Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagwinderjit Singh @ Peter vs State Of Punjab on 4 March, 2010
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Jaswant Singh
Criminal Appeal No.31-DB of 2007 #1#
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision:4.3.2010.
Criminal Appeal No.31-DB of 2007
Jagwinderjit Singh @ Peter
.......Appellant
v
State of Punjab
.........Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr. Vinod Ghai, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. K.S. Sidhu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent-State.
Jaswant Singh,J Instant appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 21.12.2006 passed by ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar convicting the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
In nutshell the story of the prosecution is that on 8.8.2005 at 2.10 a.m, Vishal Bedi son of Ashwani Kumar Bedi got his statement (Ex.DC) recorded before ASI Kulbir Singh (PW9), Police Post Vallah that on the intervening night of 7/8.8.2005 at about 12.00 p.m, he received a telephonic call that his brother-in-law (Saala) Karamjit Singh had died due to injuries suffered at a place behind Guru Ram Dass Institute, at Mehta Road, Amritsar and his dead body was lying on the road. Then he alongwith his mother-in-law Surinder Kaur and her daughter-in-law Sunita Criminal Appeal No.31-DB of 2007 #2# (wife of deceased Karamjit Singh) and neighbourers and relatives reached the spot and saw that Karamjit Singh had succumbed to forehead injuries. They reported the matter to the police but did not doubt anybody regarding the death of said Karamjit Singh. Inquest report (Ex.PA) was prepared by ASI Kulbir Singh (PW9).
Thereafter, dead body was sent for post mortem examination. Post mortem examination (Ex.PB) was conducted at 4.45 p.m on 8.8.2005 by Dr. Puneet Khurana (PW3), Junior Resident, Department of Forensic Medicines, Govt Medical College, Amritsar, who found 3 injuries on the dead body. All the injuries were declared ante-mortem in nature. Cause of death was opined to be compression of brain as a result of injury No.1, which was an incised wound present on the left side of the forehead and extending towards the left side of the nose and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
On 13.8.2005 at 5.40 p.m, when SI Sarabjit Singh (PW12) alongwith other police officials was on patrolling duty, complainant Simranjit Kaur (alias Sunita)-PW4 met them and got her statement (Ex.PD) recorded before SI/SHO Sarabjit Singh (PW12), P.S Sadar, Amritsar that about 8 years back, she was married to deceased Karamjit Singh son of Rajwant Singh Arora. Out of wedlock, two children were born out i.e one daughter Manvinder Kaur aged about 6 years and a son aged about 1-1/2 years. Her husband Karamjit Singh (since deceased) used to run a tea shop alongwith PCO and Mobile repair shop. On 7.8.2005 at about 9.30 p.m, accused Manohar Lal @ Baghela son of Sardari Lal, Suniara (Goldsmith), R/o Chitta Gummat, Bau son of Surinder Singh Kohli, Kakka son of Dugga Singh, Caste Suniara (Goldsmith) resident of Chitta Gummat, Ram Bagh, Criminal Appeal No.31-DB of 2007 #3# Amritsar and Jugwinderjit Singh @ Peter son of Jagjit Singh, R/o Nagrota Baghwan, Tehsil and District Kangra (H.P) came on a blue coloured Maruti car bearing No.9333, which was driven by accused Jugwinderjit Singh @ Peter and took her husband Karamjit Singh (since deceased) with them in the car. On 8.8.2005, her relatives tried to trace out her husband, the dead body of whom was found lying on the Mehta Road, Amritsar. She stated that the motive behind the occurrence was that Jagjit Singh father of accused Jugwinder Singh had purchased a second hand mobile from her husband, which was having some problem regarding its voice and due to that, an altercation took place between her husband and accused Peter and it is because of that incident that abovesaid accused persons in furtherance of common intention had murdered her husband. Ruqa was sent to the Police Station through Constable Amit Singh on the basis of which FIR No.297 dated 13.8.2005 (Ex.PL/1) was registered at 6.20 p.m for the offence under Sections 302/148/149 IPC at Police Station Sadar Amritsar. Special report received by JMIC(D), Amritsar on 13.8.2005 at 10.30 p.m. Sub Inspector Sarabjit Singh (PW12) reached the place of occurrence and prepared rough site plan (Ex.PM). On 15.8.2005, accused- appellant Jugwinderjit Singh alongwith other co-accused Mandip Singh and Manohar Lal were arrested. Weapon of offence namely datar (Ex.P2) was got recovered from the appellant on his disclosure statement. However, fourth co-accused Gopal Singh could not be arrested and was declared proclaimed offender.
After completion of investigation, charge for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was framed against the three accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Criminal Appeal No.31-DB of 2007 #4# To prove its case, prosecution examined 14 witnesses in their evidence besides leading documentary evidence.
In statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, accused- appellant raised the plea of false implication in the case. In defence, accused Mandeep examined evidence of DW1 to DW4 and adduced documentary evidence from Ex.D1 to D12. However, no evidence in defence was led by appellant-Jugwinderjit Singh.
Learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar on evaluation of evidence on record convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid whereas other two co-accused namely Mandeep Singh and Manohar Lal were acquitted of the charges framed against them. Fourth accused namely Gopal Singh was subsequently tried and was also acquitted vide judgment dated 14.11.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file with their able assistance.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution to prove their case against the appellant relied on the evidence of last seen, extra judicial confession, motive and the recovery of weapon of offence in pursuance of the disclosure statement. He has contended that the last seen evidence tendered by PW2-Surender Kaur, mother of the deceased and PW4-Simranjit Kaur, wife of the deceased Karamjit Singh is unreliable and untrustworthy as from the time of discovery of the body on the intervening night of 7/8.8.2005 till 13.8.2005, their changed version of pointing fingers at the accused persons had not come to light. It was most unnatural for them not to state on the intervening night of 7/8.8.2005 itself to the police that the deceased had been taken from their house in their Criminal Appeal No.31-DB of 2007 #5# presence at 9.30 p.m on the same night by the accused-appellant and the other accused in a blue Maruti Car. It was further urged that in the absence of evidence of extra judicial confession due to PW1-Kasturi Lal having turned hostile and the basis of the motive being extremely trivial & thus non-believable, there was no other evidence available on record except the recovery of the weapon of offence i.e datar in pursuance of the disclosure statement, which is further not proved due to absence of any corroboration by the independent witnesses, who were cited but not examined. Therefore, it was contended that the chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete and not sufficient to sustain the conviction of the accused-appellant.
On the other hand, learned state counsel has supported the reasoning given by the learned trial Court.
We have heard respective contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and we are of the view that the contentions raised on behalf of the accused-appellant are meritorious and deserve to be accepted.
We first of all proceed to examine the testimonies of the crucial witnesses of 'last seen evidence' relied upon by the prosecution.
Complainant, wife of the deceased has appeared as PW4 and deposed that on 7.8.2005 at about 9.30 p.m, all the referred four accused came to their house in blue Maruti Car bearing Registration No.PB-02-AE- 9333. Accused Jugwinderjit Singh @ Peter was driving the said Maruti Car and they took her husband Karamjit Singh along with them. She further deposed that her husband was murdered by the accused. After that her husband never came back on 8.8.2005. Dead body of her husband was found on the side of Mehta Road. She further deposed that some days before the fateful day, Jagjit Singh, father of accused-appellant Peter had Criminal Appeal No.31-DB of 2007 #6# purchased second hand Mobile Phone from her husband and its voice was defective and Peter had an altercation with her husband some days before the fateful day on that count. She admitted that she had got recorded her statement before the police on 13.8.2005. In her cross examination, she admitted that she is also known as Sunita and Harjinder Singh is familiar with them because he is running a shop in front of the shop of her late husband. She further admitted that before 13.8.2005, she had not talked to anyone as to how her husband was taken away by the accused on the night of 7.8.2005. She has admitted that the mobile was not sold in her presence. The reason given for not approaching the police before 13.8.2005 is that she alongwith her mother-in-law was repeatedly visiting the houses of accused and when they were found absent, their suspicion turned into belief that they had murdered her husband.
PW2-Surender Kaur, mother of the deceased has also deposed along similar lines. She has also deposed that her statement was not recorded by the police, when she visited the spot. In her cross-examination, when confronted with her signed statement (Ex.PA/1) recorded on 8.8.2005 during inquest proceedings wherein nobody has been suspected, least of all the four accused, she has denied making such statement. From the record, it is apparent that Vishal Bedi, Jija of the deceased had got recorded DDR No.35 (Ex.D/E) at 2.10 a.m on the intervening night of 7/8.8.2005 in police station Sadar, Amritsar on the basis of which proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C were initiated. In that statement, he has stated that around 12.00 p.m that night, he came to know on telephone that his brother-in-law Karamjit Singh had died due to injuries on forehead or accident with some vehicle. It is also discernible from the statement that he was accompanied by her Criminal Appeal No.31-DB of 2007 #7# mother-in-law Surender Kaur-PW2 and Simranjit Kaur-PW4. Said Vishal Bedi was not produced by the prosecution. It is further apparent from the signed statement of Surender Kaur-PW2 recorded on 8.8.2005 appended along with the inquest report (Ex.PA) that she has stated on identical lines as Vishal Bedi. In the Court, she was duly confronted with her statement (Ex.PA/1). Therefore, from the deposition of the complainant-PW4 and PW2-Surender Kaur, it is clear that before 13.8.2005, they had not named any of the accused-appellant to be the persons, who had taken away their son Karamjit Singh in the car and was last seen with them. We are unable to ignore the enormous time consumed by the witnesses in putting forth this version for the Ist time on 13.8.2005. No plausible explanation of such delay has been putforth, giving rise to serious doubts. Therefore, their testimonies cannot be treated as reliable, which may inspire confidence of the Court.
We further find that the alleged altercation over the repair of mobile between the accused-appellant Peter and deceased Karamjit Singh, which otherwise has not been proved can form a basis for motive to murder a person in the normal course of day to day life being so trivial. It is not disputed that PW1-Kasturi Lal, the witness of extra judicial confession had not supported the prosecution case at all. Evidence of recovery of datar (Ex.P2) on 17.8.2005 on the disclosure statement made by the accused- appellant is also not of much help to the case of the prosecution. It was admitted in the cross examination by PW12-Investigating Officer Sarabjit Singh that blade of datar was not stained with blood as also the same was affected by rust and was not shown to any doctor to obtain his opinion. Two witnesses of recovery namely HC Sukhdev Singh and HC Hira Singh Criminal Appeal No.31-DB of 2007 #8# besides the Investigating Officer were not examined as they were given up on the statement of the Public Prosecutor. Therefore, to our mind, in the absence of any corroboration to the testimony of recovery of I.O Sarabjit Singh (PW12), it cannot be held that the recovery is proved.
Still further, the prosecution by moving an application (Ex.PI) sought an opinion of the Dr. Puneet Khurana (PW3) as to whether injury No.1 could have been caused with the datar (Ex.P2) or not by showing only the sketch of the datar (Ex.PQ) and not the weapon (Ex.P2). PW3 opined that the possibility of injury No.1 as a result of the datar as the weapon of offence could not be ruled out, however, it may be connected with the other circumstantial evidence. Therefore, even this opinion cannot connect the accused-appellant with the death of the deceased Karamjit Singh.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused-appellant for having caused the murder of deceased Karamjit Singh beyond any reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we allow the present appeal and extend the benefit of doubt to the accused-appellant. Order of conviction dated 21.12.2006 passed by ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar is set aside and the accused-appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him.
(HEMANT GUPTA) (JASWANT SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
March 04,2010.
manoj