Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuldeep Singh vs State Of Haryana on 2 July, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Rakesh Kumar Jain
Crl. Appeal No.453-DB of 2006 -1 -
Crl. Appeal No.529-DB of 2006
Crl. Revision No.2229 of 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
*****
Crl. Appeal No.453-DB of 2006
Date of Decision: 02.07.2012
*****
Kuldeep Singh
. . . .Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana
. . . . Respondents
*****
Crl. Appeal No.529-DB of 2006
Date of Decision: 02.07.2012
*****
Sukhwinder Singh
. . . .Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana
. . . . Respondents
*****
Crl. Revision No.2229 of 2006
Date of Decision: 02.07.2012
*****
Mann Singh
. . . .Petitioner
Versus
Kuldeep Singh and others
. . . Respondents
*****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
*****
Present: Mr.Vinod Ghai, Sr. Advocate, with
Mr.Ravinder Singh, Advocate,
for the appellants/petitioner.
Mr.Pardeep Singh Poonia, Addl. A.G. Haryana.
*****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
Crl. Appeal No.453-DB of 2006 -2 -
Crl. Appeal No.529-DB of 2006 Crl. Revision No.2229 of 2006 This common order shall dispose of two criminal appeals bearing No.453-DB of 2006 titled as "Kuldeep Singh Vs. State of Haryana" and No.529-DB of 2006 titled as "Sukhwinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana" and a Crl. Revision No.2229 of 2006 titled as "Mann Singh Vs. Kuldeep Singh and others", all arising from order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala.
Five accused namely, Gurinder Singh son of Jit Singh, Jasbir Singh son of Sukhwinder Singh, Jaswinder Singh son of Jasmer Singh, Kuldeep Singh son of Hakam Singh and Sukhwinder Singh son of Ajmer Singh, were tried in a case registered vide FIR No.146 dated 09.09.2001 under Sections 364A, 216, 302, 201, 386 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') at Police Station Naraingarh, District Ambala (Ex.PA/1), by Maan Singh son of Mata Ram (PW1), in which co-accused Gurinder Singh was discharged vide order dated 18.2.2002 as no case under Section 212 IPC was made out, Jasbir Singh was declared juvenile on 28.10.2002, tried before the Juvenile Court at Ambala, convicted on 26.11.2011, has been kept on probation for 3 years, accused Jaswinder Singh is granted pardon under Section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') on 23.7.2004 on the condition that he would make full and true disclosure of entire circumstances, within his knowledge, relating to the crime and was examined as a prosecution witness PW6 whereas vide impugned order dated 15.6.2006, Kuldeep Singh and Sukhwinder Singh were held guilty and convicted under Section 364-A, 302, 201 read with Section 120-B of the IPC and were convicted and sentenced Crl. Appeal No.453-DB of 2006 -3 - Crl. Appeal No.529-DB of 2006 Crl. Revision No.2229 of 2006 for rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of `1000/- each under Section 120-B IPC. In default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for two months each. Both of them were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of `1000/- each under Section 364-A read with Section 120-B IPC and in case of default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for two months each. They were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of `1000/- under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment of two months each. They were further sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for seven years and fine of `500/- each, under Section 201 read with Section 120-B IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment of one month each. All the sentences of appellants Kuldeep Singh and Sukhwinder Singh were ordered to run concurrently.
The revision petition has been filed by Mann Singh (complainant/PW1) for enhancement of sentence of both the appellants.
In brief but precisely, the prosecution story is that FIR (PA/1) was registered by Maan Singh son of Mata Ram (PW1) that his son Surjit Singh (since deceased), studying in Senior Secondary School, Naraingarh in 10+2 class, used to go daily from his house to Naraingarh in Badholi's bus via Bakhtua to Naraingarh and reach at bus stand Naraingarh at about 7 A.M. alongwith many other boys of the same village. On 7.9.2001, deceased along with other students reached at the bus stand Naraingarh in order to go to his school but in Crl. Appeal No.453-DB of 2006 -4 - Crl. Appeal No.529-DB of 2006 Crl. Revision No.2229 of 2006 the meanwhile, one boy, who was wearing blue coloured trousers, cream coloured shirt, white cap and having spectacles, took the deceased along with him, after which neither he attended the school nor returned to the village, and after search he was told by the other student that deceased had left bus stand Naraingarh in the morning with the aforesaid boy. On 7.9.2001 at about 10.30 P.M., the complainant received a message on his landline telephone that deceased Surjit Singh was in custody of someone, who was demanding `6 lacs as ransom and extended threat to eliminate him in case either the demand is not met or the information is passed on to the Police. The complainant along with villagers went to the Police Station, Naraingarh, disclosed the incident on which he was asked by the Police not to refuse the ransom and was rather asked to know about the place where the money was to be delivered. On 8.9.2001, at about 5:45 A.M., a telephonic message was received from the same person, who asked the complainant to reach Rajpura bye-pass with `6 lacs at 4.00 P.M. at the light chowk from where buses plies for Chandigarh. A boy aged 20-25 years, wearing white shirt, blue jeans, black cap, sporting black goggles, was asked to meet there, the complainant was directed to deliver ransom amount to him and only after that his son Surjit Singh (deceased) was to be released after six hours of the delivery of the ransom amount. Thereafter, 10/12 persons along with ASI Suresh Kumar and Constable Bichha Ram of Police Station, Naraingarh left for Rajpura along with other Police officials. After reaching there at 11.00 A.M., where ransom money was to be delivered, the police officials were informed, the said boy was apprehended from the spot and taken Crl. Appeal No.453-DB of 2006 -5 - Crl. Appeal No.529-DB of 2006 Crl. Revision No.2229 of 2006 away to Police Post, Rajpura bye-pass. On enquiry, the said boy disclosed his name as Kuldeep Singh s/o Hakam Singh (appellant) and stated that he was to collect the money bag and hand it over in the bus meant for Chandigarh, which would lateron be received by their own man and shall be paid a sum of `10,000/- for this job. Thereafter, the Incharge of Police Post, Rajpura went to DSP at 7.00 P.M. to handover the appellant Kuldeep Singh to Haryana Police. Complainant and other persons waited at Police Station, Rajpura for two hours when he was told by the Incharge that DSP is sitting in Police Station, City Rajpura, where the complainant and others went and met him and at about 11.00 P.M., DSP called ASI, of Haryana Police and a constable and enquired about the accused. He told them to come at 9.00 A.M. early in the morning for taking custody of the accused. On 9.9.2001, complainant along with 10-12 persons of Village Bakhtua went to City Rajpura, where ASI Suresh Kumar went to Police Station, Rajpura, after asking them to sit outside the Police Station as the process of handing over the custody of accused would take some time because the Superintendent of Police was on special duty. When the complainant reached the Police Station, one Maruti car bearing Registration No.HR-05-E-8278 came there and after about two hours ASI Suresh Kumar went in Police Station, City Rajpura and came back after a while, saying that the accused had run away, which created doubt in the mind of the complainant because in the above car Sukhwinder Singh s/o Ajmer (Appellant) was sitting and talking to ASI Suresh Kumar for a long time. The complainant suspected that Sukhwinder Singh and his son-in-law, whose name and address was not Crl. Appeal No.453-DB of 2006 -6 - Crl. Appeal No.529-DB of 2006 Crl. Revision No.2229 of 2006 known, were also involved in the kidnapping of his son because the land of Sukhwinder Singh son of Ajmer (Appellant) was in their village Bakhtua.
During investigation, Gurinder Singh (co-accused) was arrested on 15.9.2001, Jasbir Singh, Jaswinder Singh and Kuldeep Singh were arrested on 20.9.2001, who suffered their respective disclosure statements, according to which they all travelled in car No.HR-05-E-8278, to Anandpur Sahib, Kiratpur and Naina Devi and made a telephone call from Naina Devi to their respective homes. When they were returning from Naina Devi at about 8.30/9.00 P.M., their car was stopped at a distance of 3-4 kilometers from Naina Devi and Kuldeep Singh (appellant), who was sitting on the back seat just behind the deceased (Surjit Singh), put his yellow colour parna around his neck and throttled it. At that time, deceased legs were caught by Jasbir whereas his arms were held by Jaswinder Singh and after taking of his pant and shirt, his dead body was thrown in gorge and his belongings namely, pant, shirt and books were thrown at a distance after tying them in the said parna. Consequently, case under Section 364-A, 216, 302, 201, 386 and 120-B of the IPC was registered, in which, as mentioned hereinabove, Gurinder Singh has been discharged, Jasbir Singh has been convicted by Juvenile Court and is on probation and Jaswinder Singh has become approver.
In order to prove his case, the prosecution examined Mann Singh (complainant)/father of deceased Surjit Singh (PW1), Khushkismat Singh (PW2), Harcharan Singh (PW3), Amit Kumar Sharma (PW4), Kartar Singh (PW5), Jaswinder Singh (PW6), Iqbal Crl. Appeal No.453-DB of 2006 -7 - Crl. Appeal No.529-DB of 2006 Crl. Revision No.2229 of 2006 Singh (PW7), V.S. Jaswal (PW8), Mohinder Kumar (PW9), Sunil Kumar (PW10), Kehar Singh (PW11), Mukesh Kumar Ahuja (PW12), Dalbir Singh (PW13), Mahavir Singh (PW14), Constable Ram Saran (PW15), Mangal Singh (PW16), Head Constable Surinder Pal (PW17), Shashi Bhushan (PW18), Head Constable Naresh Kumar (PW19), Sub Inspector Suraj Bhan (PW20), Constable Krishan Dayal (PW21), Dr. N.K. Sankhayayan (PW22), Head Constable Siri Ram (PW23), Sub Inspector Karta Ram (PW24), Pritam Chand (PW25), Sub Inspector Dayal Ram (PW26), Sub Inspector Karam Singh (PW27), Assistant Sub Inspector Ishwar Singh (PW28), Inspector Mange Ram (PW29), Satish Kumar (PW30), Varinder Pathak (PW31), Opinder Singh (PW32).
The appellant Kuldeep Singh and Sukhwinder Singh were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution allegations, pleaded their false implication but both of them did not lead any evidence in their defence.
PW22 Dr. N.K. Sankhayayan, Senior Medical Officer, Zonal Hospital, Bilaspur, performed the autopsy of the deceased and found the following ante mortem injuries: -
1. Bluish red colour contusion was present in the area of 12cm x 8 cm on the anterior medical surface of right thigh in its middle 1/3rd portion and underlying bone was normal.
2. There was bluish red coloured contusion over anteroimedical surface to left thigh in area of 10 cm x 7 cm in its middle 1/3rd portion. Crl. Appeal No.453-DB of 2006 -8 -
Crl. Appeal No.529-DB of 2006 Crl. Revision No.2229 of 2006
3. There was no ligature mark around the neck.
There was no abrasion present over the neck.
On dissection the underlying muscles were contused with fracture of larynx and cricoids cartilages with inward compression fracture of right side hyoid bone and the pariosteum was torn from the outer side of the said hyoid bone.
He opined that the age of the deceased was between 14 to 22 years and the probable time between injury and death was within few minutes and between death and postmortem within 3 to 10 days. He also observed that the body was decomposed, tongue was protruded and clinched between the teeth and millions of maggots were crawling over the both sides of the neck and front of the chest.
Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the statement of PW6 Jaswinder Singh, who has turned approver was not worthy of credence in the absence of any corroborative piece of evidence. He has referred to Section 114(b) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short 'the Act'). He has also submitted that if it is a case of throttling, ligature mark should have been present around the neck of the deceased but it is not so stated by the PW-2. He has also submitted that PW6 has stated in his cross-examination that they had happily gone to Naina Devi, absolutely without any planning to kill the deceased. Thus, there was no motive to commit the said crime.
In reply, counsel for the State has argued that Section 114
(b) of the Act, is to be read with Section 133 of the Act. There is Crl. Appeal No.453-DB of 2006 -9 - Crl. Appeal No.529-DB of 2006 Crl. Revision No.2229 of 2006 corroboration of the circumstance in the statement of PW6 Jaswinder Singh/approver, the statement of STD owner Harcharan Singh PW3, Amit Kumar Sharma PW4 and the recovery of cloths and books etc. nearby the area of occurrence on their disclosure.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties in detail and have perused the record.
While appearing as PW1, complainant-Maan Singh has reiterated the stand taken before the Police in the FIR (Ex.PA/1) and regarding motive, it is alleged that he had a dispute with Sukhwinder Singh, whose land he had taken on lease and Gurinder Singh son of Jit Singh used to give him threat either to vacate the land or to face consequences. PW6 Jaswinder Singh, after having been granted pardon and becoming approver, has stated that on 6.12.2001, Jasbir Singh came to him and asked him for an outing on 7.9.2001. He went along with him on that day in his Maruti Car in which there was another person called Kuldeep Singh, and then picked up Surjit (since deceased), in the manner, which has been so stated by PW1. When they reached at the distance of 3-4 Kms from Naina Devi, Jasbir stopped the car at a secluded place on the pretext that the car got heated up. At that time Surjit Singh (deceased) was sitting besides Jasbir Singh driver and Kuldeep Singh was sitting behind Surjit Singh (deceased), who put a yellow coloured parna around the neck of Surjit Singh and pulled it. Since Surjit Singh (deceased) started trembling, Jasbir Singh caught his legs and the approver was asked to keep quiet otherwise he would also be killed. He was rather asked to assist and catch hold of the arms of the deceased, which he did. After the death Crl. Appeal No.453-DB of 2006 - 10 - Crl. Appeal No.529-DB of 2006 Crl. Revision No.2229 of 2006 of Surjit Singh, Jasbir asked to unbutton the shirt and remove trousers, thereafter his dead body was taken out from the car and thrown from over the hills. Jasbir asked him to drive the car and after covering a distance of about 5 kms from the place where the dead body was thrown the pant, shirt & books of the deceased were also thrown. They reached Anandpur Sahib, where they stayed for a night. In the morning, PW6 was asked by Jasbir Singh to make a phone call to the house of the deceased because the father of the deceased would recognize his voice. At that time PW6 Jaswinder Singh asked for ransom of Rs.6 lac which was refused by PW1. Thereafter, he again made a phone call from a place near Ropar and repeated the demand which was accepted by PW1 and then Kuldeep Singh was sent to recover the amount of ransom. According to PW6, the place where dead body, his clothes, books and belongings of the deceased were thrown and STD Booth from where telephone calls were made, were pointed out. In this process PW3 Harcharan Singh, who runs the PCO at Anandpur Sahib has identified PW6 Jaswinder Singh, PW4 Amit Kumar Sharma, who owns the PCO at Mini Bus Stand, Naina Devi also identified Kuldeep Singh (appellant). Moreover, the statement of PW6 is corroborated with the statement of Mann Singh (PW1) and Dalbir Singh (PW13) as well as by the recovery of the articles from the place of occurrence.
In the case of "Mrinal Das and others Vs. State of Tripura" 2011(9) SCC 479, it has been held by the Supreme Court that in a case of approver, corroboration need not be in the form of ocular testimony of witnesses but may even be in the form of Crl. Appeal No.453-DB of 2006 - 11 - Crl. Appeal No.529-DB of 2006 Crl. Revision No.2229 of 2006 circumstantial evidence. Once, evidence of the approver is held to be trustworthy, it must be shown that story given by him so far as accused is concerned, must implicate accused concerned in such manner as to give rise to a conclusion of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
In the present case, circumstantial evidence and the statement of PW1 and PW13 corroborates the statement of PW6, which leads to an irresistible conclusion of commission of crime by the present appellants.
Insofar as absence of ligature mark or abrasion are concerned, Surjit Singh (since deceased), deceased was strangulated with the parna, a soft cloth, hence, the chances of ligature mark or abrasion on the neck were minimum. Moreover, the dead body was putrefied and infested with millions of maggots on the right and left side of neck as well as chest.
The ante mortem injury found in the autopsy is sufficient to hold that it is a case of the throttling as the tongue of the deceased was found clinched in his teeth.
Counsel for the appellants had also submitted that there was no motive of the alleged crime. As per statement of PW6, they had happily gone to Naina Devi and without any planning of committing murder. PW1 has stated that there was a dispute with Sukhwinder Singh about the land and his son-in-law had openly extended threats of dire consequences. PW6 being not related to the dispute had no premonition of the intention of the accused/appellant, Crl. Appeal No.453-DB of 2006 - 12 - Crl. Appeal No.529-DB of 2006 Crl. Revision No.2229 of 2006 who had taken along the deceased, killed him and tried to destroy the evidence by throwing his naked body from over the hills.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance, we are of the considered opinion that there is no error in the order of the learned Court below in convicting and sentencing both the appellants for the murder of Surjit Singh (since deceased). Hence, both the appeals are hereby dismissed.
In so far as the revision petition is concerned, since the appellants have already been sentenced for imprisonment of life and their appeals have been dismissed, therefore, we do not find any reason to enhance the sentence. In view thereof, the revision petition is also dismissed.
(JASBIR SINGH) (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE JULY 02, 2012 Vivek