Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 17 January, 2019
Author: Harinder Singh Sidhu
Bench: Harinder Singh Sidhu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. A. No. D-121-DB of 2011 ( O&M )
Reserved on : 15.01.2019
Date of decision : 17.01.2019
Mohinder Singh
.... Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
.... Respondents
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU
Present : Mr. H.S. Bhullar, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. S.P.S. Tinna, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
-.-.
Rajiv Sharma, J.
1. This appeal is instituted against judgment dated 14.01.2011 and order dated 18.01.2011, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, in Sessions Case No. 65 dated 18.02.2010, whereby appellant Mohinder Singh was charged with and tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. He was convicted and sentenced under Section 302 IPC to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of ` 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 2 ½ years.
2. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that PW.2 Charanjit Kaur had filed a complaint before the police on 24.11.2009 vide Ex.P1 to the 1 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2019 10:18:29 ::: Crl. A. No. D-121-DB of 2011 -2- effect that she was residing with her father Mohinder Singh (accused). He was alcoholic. He demanded ` 1,500/- from her. However, she refused. Her father sold pedestal fan and consumed liquor. At about 3.00/4.00 PM, she went in the neighbourhood. Her father was in the house. Her husband had gone outside for work. Her daughter Manpreet Kaur had gone to attend her tuition. When she came after 15-20 minutes, she found that her son Harpreet Singh was not present in the house. Her father was also not there. However, she found her son drowned in the water tank in the house. The body was sent for post-mortem examination. The challan was put up after completion of all the codal formalities.
3. The prosecution has examined ten witnesses in support of its case. The accused was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He has denied the case of the prosecution. He was convicted and sentenced, as noticed above. Hence, the present appeal.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant vehemently argued that the prosecutoin has failed to prove its case against the appellant. Learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and supported the judgment and order of the learned Cour below.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgment and record very carefully.
6. PW1 Gurmail Kaur testified that on 24.11.2009 at 4.00 PM, complainant Charanjit Kaur came to her. They discussed about the household affairs. She enquired about her health. She did not talk any thing about the drinking habit of her father. She was declared hostile and was 2 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2019 10:18:30 ::: Crl. A. No. D-121-DB of 2011 -3- cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. She denied her statement Mark A. She denied that on 24.11.2009 at about 4.00 PM, complainant Charanjit Kaur came to her and told her that her father was demanding ` 1,500/- from her. She also denied that Charanjit Kaur told her that her father had sold pedestal fan. She denied the suggestion that she resiled from her previous statement due to compromise. The Court had also asked her questions, but she reiterated that she had made the statement voluntarily.
7. PW.2 Charanjit Kaur is the complainant. Accoding to her, she had two children i.e. Daughter Amanpreet Kaur and son Harpreet Singh (since deceased). She was residing in the house of her in-laws. However, after the death of her brother, she started living in her paternal home with her father. Her father used to take liquor occasionally. However, he was not a drunkard. Her father did not demand money from her to fulfill his lust of liquor. She was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. She identified her signatures on Ex.P1. According to her, these were taken by the police on blank papers. She had not stated before the police that her father was drunkard. When she came back to her house after 15-20 minutes, her father was not present in the house. She removed lid of water tank and saw her son drowned in the water tank. She raised alarm. Many people gathered on the spot. She denied the suggestion that she resiled from her statement being won over by the accused. She reiterated that her statement in the court was voluntary.
8. PW.3 Jaswinder Singh is the husband of PW.2 Charanjit Kaur. Accoding to him, his father-in-law was a good man. He used to take liquor occasionally. On 24.11.2009 at about 4.30 PM, his wife sent him a message 3 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2019 10:18:30 ::: Crl. A. No. D-121-DB of 2011 -4- that their son was lying unconscious and some people were trying to put water out of his stomach. His wife had not informed him that his father-in- law had drowned his son Harpreet Singh. He was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. He deposed in cross- examination that the police had obtained signatures of his wife on a blank paper. He denied the statement Mark B. He was also put questions by the Court. According to him, he made the statement in the court voluntarily.
9. PW.4 SI Jaswinder Singh deposed that he was on patrol duty on 24.11.2009. Charanjit Kaur came at the spot. Her statement Ex.P1 was recorded. Same was sent to the Police Station. FIR Ex.PW4/B was registered. He visited the spot. The dead body was identified by Jagsir Singh and Jaswinder Singh. He inspected the place of occurrence. Water tank of plastic with the capacity of 300 liters was taken into police possession. Dead body was also taken into possession. The accused was arrested.
10. PW.5 Babu Singh deposed that he knew accused Mohinder Singh. On 25.11.2009 in the morning at about 7 AM, Mohinder Singh came to his house. He made extra-judicial confession before him that he had committed mistake by killing his grand-son Harpreet Singh by drowning him in water tank. He requested him to produce him before the police. In the cross-examination, he deposed that his house was at a distance of 400 yards from the house of accused Mohinder Singh. The police did not obtain his signatures on any of the documents. He was neither a Municipal Commissioner nor a Sarpanch of Lumber.
11. PW.8 Harjinder Kaur deposed that Charanjit Kaur was residing with her father Mohinder Singh. Charanjit Kaur had two children, i.e. one 4 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2019 10:18:30 ::: Crl. A. No. D-121-DB of 2011 -5- son and one daughter. Her son was aged about 1 ½ years. Daughter was 6 years old at the time of occurrence. On 24.11.2009 at about 4 PM, she had gone to take her daughter, who was studying at Nihal Singh Wala. When she was standing to receive her daughter, Charanjit Kaur went out of her house. Thereafter, Mohinder Singh lifted the son of Charanjit Kaur and came out of the house. He looked here and there and went back inside the house. After 10- 15 minutes, Mohinder Singh again came out of his house. He passed by her side. Nephews of Mohinder Singh, namely Jagsir Singh Seera and Mangu, came there. Charanjit Kaur came back to her house after 10 minutes. In her cross-examination, she deposed that date of birth of her daughter was 09.02.2004. She was a student of U.K.G./L.K.G. at the time of occurrence in Royal Convent School at Nihal Singh Wala. Her school used to start at 9.00 AM. The school used to be closed at 3.30 PM. Her daughter used to go to school at 8.00 AM and come back at 4.15 PM.
12. PW.9 SI Tara Chand deposed that on 24.11.2009, they were present at the gate of Baba Nand Singh, Badhni Kalan, where Charanjit Kaur got recorded her statemen Ex.P1.
13. The post-mortem was conducted by PW.6 Dr. Navraj Singh. The cause of death was due to asphyxia caused by drowning which was ante-mortem and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
14. The case of the prosecution is that Charanjit Kaur (PW.2) was residing with her father. Her father was drunkard. He used to demand money from the complainant. The complainant had gone out of her house to see Gurmail Kaur (PW.1). When she came back, she found her son killed. PW.1 Gurmail Kaur has not supported the case of the prosecution. She was 5 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2019 10:18:30 ::: Crl. A. No. D-121-DB of 2011 -6- declared hostile. Similarly, PW.2 Charanjit Kaur (complainant) was also declared hostile. She deposed that her signatures were obtained by the police on blank papers. She was put Court Questions. PW.1 Gurmail Kaur and PW.2 Charanjit Kaur deposed that they had made statement in the Court voluntarily. Similarly, PW.3 Jaswinder Singh, father of the deceased, was also declared hostile. According to him, signatures of his wife were obtained on a blank paper. He had made statement before the Court voluntarily.
15. PW.5 Babu Singh deposed that the appellant came to him on 25.11.2009 and made an extra-judicial confession before him. In cross- examination, he has specifically deposed that he was neither a Municipal Commissioner nor a Sarpanch or Lumber. He was not a man of authority. The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence and is required to be corroborated.
16. PW.8 Harjinder Kaur has deposed that she had seen the appellant going out and coming inside the house and then passing by her side. She has deposed that she was standing in passage of Mohinder Singh's house to receive her daughter. Her daughter was born on 09.02.2004. She was a student of U.K.G./L.K.G and the Court takes judicial note of the fact that a student of U.K.G./L.K.G usually remains in shcool for two/three hours. It is not believable that she will go to school at 8 AM and come back at 4 PM.
17. The motive attributed to the appellant is that Charanjit Kaur's family could have grabbed the land. According to PW.8 Harjinder Kaur, the appellant owned 1 ½ acres of land and two shops. However, she has not stated so in her statement Ex.D1, which is prior in time. It is also not 6 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2019 10:18:30 ::: Crl. A. No. D-121-DB of 2011 -7- believable as to why PW.2 Charanjit Kaur left the toddler alone in the house. She could have easily taken away her baby with her to the house of PW.1 Gurmail Kaur.
18. Three material witnesses, namely PW.1 Gurmail Kaur, PW.2 Charanjit Kaur, PW.3 Jaswinder Singh, were declared hostile. They have not supported the case of the prosecution on any material fact. There is wholesome retraction of these witnesses from their previous statements. The extra-judicial confession also does not inspire confidence. PW.5 Babu Singh himself has admitted that he was not a man of authority.
19. The learned trial Court has erred in law and facts while convicting the appellant. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The appeallant is acquitted of the charge framed against him. The judgment dated 14.01.2011 and order dated 18.01.2011 are set aside. The appeallant be released forthwithy. The Registry is directed to prepare the release warrants.
( RAJIV SHARMA )
JUDGE
January 17, 2019 ( HARINDER SINGH SIDHU )
ndj JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2019 10:18:30 :::