Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hakam Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab on 17 August, 2011
Author: Satish Kumar Mittal
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal
Criminal Appeal No. 175-DB of 2006 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. 175-DB of 2006
DATE OF DECISION: 17.8.2011
***
Hakam Singh & Ors.
..APPELLANTS
VS.
State of Punjab
..RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,
Present:- Mr. J.S. Bedi, Advocate
for the appellants.
Ms. Gurveen H. Singh, Addl. A.G. Punjab.
***
ARVIND KUMAR, J.
The appellants have been convicted under Sections 302 read with Section 149 IPC, 450 and 148 IPC, for having committed the murder of Gurdev Kaur and Sarabjit Kaur; committing the offence of criminal trespass and for forming unlawful assembly. Under the first head, they have been awarded life sentence and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each for the murder of Gurdev Kaur and Sarabjit Kaur and in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for one year was awarded; under the second head they have been awarded rigorous imprisonment for eight years with a fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default thereof, the defaulter was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year and under the last head rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.1000/- each was imposed, in default of which further rigorous imprisonment for three months was awarded. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently The facts of the case in nutshell are that on 11.8.1997 at about 10:00 a.m. Karamjit Kaur wife of Gura Singh got recorded her statement (Ex.PH) apprising the police about the murder of her mother Gurdev Kaur Criminal Appeal No. 175-DB of 2006 2 and niece Sarabjit Kaur on the night intervening 10/11.8.1997 by some unknown persons. In the statement, she also informed the police that her brother Balbir Singh, his wife Jasvir Kaur and other children had gone to Mata Naina Devi to pay obeisance while mother Gurdev Kaur and daughters Sarabjit Kaur and Veerpal Kaur were in the house, when Gurdev Kaur and Sarabjit Kaur were murdered.
On the basis of aforesaid statement, police registered the case and investigated upon. SI Joginder Singh rushed to the place of occurrence and carried out the inquest proceedings on the dead bodies of Gurdev Kaur and Sarabjit Kaur. He sent the dead bodies for post-mortem examination and also lifted the earth from the spot. The clothes etc. of the dead bodies were also taken into police possession. The police stated to have remained clueless about the culprits involved in the murder. On the other hand, Balbir Singh, the son and father respectively of deceased Gurdev Kaur and Sarabjit Kaur filed Crl. Writ Petition No. 1347 of 1997 in September, 1997 and it has been alleged therein that the police is not adopting satisfactory line of investigation. According to the petitioner the occurrence was witnessed by his daughter Veerpal Kaur, aged about 8 years, who told him that their relatives Hakam Singh, Gurmeet Singh, Darshan Singh, Amar Singh and Nasib Kaur murdered both Gurdev Kaur and Sarabjit Kaur, but the police is not recording her statement, rather the accused got lodged the FIR after deceiving and bringing his sister Karamjit Kaur from her in-laws village Saner, Tehsil Zira, District Ferozepur, who is illiterate lady. It has further been alleged that even Gurdev Kaur and Sarabjit Kaur were cremated, in a haste, without waiting for their return from temple. The petitioner further alleged that despite informing all these things to the police, they did not take any action against the culprits whereas he had specifically disclosed about the identity of those persons to the police. In that case, this Court, during the hearing of the petition directed DSP, Moga to supervise the investigation of the case and obtain day-to-day report from the investigating officer. However, lateron, on an undertaking given by the learned State counsel to record the statement of petitioner Balbir Singh, the said petition was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the police to record the statement of Balbir Singh within two weeks. It emerges out from the records that dis-satisfied with the inaction of the police, petitioner Balbir Singh filed Criminal Appeal No. 175-DB of 2006 3 Contempt petition No.487 of 2001 and later filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court bearing Crl. Misc. No. 18958-M of 2001, wherein he questioned the action of the police in submitting the "untrace report" in the case and requested for entrusting the investigation of the case to the CBI or any other State agency. The said petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 30.1.2002 whereby ADGP(Crimes) was directed to look into the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law within six months. Consequently, the enquiry was entrusted to Jasdeep Singh, DSP (Crimes), who conducted the enquiry into the matter and vide report dated 19.7.2002 found the involvement of Hakam Singh, his wife Nasib Kaur(real sister of deceased Gurdev Kaur) and their sons Gurmeet Singh, Darshan Singh and Amar Singh in the murder of Gurdev Kaur and Sarabjit Kaur as a revenge. After this enquiry/ investigation, the police arrested the appellants and presented the challan for their trial, while co-accused Naseeb Kaur @ Seebo was declared proclaimed offender.
The appellants were charge-sheeted under Sections 302/149 for the murder of Gurdev Kaur, u/s 302/149 for committing the murder of Sarabjit Kaur and under Sections 450 and 148 IPC.
During trial, the prosecution examined PW1 Dr. Yashpal, who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead bodies of Gurdev Kaur and Sarabjit Kaur. During post-mortem examination, conducted on 11.8.1997 at about 5:25 p.m. he found following injuries on the dead body of Sarabjit Kaur, aged about 13 years:-
"1. Incised wound of 18 x 4 cm on the right side of face and nose, starting from the left side of nose just below the lower eyelid extending to the right ear. Clotted blood was present in the skin. Subcutaneous tissue and muscle nasal bone and right side of maxilla were fractured. Through the maxilary sinus and roof the mouth the wounds extends upto the pharynx.
2. Incised wound of 7.5 x 3 cms on the right side of face starting near the right angle of the mouth to the temporo mandible joint. Clotted blood was present.Criminal Appeal No. 175-DB of 2006 4
Mandible was fractured.
3. Incised wound 10 x 3 cms present on the right mandibular region starting 2 cm below the lower lip and 1.5 cm from the midline. Clotted blood was present. Underlying mandible was fractured.
4. Incised wound of 9 x 4 cm present on the front in the middle of the neck. Clotted blood was present in the skin, subcutaneous tissue and muscle. The wound is going deep cutting the larynx oesophagus carotid vessels on the both sides extending upto the vertebral column.
5. Incised wound of 3 x 1.5 cm on the front of left shoulder joint. Clotted blood was present in the skin subcutaneous tissue and muscle.
6. Incised wound of 5 x 2.5 cm on the front of left side of the chest .2 cm from the midline and 5 cm below the sternal notch. The clotted blood was present in the skin, subcutaneous tissue and muscle. Underlying ribs was fractured.
7. Incised wound of 6 x 2.5 cm on the dorsum of left hand starting from the wrist joint. Clotted blood was present. Underlying second and third metacarpals were fractured."
In his opinion the death had occurred on account of shock and haemorrhage as a result of aforesaid injuries, which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The probable time that elapsed between death and injuries were instantaneous and between death and post-mortem was 4 to 24 hours.
Likewise, the following injuries were noticed during the post-
Criminal Appeal No. 175-DB of 2006 5mortem examination of Gurdev Kaur, on the same day, at about 5:45 p.m.:-
1. Incised wound of 10 cm x 4 cm on the dorsum of the right hand starting from the wrist joint to the middle finger. Clotted blood was present in the skin, subcutaneous tissue and muscle. Third and fourth metacarpals were fractured.
2. Incised wound of 7 cm x 3 cm on the front of right forearm and wrist joint. Clotted blood was present in the skin, subcutaneous tissue and muscle.
3. Incised wound of 15 cm x 6 cm on the front of right shoulder joint and upper arm. Clotted blood was present in the skin, subcutaneous tissue and muscle.
Underlying humerus was fractured.
4. Incised wound of 8 cm x 3 cm present on the front of neck in its lower half. Clotted blood was present.
Underlying trachea oesophagus and carotid vessels were cut.
5. Incised wound of 18 cm x 9.5 cm present on the face i.e. both left and right side of face 3 cm below the base of the nose. Clotted blood was present in the skin, subcutaneous tissue and muscle. The wound is going deep after fracturing the maxilla on both sides through axilla sinuses extends towards the angle of mandible. Mandible on the right side was also fracture.
In his opinion the death had occurred on account of shock and haemorrhage as a result of aforesaid injuries, which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The probable time that elapsed between death and injuries were instantaneous and between death and post-mortem was 4 to 24 hours.
Criminal Appeal No. 175-DB of 2006 6PW2 Gursewak Singh Draftsman prepared the scaled site plan (Ex.PE) of the place of occurrence.
PW3 HC Gurpreet Singh tendered his affidavit (Ex.PF) in the evidence.
PW4 Ms. Veerpal Kaur, grand-daughter and sister respectively of the deceased Gurdev Kaur and Sarabjit Kaur. She statedly witnessed the whole occurrence with her eyes and deposed about the manner in which the appellants murdered her grand-mother and sister.
PW5 Const. Darshan Singh tendered his affidavit (Ex.PG) in the evidence.
PW6 Ms. Karamjit Kaur was the author of the FIR. She deposed that her mother Gurdev Kaur was residing with her brother Balbir Singh. About 7 years ago his brother along with his wife and some children had gone to pay obeisance at Naina Devi, leaving behind his two daughters namely Sarabjit Kaur and Veerpal Kaur in the company of their grand- mother Gurdev Kaur. She stated that Hakam Singh is her uncle while Darshan Singh, Gurmeet Singh and Pamma Singh @ Amar Singh are her cousin. Darshan Singh and Pamma Singh had come to her in village Saner and informed her about the ill-health of her mother, on which she and her husband came to her parental house where she saw Gurdev kaur and Sarabjit Kaur lying dead on separate cots. However, Veerpal was not noticed at the spot. Then she got the case registered with the police. However, later Veerpal Kaur told her that Gurdev Kaur and Sarabjit Kaur were murdered by Hakam Singh, his wife Nasib Kaur and sons Gurmeet Singh, Darshan Singh and Amar Singh.
PW7 Const. Chamkaur Singh tendered affidavit (Ex.PI) in his evidence.
PW8 ASI Jagjit Singh had recorded the statements of Veerpal Kaur and Karamjit Kaur under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. on 28.2.2003 and he arrested Hakam Singh and Gurmeet Singh.
PW9 Inspector Joginder Singh deposed about the formal investigation carried out by him after the registration of the case on the basis of statement made by Karamjit Kaur. According to him, the police kept on investigating the case but no clue was found and ultimately on 29.1.2000 untraced report in the case was prepared.
Criminal Appeal No. 175-DB of 2006 7PW10 HC Piara Singh tendered his affidavit(Ex.PU) in the evidence.
PW11 SI Harinder Singh had arrested Darshan Singh @ Kala and Amar Singh @ Pamma on 23.5.2003, which were produced before him by Naib Singh and later prepared the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.
PW12 DSP Jasdeep Singh conducted the enquiry in the case after the directions issued by this Court in Crl. Misc. No. 18958-M of 2001 and during enquiry he recorded the statements of various witnesses and proved his enquiry report as Ex.PW.
Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed by the learned P.P. The accused-appellants when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. pleaded false implication in the case. According to them Jasvir Kaur, wife of Balbir Singh were having illicit relations with one Beera Dhillon son of Hari Singh Dhillon and since Gurdev Kaur was opposing their relations, therefore, they, in connivance with each other, murdered Gurdev Kaur. According to them Veerpal Kaur was not present at the time of occurrence and they were falsely implicated in the case.
They got examined HC Gurprit Singh as DW1, SP(D) Surjit Singh as DW2 and Surjit Singh son of Chanan Singh as DW3 and also tendered certain documents in their defence evidence.
After analyzing the evidence adduced by the prosecution, learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 6.2.2006 held the appellants guilty for the charged offence and vide order dated 9.2.2006 sentenced them in the manner indicated above.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have also gone through the record carefully.
Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that PW 4 Ms. Veerpal Kaur, who is sister of the deceased Sarabjit Kaur and grand- daughter of Gurdev Kaur, has purportedly been produced as an eye-witness of the occurrence, while at the time of lodging of the FIR or for sometime later, it was not the case of the prosecution that she had witnessed the occurrence. It is only after many days of the occurrence, it was claimed by Balbir Singh that Veerpal Kaur had witnessed the appellants and Nasib Kaur committing the murder of Sarabjit Kaur and Gurdev Kaur. Had she Criminal Appeal No. 175-DB of 2006 8 been present there and witnessed the occurrence, she promptly had raised the accusing finger upon the appellants, if they infact had participated in the offence. It has further been contended that she was merely 7 years of age at the time of occurrence and her statement was recorded in the Court on 25.10.2004 i.e. after more that seven years of alleged occurrence and the manner in which she deposed clearly reveals that she has only toed the version of Balbir Singh, tutored to her, to name the appellants as the culprits. Learned counsel for the appellants has further laid stress on the fact that that this witness has made number of improvements in her statement given in the Court in comparison to what she had stated in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement. It has further been contended by learned counsel for the appellants that except the solitary statement of PW4 Ms. Veerpal Kaur, there is nothing on record to connect the appellants with the alleged offence and once her statement, for the aforesaid reasons, is excluded from the zone of consideration, there remains nothing proving the involvement of the appellants in the alleged crime.
The arguments have been scanned.
It is a matter of record that whole case of the prosecution hinges upon the testimony of PW4 Ms. Veerpal Kaur. She has been examined as an eye-witness of the occurrence. It is also not in dispute that she was about 7 years of age at the time of occurrence that took place on the night intervening 10/11.8.1997. In this situation, the question arises is as to whether a child witness can be relied upon to base the conviction of the appellants or not? The answer, which is in positive, finds its way in number of judicial pronouncements delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court.
In State of U.P. Vs. Krishna Master 2010(3) RCR(Crl.) 843, the High Court disbelieved the statement of six years old child of family of victims, however, the Hon'ble Apex Court over-ruled the findings of the High Court and held as under:-
"13. The abovestated reasons are the only grounds on which testimony of witness Madan Lal is disbelieved by the High Court. This Court fails to understand as to on what principle and on which experience in real life, the Criminal Appeal No. 175-DB of 2006 9 High Court made a sweeping observation that it is inconceivable that a child of Madan Lal"s understanding would be able to recapitulate facts in his memory witnessed by him long ago"
The Hon'ble Court further held that :-
"There is no principle of law known to this Court that it is inconceivable that a child of tender age would not be able to recapitulate facts in his memory witnessed by him long ago. This witness has claimed on oath before the Court that he had seen five members of his family being ruthlessly killed by the respondents by firing gun shots. When a child of tender age witnesses gruesome murder of his father, mother, brothers etc. he is not likely to forget the incident for his whole life and would certainly recapitulate facts in his memory when asked about the same at any point of time, notwithstanding the gap of about ten years between the incident and recording of his evidence. This Court is of the firm opinion that it would be doing injustice to a child witness possessing sharp memory to say that it is inconceivable for him to recapitulate facts in his memory witnessed by him long ago. A child of tender age is always receptive to abnormal events which take place in its life and would never forget those events for the rest of his life. The child would be able to recapitulate correctly and exactly when asked about the same in future. Therefore, the spacious ground on which the reliable testimony of PW2, Madan Lal came to be disbelieved can hardly be affirmed by this Court."
In the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Shantappa Madivalappa Galapuji &Ors. AIR 2009 SC 2144, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
Criminal Appeal No. 175-DB of 2006 10"The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short "the Evidence Act") does not prescribe any particular age as a determinative factor to treat a witness to be a competent one. On the contrary, Section 118 of the Evidence Act envisages that all persons shall be competent to testify, unless the court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them or from giving rational answers to these questions, because of tender years, extreme old age, disease - whether of mind, or any other cause of the same kind. A child of tender age can be allowed to testify if he has intellectual capacity to understand questions and give rational answers thereto. This position was concisely stated by Brewer, J., in Wheeler v. United States (159 US 523). The evidence of a child witness is not required to be rejected per se, but the court as a rule of prudence considers such evidence with close scrutiny and only on being convinced about the quality thereof and reliability can record conviction, based thereon. [See Suryanarayana v. State of Karnataka (2001 (9) SCC 129)]"
In case of Dattu Ram Rao & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra 1997(5) SCC 341, it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, as follows:-
"A child witness if found competent to depose to the facts and reliable one such evidence could be the basis of conviction. In other words even in the absence of oath the evidence of a child witness can be considered under Section 118 of the Evidence Act provided that such witness is able to understand the questions and able to give rational answers thereof. The evidence of a child witness and credibility thereof would depend upon the circumstances of each case. The only precaution which the court should bear in mind while assessing the evidence of a child witness is that the witness must be a Criminal Appeal No. 175-DB of 2006 11 reliable one and his/her demeanour must be like any other competent witness and there is no likelihood of being tutored"
In the case of Dalbir Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Haryana 2003(1) RCR(Crl.) 727, the Division Bench of this Court, while relying upon the testimony of a child witness of 8 years age, held as under:-
"18. The law regarding the testimony of a child witness is well settled. A conviction can be based on the basis of testimony of a child witness. His testimony can be relied on even in the absence of oath, if he understood nature of the questions and gave rational answers thereof. The only precaution, which the Court should bear in mind while assessing the evidence of a child witness is that the witness must be reliable and his or her demeanour must be like any other competent witness and there is no likelihood of being tutored. There is no rule or practice that in very case the evidence of such a witness be corroborated before the conviction can be allowed to stand, but as a rule of prudence the court always finds it desirable to have the corroboration to such evidence from other dependable evidence on record. Before recording the statement of a child witness, the learned trial Court has to satisfy itself that the witness was capable to depose. The testimony of a child witness cannot be rejected simply on the ground that because of his tender age, he was likely to be tutored. It is not the law that if a witness is child, his evidence shall be rejected even if it is found reliable. The law is that evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully and with greater circumspection because a child is susceptible to be awayed by what others tell him."Criminal Appeal No. 175-DB of 2006 12
Thus, it is clear that there is no legal impediment in believing the testimony of a child witness, which otherwise is found reliable, subject to certain safeguards viz. the Court while assessing the evidence of a child witness must satisfy that the witness was capable to depose and his or her demeanour must be like any other competent witness and there is no likelihood of being tutored. The decision on the question whether the child witness has sufficient intelligence primarily rests with the trial Judge who notices his manners, his apparent possession or lack of intelligence, and the said Judge may resort to any examination which will tend to disclose his capacity and intelligence as well as his understanding of the obligation of an oath. After careful scrutiny of the evidence of child witness the court comes to the conclusion that there is an impress of truth in it, there is no obstacle in the way of accepting the evidence of a child witness. (See Golla Yelugu Govindu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2008(4) SCALE 569) The perusal of testimony of PW4 Veerpal Kaur reveals that prior to recording her statement, the learned Judge put certain questions to her and after receiving the answers thereto, he came to the conclusion that the witness is competent to depose on oath and thus, satisfying himself about the mental development of the child, he proceeded to record her statement, that too after administering her oath. In her statement PW4 stated as to what had happened on the fateful night of 10.8.1997. According to this witness, her grandmother Gurdev Kaur, sister Sarabjit Kaur and she herself were present in the house. At about 9/10:00 p.m. they all were of different cots in the courtyard and they both sisters were studying; later they laid for sleeping though were still awaken. Her grandmother Gurdev Kaur heard the noise and asked from where the noise had come. In the meantime five persons namely Hakam Singh, Kala @ Darshan Singh, Pamma @ Amar Singh, Geet @ Gurmeet Singh and Naib Kaur came by side of our cots, armed with "dahs",out of whom Geet @ Gurmeet Singh had entered the house by scaling the wall and opened the gate. She identified them and stated that Nasib Kaur(since P.O.) all are present in the Court. Firstly, Hakam Singh and Kala murdered her grandmother Gurdev Kaur by giving blows with dahs; her sister Sarabjit Kaur asked by saying Gurmeet uncle and Hakam grandfather you should not kill our grand mother. On this Gurmeet Singh and Pamma killed her sister Sarabjit Kaur by giving dah Criminal Appeal No. 175-DB of 2006 13 blows; Nasib Kaur also gave two dah blows held by her to each of Gurdev Kaur and Sarabjit Kaur. Thereafter, the accused persons after washing off with hands, dahs and clothes went away therefrom. This witness was subjected to lengthy cross-examination at the hands of counsel for the accused but nothing favourable to them could be elicited out therefrom. Apparently, she had been confronted at many times with her earlier statement(Ex.DA) recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which according to learned counsel for the appellants, is outcome of tutoring made to her, but in our opinion the same is not of any importance, especially when, the facts referred to in the earlier part of judgment, clearly depicts the callous attitude of the police in investigating the matter, which made Balbir Singh to run from pillar to post and later to lose his life and it is only constrained with the directions issued by this Court, they bothered to examine Veerpal Kaur by means of Section 161 Cr.P.C. and recorded her statement in a half-hearted manner. Any how, the crux of her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the version given by her in the Court, remains the same i.e. the identification of the appellants as the culprits, who murdered her grand-mother and sister within her sight. Though learned counsel for the appellants has unsuccessfully referred to certain contradictions in her testimony, but we are of the opinion that the contradictions in the evidence of a child witness are of trivial nature and do not effect the substratum of the case. Her presence in the house cannot be doubted in any way, especially when the occurrence took place during night. Her statement is concise, specific and is giving vivid testimony of incident. The same is neither embellished nor embroidered. It is no doubt true that when the FIR of the case was lodged there was no mention of the fact that Veerpal Kaur had witnessed the occurrence, but it has come on record that Veerpal Kaur had not met her aunt Karamjit Kaur, on the basis of whose statement, the present case was registered, rather Nasib Kaur (since P.O.) intercepted her (Veerpal Kaur) and did not allow her to disclose anything to anyone present there. One can understand the trauma and agony which she underwent after seeing the murder of her grand-mother and sister and especially when the caring hands of her mother and father were not on her head since they had gone to Naina Devi to pay obeisance and came back on the night of 12.8.1997. Not only this, the facts of the case are indicative Criminal Appeal No. 175-DB of 2006 14 of the fact that the appellants were having the privilege of the shelter being given to them by the police. Therefore, the tainted investigation conducted by the police cannot be and should not be used to confront PW Veerpal Kaur, who otherwise is found to have given clear version of the occurrence, without there being any trace of tutoring.
It is relevant to mention here that Nasib Kaur (since PO) and deceased Gurdev Kaur were real sisters and they were married to Hakam Singh and Gurjant Singh respectively, the real brothers. Appellants Gurmeet Singh, Darshan Singh and Amar Singh are the sons of Nasib Kaur and Hakam Singh while PW Veerpal Kaur is the daughter of Balbir Singh, the son of Gurdev Kaur. In this view of the relationship amongst the parties, the appellants were well known to PW Veerpal Kaur and she has identified all of them specifically as the assailants who brutally murdered her grandmother and sister and it cannot be said to be a case of mistaken identity. As discussed above, her presence at the dead of the night was quite natural, as held in the case of Dattu Rama Rao (supra) that there is no rule or practice that in every case the evidence of such a witness be corroborated before a conviction can be allowed to stand, but the corroboration is sometime desirable as a rule of prudence only.
The enquiry into the matter was conducted by PW12 DSP Jasdeep Singh and it has come out therefrom that the appellants were nursing grudge against Gurdev Kaur as they doubted the hand of Gurdev Kaur in the death of Swaran Singh, elder son of Hakam Singh, by administering something like "Tawit" (black magic). PW Veerpal Kaur had stated about the desire of the accused to occupy their land and to fulfill their lust, the murder of Gurdev Kaur and Sarabjit Kaur. In respect of this contradictory version, it has been argued that even no motive have been established by the prosecution. It cannot be forgotten the legal position that the absence of evidence of motive does not weaken the prosecution case though existence of the motive may strengthen the same. In the instant case, it appears that a tussle was going on between the parties, which has resulted into the murder of aforesaid persons. May be the intention of the accused was to kill Gurdev Kaur alone, but as per PW Veerpal Kaur her sister Sarabjit Kaur, when intervened, she was also beaten up by the accused. Sarabjit Kaur was about 14 years of age at the time of occurrence and her Criminal Appeal No. 175-DB of 2006 15 intervention was very much natural and consequently she had fallen prey to the evil designs of the appellants, but Veerpal Kaur could not, may be due to her tender age and had kept mum. It is generally seen that sometimes motive is clear and can be proved and sometimes the motive is shrouded in mystery and it is very difficult to locate the same. However, so long as other evidence remain convincing and not open to reasonable doubt, the conviction may well be based on this.
Coming to the defence plea. According to the appellants, Jasvir Kaur wife of Balbir Singh was having illicit relations with one Veera Dhillon, which was objected to by Gurdev Kaur and following that grudge, Gurdev Kaur had been murdered. The same appears to be improbable. The suggestion put to PW4 Veerpal Kaur was that the murder had been committed by some unidentified assailants at the behest of Veera Dhillon, whereas Veerpal Kaur in her statement, as stated above, specifically identified the appellants as murderer of her grand-mother and sister. There was no reason for her to implicate the appellants and thereby permitting the real culprit to go unscathed. Not only this, none of the appellants have stated about the murder of Sarabjit Kaur. Therefore, the defence version was rightly discarded by the learned trial Court, being not convincing.
Therefore, the findings of guilt and their sentence require no interference by this Court.
As a sequel to the above discussion, we find no merits in the instant appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) (ARVIND KUMAR)
JUDGE JUDGE
August 17,2011
Jiten