the canal by the appellant. According to the appellant, the mother and brother of the complainant Jasmeen Kaur (PW-5) also died due to drowning and according to him in terms of his statement under Section 313 CrPC, they were thrown in the canal by Gurinder Singh, who later committed suicide. The appellant, however, led no evidence in this regard that the family members of the complainant Jasmeen Kaur were thrown in the canal by Gurinder Singh under the influence of liquor. When the said stand of the appellant is not proved by him, it gives an assurance to the Court that he took three persons i.e Rupinder Singh, Paramjit Kaur and Gurinder Singh @ Babu with him in the car to offer 'dhala' in the running water on the alleged instructions of a holy man and by taking them to the canal, pushed them in the canal resulting in their deaths by drowning. The corpses of two persons i.e Paramjit Kaur and Gurinder Singh could not be found and only the corpse of Rupinder Singh, husband of the complainant was found. It must be held that they were pushed in the canal by the appellant himself, as he was last seen in their company and he failed to explain, as to where he had left them after taking them from their house.
When appellant at 02:00 a.m on 26.06.2002 had taken the three deceased Paramjit Kaur, Rupinder Singh and Gurinder Singh @ Babu in his car bearing No. PB-10AM-9371, it was required of him to bring them back in a safe condition to their house and if they were not brought by him, to give some Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 55 satisfactory explanation as to where he had left them. He informed that he had left them with the 'baba', but he did not disclose the name and place of the said 'baba', where all the three were left by him. It was merely an excuse by him, while on the contrary, he had pushed them in the canal and all the three died.
The second incident was of 26.06.2012 in the evening time. Both the children of the complainant (PW-5), her father and the complainant herself were pushed in the canal in the running water. Luckily, PW-5 Jasmeen Kaur survived this attempt and appellant could not know about this and if he had known about her survival, then he would have drowned her again in the running water of the canal. It was night time and the appellant could not notice that Jasmeen Kaur had survived his attempt to drown her. Other three persons namely Gurmail Singh, father of the complainant and her two children namely Prabhsimran Kaur and Jaskirat Singh had drowned in the canal. Later, corpse of Prabhsimran Kaur was found from the canal. This incident was candidly seen by PW-5 and it follows that the appellant pushed these three persons in the canal.
After the incident, appellant went to Manjit Singh Ex-sarpanch of village Nogawan (PW-9) on 27.06.2012 and narrated the entire incident to him. He asked his help for his production before the police. Before Manjit Singh Ex-sarpanch of village Nogawan (PW-9), the appellant clearly confessed that he had pushed Paramjit Kaur, Rupinder Singh and Gurinder Singh in the canal Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 56 26.06.2012 at about 02:30 a.m. He also confessed that he had pushed Jasmeen Kaur (PW-5), her father Gurmail Singh, her son Jaskirat Singh and her daughter Prabhsimran Kaur in the Bhakra Canal. The evidence of this witness could not be discredited during cross examination and on the basis, thereof, it must be held that the appellant made confession of his crime before Manjit Singh (PW-9). Even otherwise, the extra judicial confession of the appellant before Manjit Singh (PW-9) is not the only evidence in this case against him. The extra judicial confession made by the appellant before Manjit Singh (PW-
9) in fact corroborates the other evidence on record against the appellant. The wife of Manjit Singh (PW-9) is Sarpanch of the village Nogawan, besides, Khushwinder Singh (appellant) was known to him. It is quite common in the villages that where the lady of the house is the Sarpanch her affairs are attended to by the male members of the family and more particularly their husbands. It was quite natural for the appellant to go to the house of the Sarpanch so as to help him in producing him before the police. There is no reason for Manjit Singh (PW-9) to make a false deposition against the appellant with whom he has no enmity. As already observed, the complainant (PW-5) in respect of the second incident had seen the appellant pushing her and her father in the Bhakra Canal so, she is a witness to this incident. The children at that time were left in the car of the appellant. After the complainant (PW-5) had managed to come out of the canal she met the officials of the Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 57 Irrigation Department and with their help, had searched for the children but the car and the children could not be found. She (PW-5) in fact is a stamped witness of the second incident that took place in the evening of 26.06.2012 as she herself was also thrown in the canal by pushing her and she was injured thereby. She is also witness of seeing the appellant and other three deceased Paramjit Kaur, Babu @ Gurinder Singh and Rupinder Singh in the company of the appellant. Motive of the crime is that Rupinder Singh had sold the land measuring 3 bighas 1 biswa and 14 biswasis to Sukhwinder Kaur wife of Darshan Singh vide sale deed No. 1118 dated 22.06.2012 (Ex.P39). Appellant wanted to grab the amount of `37,00,000/- which was the sale consideration and was lying in the house of the appellant. Out of the said amount, an amount of `36,70,000/- was recovered from him that he had kept in his house on the basis of disclosure statement Ex.P12, wherein, he candidly confessed that he had stolen `36,70,000/- from the house of Gurmail Singh and kept the money in an almirah of his house. Pursuant to his disclosure statement Ex.P12, the appellant got recovered `36,70,000/- contained in a maroon colour purse from his almirah along with bunch of keys. These currency notes were seized vide memo Ex.P13. His car was also seized vide recovery memo Ex.P15. This huge amount could not be planted upon the appellant. It is clear and established from the statement of Harbhajan Singh, Clerk (PW-13) that vide sale deed No.1118 dated 22.6.2012 (Ex.P39) Rupinder Singh sold his land measuring 3 Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 58 bighas 1 biswa and 14 biswasis to Sukhwinder Kaur. The appellant knew about this amount lying in the house of deceased as it was he who had demanded `14,00,000/- for making arrangements for sending Rupinder Singh, husband of the complainant (PW-5) abroad and he wanted to grab the said amount. In order to get hold of the amount, he killed all the six family members of the complainant (PW-5) but luckily Jasmeen Kaur complainant (PW-5) survived his attempt to kill her by drowning her in the canal. Had she not survived, in that event, the possibility of no clue of the case may not have been there. It was the planning of the appellant that he had killed all the family members in order to grab the amount of `36,70,000/- and other property of the deceased.
Police during investigation also recovered the corpse of Gurinder Singh floating in the canal near canal bridge village Gaunda Khurd and on that very day, the corpse of Prabhsimran Kaur minor was also recovered from the canal near village Mukandpur bridge. After necessary proceedings, autopsy on both the corpses was got conducted and it was established from the autopsy report Ex.P45 that the death of these persons was due to drowning. So, the testimony of PW-5 to the effect that the deceased were thrown in the canal and then died due to drowning is established from the autopsy reports Ex.P45 of Gurinder Singh and Exs.P48 and P49 of Prabhsimran Kaur respectively. The contention of Ms. Puneeta Sethi, Advocate learned counsel for the appellant Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 59 that the corpses of three of the alleged deceased have not been found and therefore, the fact that they had been murdered is not established it is appropriate to note that though identification of the dead body of the person whose murder is said to have been committed is quite essential so as to establish a charge of murder. However, in the present case the sequence of events is such that in the first instance three of the family members of the complainant (PW-5) were taken and they have not been seen alive thereafter. From amongst the three that were taken in the first instance, the dead body of one of them namely Gurinder Singh, brother of the complainant, was recovered and as per his post mortem report (Ex.P45) he had died due to drowning. In respect of the second incident, the dead body of Prabhsimran Kaur, daughter of the complainant, was recovered and as per her post mortem report (Ex.P48 and Ex.P49) she had died due to drowning. Therefore, the mere fact that the dead bodies of others were not found, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is quite inconsequential. There have been cases where charges of murder have been established even when the dead body was not forthcoming or was not identified. The mere fact that the dead bodies of others were not found is not a sufficient reason to hold that the charge of murder is to be held as not established. Two of the dead bodies having been recovered, the charge of murder in respect of the recovered dead bodies of Gurinder Singh and Prabhsimran Kaur, in any case, stands established. Besides, the other three Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 60 namely Gurmail Singh, father of the complainant, Paramjit Kaur, mother of the complainant and Jaskirat Singh, son of the complainant, were last seen with the appellant. Moreover, Jasmeen Kaur, complainant (PW-5) has herself stated that she was pushed in the canal by the appellant. In the circumstances, the fact that the dead bodies of Gurmail Singh, Paramjit Kaur and Jaskirat Singh have not been recovered, does not affect the prosecution case and does not in any manner lead to any doubt that the appellant had not committed their murder.
During interrogation of the appellant, even, gold ornaments weighing 68 gms 200 mgs were found from him that were seized by the police vide memo Ex.P31. Even, Jasmeen Kaur complainant (PW-5) was got medico legally examined and MLR (Ex.P65 and Ex.P66) in this respect was given by Dr. Harpreet Kaur (PW-23). It is established that appellant took Gurinder Singh, Paramjit Kaur and Rupinder Singh in the first instance. The corpse of Gurinder Singh was found. Shoes of other victims were also found. It was within the special knowledge of the appellant as to what happened with two other victims namely Paramjit Kaur and Rupinder Singh in respect of the first incident and how their shoes came in his possession. Similarly, it is also within his knowledge as to where Jaskirat Singh son of the complainant, insofar as the first incident is concerned, had gone. The appellant was last seen with them as has been deposed by Jasmeen Kaur, complainant (PW-5) and he has not Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 61 furnished any explanation in this regard. These facts were within the knowledge of the appellant. Section 106 of the Evidence Act provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
As already held, the appellant himself has admitted that Paramjit Kaur, Rupinder Singh, Gurmail Singh and Jaskirat Singh are dead as stated by him in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It is his case that they have been killed by Gurinder Singh @ Babu that has not been proved. In this manner, the death by drowning of all the victims has not been denied by the appellant.
In Sathya Narayanan vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, 2014 (4) MLJ (Crl.) 694, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of circumstantial evidence took into consideration the failure of the accused to give satisfactory explanation to the incriminating circumstances which were within his special knowledge. Therefore, the conviction of the accused was upheld. In Ram Gulam Choudhary vs. State of Bihar (2001) 8 SCC 311, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that even if the dead bodies were not found, accused can be convicted on the basis of cogent evidence.
It is, therefore, established that the appellant in order to grab `37,00,000/- obtained by Rupinder Singh deceased from the sale of his land and also to get hold of the gold ornaments decided to eliminate the entire Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 62 family of Jasmee Kaur, complainant (PW-5). He took Rupinder Singh - husband, Paramjit Kaur - mother and Gurinder Singh @ Babu - brother of the complainant to accompany him on the pretext of offering 'dhala' in the running water. He later pushed all the three persons in the canal and came back to the house around 11:30 a.m and then took Jasmeen Kaur complainant, her father Gurmail Singh and her two children Prabhsimran Kaur and Jaskirat Singh to accompany him to offer 'dhala' at night and at about 09:30 p.m, when it was dark, he pushed Jasmeen Kaur and Gurmail Singh in the canal. As already observed, Jasmeen Kaur survived with the help of iron ladder fixed by the canal department and he (appellant) in the meantime had thrown both the minor children of Jasmeen Kaur, complainant (PW-5) in the canal out of which the corpse of minor Prabhsimran Kaur was found.
PW-5 Jasmeen Kaur during cross examination deposed that the police came on the next day of the occurrence at about 08:30 p.m, while, on the contrary, PW-7 Shamsher Singh, SI deposed that he reached at the place of occurrence on 27.06.2012 and recorded statement Ex.P5 of Jasmeen Kaur complainant (PW-5). This omission in the testimony of PW-5 cannot make the entire version false. She was traumatised by the death of her children and father. She herself was going to be drowned and luckily survived. So, due to this trauma, she deposed that the police came on the next day, but the record reveals that police came on 27.06.2012 and not on the next day. No benefit can Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 63 be derived by the appellant from this contradiction in the testimonies of PW-5 and PW-7.
At night time, nobody else could see the occurrence. Only Jasmeen Kaur (PW-5) who is a stamped witness had witnessed the entire occurrence. She is a reliable witness and has no reason whatsoever to falsely implicate or involve the appellant. Immediately after the occurrence, she narrated the occurrence to Rajinder Pal Singh (PW-14) who is a Beldar of the Irrigation Department and was present at the canal at 10.00 p.m. on the date of the incident ie. on 26.06.2012. She (PW-5) informed Rajinder Pal Singh (PW-
14) that Khushwinder Singh (appellant) pushed her, her father and her children in the canal while they were brought there for offering 'dhala'. She further informed PW-14 that she rescued herself with the help of stairs which she was able to catch hold. She requested PW-14 to search for her children. Rajinder Pal Singh (PW-14) corroborates the fact as to what was stated by Jasmeen Kaur, complainant (PW-5). His (PW-14) deposition during cross examination could not be discredited. This evidence is relevant under Section 6 of the Evidence Act that excludes the rule of hearsay on the principle of res gestae. Therefore, the deposition of Rajinder Pal Singh (PW-14) can not be ruled out of consideration on the ground that it is hearsay evidence. So, the evidence of Rajinder Pal Singh (PW-14) is relevant and it corroborates the testimony of Jasmeen Kaur (PW-5). Besides, the evidence of Jasmeen Kaur (PW-5) about Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 64 the appellant being last seen with three of the deceased together is corroborated by the testimony of Jang Bahadur (PW-8) who is an agriculturist and Ex- Sarpanch of village Mukandpur where Jasmeen Kaur, complainant (PW-5) and her family were residing. He (PW-8) inter alia deposed that on 25.06.2012 at 06:00 p.m, he was going towards High School of village Mukandpur and he saw a white Maruti car belonging to appellant bearing No. PB-10AM-9371 parked outside the house of Gurmail Singh (deceased) and when he returned after 15-20 minutes, he noticed that the car was not there. On 26.06.2012, he again saw the car of the appellant parked in front of the house of Gurmail Singh at about 11:00/11:30 a.m and then around 06:00/06:30 p.m, he found that car was not there and the house of Gurmail Singh was locked. It has also come in his (PW-8) testimony that on 26.06.2012, Jasmeen Kaur (PW-5) and other deceased were taken by the appellant in his car for offering 'dhala' in the canal and Jasmeen Kaur told him that the appellant had pushed her and Gurmail Singh in the canal and that she was able to catch hold of an iron ladder and come out of the canal.
It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shyamal Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal (2012) 7 SCC 646 that once the last seen theory comes into play, the onus was on the accused to explain as to what happened to the deceased after they were together seen alive. The accused had failed to render any explanation in this regard in the said case.
Amit Khanchi2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 65
In the present case also, the appellant has failed to explain the circumstances, by which the deceased Rupinder Singh @ Babu, Gurinder Singh and Paramjit Kaur who were with him and he had taken them in his car at 2.30 a.m. 26.6.2012, had left his company. He has given no explanation, therefore, he is responsible for crime of their murder by drowning them in the canal.
In Ramachami v. State represented by State Prosecutor 2009 (1) RCR (Criminal) 250, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the accused in the said case on the basis of last seen evidence. In the said case, the accused and deceased were employed in a hotel, where they both used to sleep. On the night of 03.02.1998, both were seen together and both slept in the hotel. Next morning the deceased was found murdered and the accused was found missing. It was held that he had been rightly convicted.
This Court in Amardeep v. State of Haryana 2013 (2) RCR (Criminal) 739 also convicted the accused solely on the basis of last seen evidence.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vithal Eknath Adilinge v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2009 SC 2067 upheld the conviction of the accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence of accused and deceased being last seen together.
The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 66 appellant in his statement under Section 313 CrPC was inimical to him as he was helping the brother of the complainant in an inter se property dispute between her and her brother Gurinder Singh @ Babu is also devoid of any merit. In fact it has been established that brother of the complainant namely Gurinder Singh @ Babu was taken by the appellant himself in his Maruti car at the time of the first incident for offering 'dhala'. He was last seen with the appellant. No evidence or material has been brought on record by the appellant regarding any inter se dispute between the complainant and Gurinder Singh @ Babu, brother of the complainant. Rather the position is that the entire family of the complainant were staying together at village Mukandpur and husband of the complainant was staying with the family of the complainant. Even Gurinder singh @ Babu was staying with them. Therefore, the question of the appellant helping Gurinder Singh @ Babu in an inter se family dispute does not arise. The case of the prosecution is partly based on the eye witness account of Jasmeen Kaur, complainant (PW-5) as also on circumstantial evidence and the evidence of last seen. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no eye witness account is and that circumstantial evidence does not the establish the guilt of the appellant is devoid of merit. The eye witness account clearly give a true account of the manner in which Jasmeen Kaur, herself was pushed in the canal so as to murder her but she survived. Her father Gurmail Singh was also pushed in the canal which fact Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 67 stands established by the deposition of Jasmeen Kaur, complainant herself. His dead body was also recovered and was subjected to post mortem examination. His post mortem report (Ex.P45) is on record which establishes that the cause of death as 'asphyxia' due to ante mortem drowning which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The chain of circumstances which include the last seen of the deceased with the appellant are so complete that there can be no doubt of any kind that it is the appellant who had committed the murders. The other contentions that the recovery of footwear was not compared with the other footwear of the deceased found from the bushes near the alleged place of recovery is not of much significance in view of the overwhelming other evidence and material on record. The contention that the appellant had mixed sleeping pills with the 'mishri' and made the deceased consumed the same was not proved in the autopsy report is also not such a factor or circumstance so as to dislodge the prosecution case. The contention that the recovery of medicine after lapse of many days from the car goes to show the false implication of the appellant is insignificant. There is other evidence to establish the guilt of the appellant and this discrepancy is not of any substantial affect so as to discredit the prosecution case. The contention that the place where liquor was purchased for consumption by Gurmail Singh father of the complainant has not been disclosed is also not of any significance. It has come on record that half bottle of liquor was obtained by the appellant Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 68 from village Nogawan. The contention that there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR inasmuch as the incident occurred at about 9.30 p.m. on 26.6.2012 while the FIR was recorded on 27.6.2012 after 11.30 a.m. is also in the facts and circumstances not of any significance. As has already been noticed, the complainant Jasmeen Kaur (PW-5) after the incident must have been in a state of shock and trauma and may be to the extent of being in a state of ruin and being run down that she was unable to comprehend the tragedy that had fallen on them. It is for this reason that the police did not record her statement in the evening and recorded it on the next day. In the circumstances, the delay in lodging the FIR is fully explained. It is well known that prompt lodging of a FIR is not an unmistakable guarantee of its truth and neither is delay to be construed as false. This depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, the delay that is there is of no affect and is inconsequential. The contention that supplementary statement of the complainant was later recorded regarding theft of money is without any proper investigation, is also inconsequential. It may be noticed that during the course of investigation, the fact that `37,00,000/- had been missing was noticed later and therefore supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded. This in no way would mean that there had been any improper investigation. The contention that the appellant had stolen the keys of the house of the complainant and that this being so there was no need for him to break the lock Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 69 to steal `37,00,000/- and to put it in his house to get the same recovered which makes the prosecution case false, is also devoid of any merit. It is to be noticed that Shamsher Singh SI (PW-7) the investigating officer in the case has inter alia stated that accused (appellant) after he was apprehended had disclosed that he was carrying a bunch of keys which he had stolen from the house of Gurmail Singh at Mukandpur and that he had stolen `36,70,000/- which he had concealed in a bag in an almirah of his house and he could get the same recovered. The disclosure statement Ex.P12 of the appellant was recorded. Therefore, the keys of the house which was stolen by the appellant from the house of Gurmail Singh and it is not that he was carrying the same. Besides, in pursuance of the disclosure statement (Ex.P12), currency notes were recovered vide recovery memo Ex.P13 and as already noticed currency notes of `36,70,000/- were recovered from the house of the appellant. The fact that the appellant had kept the amount in his house would be quite natural as he was to murder the entire family of the complainant and there would no no clue as to where the money had been kept. Besides, there may be no other place where the appellant could have kept the money. The recovery of the money itself goes to establish that the money had been kept by the appellant in his house. The contention that the disclosure statement made by the appellant cannot be used against him, it may appropriately be noticed that the statement which leads to the discovery of the fact for the first time by the police is admissible in Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 70 evidence against the appellant. The recovery of the money is a discovery of fact and to this extent the disclosure statement (Ex.P12) can be used against the appellant being admissible in evidence. However, the other aspects that he had taken the persons from their house and made them sit in the car and thrown them in the canal, would indeed not be admissible in evidence against him but in this regard there is other overwhelming evidence and even if this aspect of the disclosure statement regarding taking the persons in his car and throwing them in the canal is taken as inadmissible which in fact it is, even then there is sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the appellant. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there were number of material discrepancies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses regarding conduct of investigation as also of places of recoveries is equally devoid of merit. The learned counsel has not been able to point out any specific discrepancy which can be said to affect the prosecution case. Moreover, certain discrepancies while conducting investigation do normally occur but it is to be considered in the overall facts and circumstances as to whether the material and substantially affect the prosecution case. In the present case, as has already been noticed, there is evidence on record which goes to establish the prosecution case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. Therefore, the immaterial discrepancies are insignificant. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the charge of kidnapping is not proved against the appellant as the ingredients of Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 71 Section 364 IPC are not made out, is also devoid of merit. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the persons had accompanied the appellant with their own free will and without any force or threat. Section 364 IPC relates to kidnapping or abducting in order to murder. It is providing therein that whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be murdered or may be so disposed as to be put in danger of the murder shall be punished with imprisonment of life or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. Section 364 IPC therefore provides punishment for kidnapping or abducting a person. Section 362 IPC envisages that whoever by force, compels or by any deceitful means induces, any person to go from any place, is said to abduct that person. In the present case, the victims were induced by deceitful means by the appellant to go along with him and he had taken them with the intent to murder them, which he did. Illustration (b) to Section 364 IPC is as follows; "A forcibly carries or entices be away from his home in order that B may be murdered. A has committed the offence defined in this Section." In the present case the victims were indeed enticed by the appellant to go with him for making an offering of 'dhala' and he pushed them in the canal and committed their murder. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 364 IPC are clearly established and the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is devoid of merit.
We, therefore, find no merit in the contentions raised by the Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 72 learned counsel for the appellant and repel those. Learned trial Court rightly placed reliance upon the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and rightly came to the conclusion that the appellant committed offences punishable under Sections 364, 302, 307, 201 and 380 IPC.
There is, thus, no illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment holding the appellant guilty for commission of offences punishable under Sections 364, 307, 302, 201 and 380 IPC that is upheld and affirmed.
Learned counsel for the appellant then contended that the impugned order of sentence is quite harsh and, therefore, death sentence awarded to the appellant may be commuted to life imprisonment for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. She placed reliance on the case of Guddanti Narasimha Rao v. State of A.P and another 2011 (1) RCR (Criminal) 640 (SC) wherein, death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. In this judgment, the deceased and his two minor sons (aged 10 and 6 years) were burnt to death, while they were sleeping in the van.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State contended that the appellant is guilty of commission of murders of six innocent persons who were his own relatives, as also, he is guilty of attempting to kill his sister-in-law in a cold blooded murder, therefore, the death sentence awarded to him for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is liable to be upheld and affirmed, as the learned trial Court committed no illegality or impropriety Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 73 in rendering the impugned order of sentence.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties.
It is to be seen as to whether the present case falls within the category of rarest of rare cases. Learned counsel for the State has placed reliance on the case of Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab 1984 (2) RCR (Criminal) 412 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the death penalty may be imposed in the rarest of rare cases. It was also held that for imposition of death penalty, manner of commission of the murder, motive, abhorrent nature and magnitude of the crime, personality of victim of murder and circumstances of the offender have to be considered. It was also held that life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC 898, held that provision of death penalty as an alternative punishment for murder is not violative of Article 21. In this judgment "rarest of rare cases" formula for imposing death sentence in a murder case has been evolved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
In Machhi Singh's case (supra) it was held that magnitude of the crime and personality of the victim of murder have to be taken note of at the time of imposition of death sentence. It was held that when the crime is enormous in a proportion, for instance when multiple murders say of all or Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 74 almost all the members of a family or a large number of persons of a particular caste community, or locality are committed. In these circumstances, death sentence can be awarded. It was also held that when the victim of the murder is (a) an innocent child who could not have or has not provided even an excuse, much less a provocation, for murder (b) a helpless woman or a person rendered helpless by old age or infirmity (c) when the victim is a person vis-a-vis whom the murder is in a position of domination or trust (d) when the victim is a public figure generally loved and respected by the community for the services rendered by him and the murder is committed for political or similar reasons other than personal reasons. So, in such circumstances also, death sentence can be awarded.
In Machhi Singh's case (Supra), it was held that the guidelines indicated in the Bachan Singh's case (supra) will have to be applied to the facts on each individual cases, where the question of imposition of death sentences arises. It was held that the following proposition emerged from Bachan Singh's case(supra):-
It was held that in order to apply these guidelines inter alia, the following questions may be asked and answered:-
(a) Is there something uncommon about the crime which renders sentence of imprisonment for life inadequate and calls for a death sentence?
(b) Are the circumstances of the crime such that there is no Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 75 alternative but to impose death sentence even after according maximum weightage to the mitigating circumstances which speak in favour of the offender?
It was also held that if upon taking an overall global view of all the circumstances in the light of the aforesaid proposition and taking into account the answers to the questions posed here in above, the circumstances of the case are such that death sentence is warranted, the court would proceed to do so.
In the present case, Khushwinder Singh appellant was a relative of the deceased. He intended to kill all the family members, who were his relatives. The wife of the appellant and Jasmeen Kaur, complainant are cousins. Facts and circumstances of the case indicate that the appellant wanted to kill all the persons in order to grab `37,00,000/-, which was the sale price of land of husband of Jasmeen Kaur. If unfortunately, Jasmeen Kaur complainant had also died, in that event, for want of clue of the murderers, even the appellant may not have been caught and tried as an accused and in that event, he would have had the entire wealth of that family because of being in possession of the amount of `36,70,000/- which he had stolen from the house of the victims.
There are six murders in this case. Therefore, the crime is enormous in proportion. Even they are two innocent children who were aged less than ten years. They were incapable of causing any provocation to the appellant for commission of their murder. There was one woman who was of Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 76 old age. Appellant was in a position of domination over the deceased being their relative who trusted him in regard to whatever he said and asked them to do. It is a gravest case of extreme culpability. He is a person who cannot be trusted at all. His conduct is beyond reformation.
The circumstances indicate that his detention in jail through imprisonment for life may not mutate his criminal psyche. Greed and violence seem to be his motto in life. When he could not remain sincere to his own relatives, no other fellow citizen can expect sincerity from him.
Death sentence in view of Machhi Singh's case (supra) is an exception that must be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate punishment. Keeping in view the fact that the appellant by drowning caused the death of six innocent persons, therefore, imposition of life imprisonment upon him shall be an inadequate punishment. There is no mitigating circumstance in favour of the appellant.
Circumstances of the case in hand are such that death sentence is warranted in this case. Appellant killed Gurinder Singh @ Babu, Rupinder Singh, Paramjit Kaur, Gurmail Singh, Prabhsimran Kaur and Jaskirat Singh. It is his case that he has no enmity with the prosecution witnesses. Victims were helpless and could not defend themselves. There was no fault on their part. They were the members of family of Gurmail Singh. They never offended the appellant. His wife is niece of wife of Gurmail Singh, deceased, father of Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 77 Jasmeen Kaur complainant. All the family members had reposed confidence and trust in the appellant and did whatever he asked them to do. So much so, Gurmail Singh who is an 'amrit dhari' i.e. one who leads a pious life and abstains from liquor and is a vegetarian also consumed liquor on account of misrepresentation by the appellant that the 'baba' had said that in case Gurinder Singh alias Babu is to be cured from his drinking habits then Gurmail Singh would have to drink liquor. It is also to be noted that the crime is so severe in its enormity that all the witnesses have supported the prosecution case. Manjit Singh (PW-9), whose wife is the Sarpanch of village Nogawan and before whom the appellant made an extra judicial confession has clearly supported the prosecution case and there is no reason for him to make any false deposition against the appellant. Rajinder Pal Singh (PW-14) who is Regulation Beldar and an employee of the Irrigation Department has supported the prosecution case and deposed as to whatever Jasmeen Kaur, complainant (PW-5) had informed him immediately after she was able to save herself from drowning in the canal. Both the witnesses i.e. Manjit Singh (PW-9) and Rajinder Pal Singh (PW-14) are independent witnesses who are unconnected with the murder. The family of the appellant has not supported him in the case and he in his statement under Section 313 CrPC has inter alia stated that the police was threatening his family that he had thrown four members of the family of village Nogawan in the canal and the CBI would come to their house. It is further Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 78 stated that his family was also threatened that if they come in his defence they would be involved in the said case and regarding killing of four persons and in the present case. Therefore, none of his family members were willing to come in his defence. This in fact rather shows that even the family of the appellant is not coming forward to help him and the explanation that is given is not convincing. Learned counsel for the State though contended that the said statement in fact goes to show that the appellant has also been involved in a similar incident of throwing members of the family of village Nogawan in the canal in a similar manner, however, we are unable to take the said circumstance into consideration as that would be relating to the alleged previous bad character of the appellant which is not relevant in criminal trial in view of Section 54 of the Evidence Act. Nevertheless, the circumstance that the family of the appellant itself is not coming in his defence goes to show the heinousness of the crimes committed by the appellant. The appellant is, thus, guilty of commission of offences of heinous character to whom no leniency is liable to be shown. The case against appellant falls within the category of rarest of rare cases and the learned trial Court rightly held so and rightly sentenced him (to be hanged by neck till death). There is no ground to set aside the same. The impugned order of sentence, thus, is upheld and affirmed.
In a case where the offence of murder is held to be established, the question of payment of compensation is to be considered and determined. Amit Khanchi 2014.03.19 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court,Chandigarh MURDER REFERENCE NO.3 OF 2013 79 However, in the present case, since sentence of death imposed by the learned trial Court has been upheld, we are not going into the question of quantification of the amount of compensation payable to the legal representatives of the deceased, even, otherwise, are not identifiable from the record except for the complainant, who is wife of one of the deceased.
Resultantly, Criminal Appeal No. D-385-DB of 2013, titled Khushwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab is dismissed, while Murder Reference No. 3 of 2013, titled State of Punjab vs. Khushwinder Singh is allowed; death sentence awarded to Khushwinder Singh appellant by the learned trial Court is upheld and affirmed.
(S.S. Saron) (S.P. Bangarh)
Judge Judge
20.09.2013
mamta/amit
Amit Khanchi
2014.03.19 16:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court,Chandigarh