Punjab-Haryana High Court
***** vs State Of Punjab on 24 July, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Rakesh Kumar Jain
CRA NO.894-DB OF 2009 -1-
CRM-546-MA OF 2010
CRL. REVISION NO.1626 OF 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
*****
CRA No.894-DB of 2009
Date of Decision: 24.07.2012
*****
Inderjit Singh . . . .Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab . . . . Respondent
*****
Crl. Misc.-546-MA of 2010
Date of Decision: 24.07.2012
*****
State of Punjab . . . .Appellant
Versus
Simranjit Singh and others . . . . Respondent
*****
Crl. Revision No.1626 of 2010
Date of Decision: 24.07.2012
*****
Jarnail Singh . . . .Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others . . . . Respondent
*****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
*****
Present: Mr.J.B.S. Gill, Advocate, for the appellant
(in CRA No.894-DB of 2009).
Ms.Gurveen H. Singh, Addl. A.G. Punjab.
Mr.B.S. Baath, Advocate,
for the petitioner (in CRR No.1626 of 2010)
Mr.Anmol Partap Singh Mann, Advocate,
for the respondents (in CRR No.1626 of 2010).
*****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
This order shall dispose of Crl. Appeal No.894-DB of 2009 titled as "Inderjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab" (for short 'Ist appeal'), Crl. Misc. No.546-MA of 2010 titled as "State of Punjab Vs. Simranjit Singh and others" (for short 'criminal miscellaneous application') and Crl. Revision No.1626 of 2010 titled as "Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others" (for short 'revision petition').
CRA NO.894-DB OF 2009 -2-CRM-546-MA OF 2010 CRL. REVISION NO.1626 OF 2010 The trial Court, vide its order dated 30.9.2009 convicted Inderjit Singh (appellant in Ist appeal) for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and sentenced him for life imprisonment with fine of `10,000/- and rigorous imprisonment for one year in default of payment of fine. The other accused namely, Simranjit Singh , Jaskaranjit Singh, Rashpal Singh @ Lalli, Sarabjit Singh @ Sahba, Amarbir Singh @ Sharanjit Singh @ Sunny and Tejinder Pal Singh @ Baj, were acquitted against whom criminal miscellaneous application has been filed by the State of Punjab and revision petition has been filed by the complainant Jarnail Singh (PW1).
In this case, Jaspreet Singh @ Sonu son of Jarnail Singh (PW1) has been murdered. Jarnail Singh (PW1) recorded his statement (Ex.PA) to the Police in which he stated that he is posted as Clerk in Sugar Mill, Bhogpur. He had two children, son Jaspreet Singh @ Sonu and a daughter Ramandeep Kaur, both were studying in Lyallpur Khalsa College, Jalandhar. His son Jaspreet Singh was appearing in BBA final examination and had gone at 10.00 A.M. on his Bajaj Chetak scooter bearing No.PB08-AB-5295 to Khalsa College Jalandhar to take his exam but at 10.30 A.M. he received a telephonic message from Civil Hospital, Kala Bakra that someone has given injuries to his son. On this, he along with his brother Parminder Singh reached Civil Hospital, Kala Bakra, where they saw Jaspreet Singh's dead body lying in the emergency ward with a deep wound on the left side of his neck with a sharp edged weapon. He suspected that his son Jaspreet Singh was having relationship with a girl namely, Deepa of village Kingra as his son had told him that many times her father Surjit Singh and brother Ravinder Singh @ Binda had extended threats on telephone to kill him.
CRA NO.894-DB OF 2009 -3-CRM-546-MA OF 2010 CRL. REVISION NO.1626 OF 2010 On the basis of the statement (Ex.PA) formal FIR (Ex.PU) was registered on the same day. However, during the course of investigation, Jarnail Singh (PW1) came up with another version by way of supplementary statement dated 12.6.2008, prompted by Inderjit Singh friend of Jaspreet Singh that he had expressed doubt about Ravinder Singh and Surjit Singh but now he is sure that it was Inderjit Singh himself, who along with his friends Simranjit Singh son of Paramjit Singh resident of Kala Bakra, Jaskaranjit Singh son of Paramjit Singh resident of village Karari and others have committed the murder of his son because Inderjit Singh had a doubt that Jaspreet Singh was having illicit relations with his sister. The investigation took a turn and besides appellant in Ist appeal, the respondents in criminal miscellaneous application and the revision petition, who have been acquitted, were also arrayed as accused and tried.
The postmortem was conducted by Dr. Kamal Kishore Gupta, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Jalandhar on 10.5.2008, who has testified his report Ex.PB, in which he had found the following injury on the dead body of Jaspreet Singh:
"A lacerated wound 11 cm x 4 cm present over left side of neck extending obliquely from left sternocleidomastoid muscle to right border of sternum at the level of third rib. Clavicle was intact. Wound was deep upto trachea. External Jugular vein and junction of left subclavian vein were ruptured due to cut. All structures were otherwise intact. Muscles and nerves in line were cut." CRA NO.894-DB OF 2009 -4-
CRM-546-MA OF 2010 CRL. REVISION NO.1626 OF 2010 In his opinion, the cause of death of Jaspreet Singh was hemorrhage and shock due to the said injuries, which were ante mortem and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
In order to prove their case, the prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses out of 36 cited witnesses, namely, Jarnail Singh (PW1), Tehal Singh @ Bittu (PW2), Manpreet Singh (PW3), Dr.Kamal Kishore Gupta (PW4), Raman Kumar, Revenue Patwari, Halqa Kala Bakra (PW5), Satnam Singh (PW6), HC Raghbir Singh No.2302 (PW7), ASI Avtar Singh (PW8), Clerk Darshan Lal (PW9), Gurdev Singh (PW10), Ramandeep Kaur (PW11), Jr. Assistant Daljit Kaur (PW12), Sunil Rana (PW13), SI Amarjit Singh (PW14), Jaswant Singh (PW15), Gurmej Singh (PW16), Dalbir Singh (PW17), SI Karamvir Singh (PW18), HC Lavinder Singh (PW19), Soravdeep Singh (PW20).
The prosecution also produced weapon of offence namely, Sickle/datar (Ex.PG), report of Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex.PX/1) proving that soil recovered from the place of occurrence was having human blood and report (Ex.PX/2), about the weapon used in the crime stained with human blood. It also placed on record call details Ex.PAC/14 to Ex.PAC/18, allegedly of the appellant in the Ist appeal and the respondents in the criminal miscellaneous application and revision petition, who have gathered at the place of occurrence with a common object.
While examining the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), the entire incriminating material was put to them to which they pleaded innocence and led evidence in defence by examining Soravdeep Singh, MO (DW1), Tejinder Pal Singh (DW2), Sunil Rana, Nodal Officer (DW3), HC Charanjit Singh (DW4) and HC Balbir Singh (DW5).
CRA NO.894-DB OF 2009 -5-CRM-546-MA OF 2010 CRL. REVISION NO.1626 OF 2010 The learned trial Court after examining the evidence did not believe the statement of Manpreet Singh (PW3), Gurmej Singh (PW16) and Dalbir Singh (PW17) as reliable witnesses but convicted appellant in Ist appeal on the basis of circumstantial evidence and acquitted the respondents in the criminal miscellaneous application and in the revision petition by extending them benefit of doubt.
Learned counsel for the appellant in the Ist appeal has submitted that the story of the prosecution was concocted as in the beginning Jarnail Singh (PW1) had suspected commission of crime by Surjit Singh and Ravinder Singh being father and brother of one Deepa, who used to threaten the deceased telephonically to keep a distance from their daughter/sister but by virtue of a supplementary statement dated 12.6.2008, recorded after a period of more than one month, PW1 has involved appellant in the Ist appeal and others on the ground that it was he, who had committed the murder as Jaspreet Singh (deceased) was having relations with his sister. It is further submitted that story put forward by the prosecution about the presence of other co-accused, who have been acquitted, is not believed on the ground that they cannot be convicted only on the basis of call details indicating their presence at the place of occurrence and the same benefit should have been extended to him as well. It is also submitted that the appellant in the Ist appeal was not apprehended while leaving the country at Sanganer (Jaipur) International Airport, rather he was arrested when he returned from a foreign Sojourn. It is argued that had he been involved in the crime, he would not have returned to India rather he would have stayed back. It is also submitted that according to Dr. Kamal Kishore Gupta (PW4), the deceased had suffered lacerated wounds, which could not have been caused by datar, as they are generally caused by blunt weapon. Further it is submitted that the deceased CRA NO.894-DB OF 2009 -6- CRM-546-MA OF 2010 CRL. REVISION NO.1626 OF 2010 had suffered the injury at the hands of some unknown person otherwise had it been caused by Inderjit Singh alongwith his friends, he would have told it to Tehal Singh @ Bittu (PW2) in whose tempo he was carried to the Hospital.
Learned counsel for the State in the criminal miscellaneous application as well as in the revision petition, aggrieved against the order of the trial Court by which other co-accused have been acquitted, have argued that the call details Ex.PAC/14 shows the presence of Inderjit Singh at 9.06 A.M. to 10.05 A.M. at Jallowal , Ex.PAC/15 shows the presence of Tejinder Pal Singh at 10.05 A.M. to 10.08 A.M. at Jallowal, Ex.PAC/16 shows the presence of Jaskaranjit Singh at 10.03 A.M. to 10.07 A.M. at Jallowal, Ex.PAC/17 shows the presence of Sarabjit Singh at 9.35 A.M. at Jallowal and Ex.PAC/18 shows the presence of Jawant Singh at 10.03 A.M. at Jallowal, where the alleged crime had taken place. It is, thus, submitted that even Tehal Singh @ Bittu (PW2) had also seen some other persons, who were present in a car near the place from where he had lifted deceased on his request for taking him to the hospital.
In reply, counsel for the State has argued that the statement of Tehal Singh @ Bittu (PW2) cannot be disbelieved as he was an independent natural witness or the person who had reached at the spot immediately after the alleged occurrence. At that time, Jaspreet Singh (deceased) was alive and managed to board his tempo for being taken to Civil Hospital, Kala Bakra. Since the deceased was profusely bleeding, having a deep cut on his neck in which his veins were also cut, the normal reaction of Tehal Singh @ Bittu (PW2) was to ferry the deceased to the Hospital as soon as possible instead of taking his interview about the alleged occurrence. He has further submitted that even the deceased had become unconscious on the way and ultimately was brought dead to the hospital. It is also submitted that the weapon of CRA NO.894-DB OF 2009 -7- CRM-546-MA OF 2010 CRL. REVISION NO.1626 OF 2010 offence has been described as datar, which has been thoroughly appreciated by the learned trial Court, and a concrete finding has been given that such kind of a weapon could have been used for such kind of an injury suffered by the deceased. He has further submitted that Ramandeep Kaur (PW11) sister of the deceased has stated that she attended the phone call from Inderjit Singh (appellant in Ist appeal) a day before, who had enquired from her about the time of the deceased leaving for his college on the fateful day. Inderjit Singh was a friend and co-villager of the deceased and as such PW11 did not give much importance to his queries about the movement of the deceased on the fateful day. It is a link to complete the chain of circumstance leading to the murder. It is also submitted that the weapon of offence has been recovered from the appellant Inderjit Singh, which has been found smeared with human blood as per report Ex.PX/2 and the earth/soil recovered from the place of occurrence has also shown the presence of human blood as per report Ex.PX/1.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record thoroughly with their able assistance and are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in any of the appeal or the revision petition.
No doubt that Jarnail Singh (PW1) had initially suspected Surjit Singh and Ravinder Singh, father and brother of Deepa, respectfully, for the alleged crime when he had recorded his statement (Ex.PA) on the basis of which formal FIR (Ex.PU) was registered but when he came to know that the alleged offence has been committed by the appellant Inderjit Singh along with his co-accused, he recorded his supplementary statement on 12.6.2008 in which he suspected that it is the handy work of Inderjit Singh with the help of other co-accused who waylaid the deceased at Bhogpur-Jalandhar road because the deceased had some illicit relations with the sister of Inderjit CRA NO.894-DB OF 2009 -8- CRM-546-MA OF 2010 CRL. REVISION NO.1626 OF 2010 Singh, who had given fatal blow from Datar on his neck. The weapon of offence, smeared with human blood, is recovered on the disclosure statement of Inderjit Singh. The human blood has been proved in FSL report (Ex.PX/2) and the soil recovered from the place of occurrence had also detected human blood as per FSL report (Ex.PX/1). Tehal Singh @ Bittu (PW2), who is the independent witness had lifted the deceased from the place of occurrence to Civil Hospital, Kala Bakra where he has been declared to brought dead, is a link in the chain of circumstance. Had there been any intention of the prosecution to implicate falsely, he could have named them in his statement but he had been natural and neutral in his conduct as having been awestruck with the alleged occurrence, he only thought of taking the deceased to the hospital as early as possible but deceased collapsed in his tempo and succumbed to the injury before reaching the hospital. Thus, there was hardly any time with Tehal Singh @ Bittu (PW2) to ask the deceased about the persons, who had committed the crime. Another natural witness is Ramandeep Kaur (PW11), who stated that appellant Inderjit Singh had enquired from her about the movement of the deceased on 10.5.2008. The appellant Inderjit Singh being friend and co-villager could not have caused any anxiety to Ramandeep Kaur (PW11) to conceal the movement of her brother, who had to take his exam on 10.5.2008. Inderjit Singh (appellant in Ist appeal) had the motive to kill Jaspreet Singh who had developed relations with his sister. Although the learned trial Court has observed that he was apprehended while sneaking out of India from Sanganer (Jaipur) International Airport but the counsel for the appellant had argued that he had rather returned to India and deplaned at Sanganer (Jaipur) International Airport. It is not brought on record by the appellant in his evidence led in defence as to why he deplaned at Jaipur despite the fact that he belongs to Jalandhar CRA NO.894-DB OF 2009 -9- CRM-546-MA OF 2010 CRL. REVISION NO.1626 OF 2010 (Punjab) and could have either come to Delhi or Amritsar from the foreign destination as both the places have International Airport.
In view of the aforesaid discussion we are satisfied that the learned trial Court has not committed any error in appreciating the evidence available on record while convicting and sentencing Inderjit Singh (appellant in the Ist appeal).
Reverting to the criminal misc. application and revision petition, the whole stress is on the call timings of the recovered mobile phones. Ex.PAC/14 is the call detail of mobile No.9855144722 of Inderjit Singh, Ex.PAC/15 is the call detail of mobile No.9855800495 of Tejinder Pal Singh, Ex.PAC/16 is the call detail of mobile No.9814204499 of Jaskaranjit Singh, Ex.PAC/17 is the call detail of mobile No.9855249040 of Sarabjit Singh and Ex.PAC/18 is the call detail of mobile No.9914414599 of Jaswant Singh. The prosecution has relied upon the evidence provided by Sunil Rana (PW13) and Soravdeep Singh (PW20) in order to establish that all other co-accused were in touch with each other through their mobile phones and had started reaching Jallowal on 10.5.2008 just before 10.00 A.M. and left Rama Mandi after commission of crime. It has been recorded by the learned trial Court that Gurdev Singh (PW10) subscriber of mobile No.98159931174 did not oblige the prosecution to say that he had sold it to accused Rashpal Singh @ Lalli and Jaswant Singh (PW15) also did not support the prosecution that he had given his mobile No.9914414599 to accused Simranjit Singh. It is also observed that if all the accomplices of the main accused Inderjit Singh were already there at the place of occurrence, there was hardly any need for them to talk with each other on mobile phones. The trail Court has also observed that as per the call details only Amarbir Singh was in touch with Tejinder Pal Singh and he was not in the area of Jallowal or Bhogpur at about 10.00 A.M. CRA NO.894-DB OF 2009 -10- CRM-546-MA OF 2010 CRL. REVISION NO.1626 OF 2010 The mobile phone of Gurdev Singh (PW10) was in contact with Tejinder Pal Singh and Jaswant Singh and that was upto 6.56 A.M. only. Inderjit Singh was in touch with Jaswant Singh. He made a call to Jaskaranjit Singh at 9.58 A.M. and 10.36 A.M. and received one call from Tejinder Pal Singh at 10.05 A.M. It is revealed by Gurdev Singh (PW10) and Jaswant Singh (PW15) that tower covers approximately a diametric area of 8 kilometers. With these circumstances, only on the basis of the location of calls, it cannot be inferred that all the other accused, who are arrayed as respondents in the criminal miscellaneous application and the revision petition, had gathered there with a common object with the appellant in the Ist appeal to support him in the murder.
In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that Crl. Appeal No.894-DB of 2009 and Crl.Misc-546-MA of 2010 as well as Crl. Revision No.1626 of 2010 are without any merit and hence they are hereby dismissed resulting into the conviction of the appellant in the Ist appeal and the acquittal of the others in the criminal miscellaneous application as well as in the revision petition.
(JASBIR SINGH) (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE JULY 24, 2012 Vivek