Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amritpal Singh Alias Ghola vs State Of Punjab on 24 August, 2011
Author: Satish Kumar Mittal
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Crl. A. No. 685-DB of 2006
DATE OF DECISION : 24.08.2011
Amritpal Singh alias Ghola
.... APPELLANT
Versus
State of Punjab
..... RESPONDENT
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR
Present: Ms. Amandeep Sibia, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Ms. Gurveen H. Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
***
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J.
1. Accused Amritpal Singh alias Ghola was tried by the court of Sessions Judge, Sangrur, for committing the murder of Sunita Devi, wife of his elder brother. Vide judgment and order dated 13.7.2006, the trial court has convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is based upon the statement (Ex.PG) of Mann Singh (PW.7), recorded on 7.3.2005 by SI Kulwant Singh (PW.12) at 3.30 PM, in the area of New Bus Stand, Bhawanigarh, on the basis of which formal FIR (Ex.PG/2) was registered on the same day at 3.45 PM.
Crl. A. No. 685-DB of 2006 -2-
3. According to the statement of Mann Singh, his two daughters, namely Manjit Kaur and Sunita (deceased), were married to two real brothers, namely Mukesh and Satpal, sons of Bhagwan Dass. Accused Amritpal Singh alias Ghola was their younger brother, who was un-married and was living separately with his father Bhagwan Dass, whereas his brothers Mukesh and Satpal were living separately in the houses, adjoining to the house of their father Bhagwan Dass. Complainant Mann Singh further stated that the accused used to harass Sunita (deceased) for indulging in sexual activity, regarding which she informed him many times. Thereupon, he had made the accused to understand and advised him to maintain good behaviour. He further stated that on 7.3.2005 at about 2.00 PM in the noon time, he and his son Satwinder Singh (PW.8) came to see his daughter. When they reached the house of Satpal, they heard the voice of shrieks. On reaching the place of shrieks, they saw that the accused gave two Daat blows on the right side of neck and back of the head of Sunita (deceased), due to which she fell down. Thereafter, the accused along with the Daat ran away from the spot. When they were taking care of his daughter, she died on the spot. After leaving his son Satwinder Singh to guard the dead body, he went to inform the police and in the way, near New Bus Stand, Bhawanigarh, the police party headed by SI Kulwant Singh met him and his statement (Ex.PG) was recorded.
4. It is the further case of the prosecution that on the day of occurrence itself, the police reached the spot, where the dead body of Sunita Crl. A. No. 685-DB of 2006 -3- Rani was lying. The inquest report (Ex.PM) was prepared and the dead body was sent to Civil Hospital, Sangrur, for post mortem examination. Rough site plan (Ex.PN) of the place of occurrence was prepared and the blood stained earth, lifted from the spot, was taken into possession vide memo (Ex.PH), which was attested by Satwinder Singh (PW.8) and ASI Gulab Singh.
5. On the next day, i.e. on 8.3.2005 at 11.55 AM, Dr. Makhan Singh (PW.2) conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Sunita Devi. Three incised wounds were found on the body of the deceased. The probable time between injuries and death was stated to be within few minutes, whereas the time between death and post mortem was within 24 hours. The Doctor opined that the cause of death in this case was injury on the vital part of body i.e. major blood vessel of the neck, which was sufficient to cause death in an ordinary course of nature. The clothes of the deceased, which were handed over by the Doctor, were taken into possession by the police vide memo (Ex.PO).
6. On 8.3.2005, during investigation, a pant and a T-shirt, which were stained with blood, were recovered from the bushes in the fields near the house of the accused. The same were taken into possession by the police vide recovery memo (Ex.PJ).
7. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 8.3.2005, accused was admitted in Civil Hospital, Bhawanigarh, with the history of his taking caustic soda in the evening of the previous day i.e. 7.3.2005, the Crl. A. No. 685-DB of 2006 -4- day of occurrence. Information regarding admission of the accused in the Hospital was given to the police, but he was not arrested as he was unable to speak, and the guards were placed there. On 16.3.2005, the accused was medico legally examined on the police request.
8. On 29.3.2005, the accused was arrested by SI Kulwant Singh (PW.12). During interrogation on the same day, the accused suffered disclosure statement (Ex.PP) and in pursuance of the same, he got recovered a blood stained Daat from the deserted brick-kiln situated on Samana Road, leading to village Balad Kalan, which was taken into possession vide memo (Ex.PQ), attested by HC Balwinder Singh and HC Darshan Singh.
9. After completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the appellant and charge under Section 302 was framed, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
10. In support of its case, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses.
11. PW.1 Dr. Rajiv Kumar Gupta, who medico legally examined the accused on 16.3.2005 on the police request, proved the MLR of the accused as Ex.PA.
12. PW.2 Dr. Makhan Singh, who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Sunita Devi, proved the Post Mortem Report (Ex.PB).
13. PW.7 Mann Singh and PW.8 Satwinder Singh, who witnessed the entire occurrence at the spot, have fully supported the case of the Crl. A. No. 685-DB of 2006 -5- prosecution and have stated that on 7.3.2005 at about 2/2.30 PM, when they reached the house of Sunita Devi, they saw that after giving Daat blows to Sunita Devi, the accused ran away from the spot. PW.8 Satwinder Singh also proved the recovery memo (Ex.PH), vide which the blood stained earth, lifted from the spot, was taken into possession.
14. PW.9 SI Tejinder Singh proved the recovery memo (Ex.PJ), vide which the blood stained pant and T shirt, recovered from the bushes in the fields near the house of the accused, were taken into possession.
15. PW.12 SI Kulwant Singh, the Investigating Officer, who recorded the statement (Ex.PG) of the complainant, which formed the basis of the FIR (Ex.PG/1), conducted investigation of the case, arrested the accused on 29.3.2005 and took into possession Daat (the weapon of offence) got recovered by the appellant, has supported the case of the prosecution and proved all the documents, prepared by him.
16. Statements of all the remaining prosecution witnesses are formal in nature.
17. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. He pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. He stated that he neither killed Sunita nor had an evil eye on her. At the time of the alleged occurrence, he was not at home and does not know who killed her. However, the appellant did not lead any evidence in his defence.
18. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial court, Crl. A. No. 685-DB of 2006 -6- while relying upon the testimony of PW.7 Mann Singh and PW.8 Satwinder Singh, the eye witnesses of the occurrence, having been duly supported by the medical evidence, has convicted and sentenced the appellant, as indicated in the first paragraph of this judgment. However, the recovery of the weapon of offence, i.e. Daat, from the appellant has been disbelieved.
19. Learned counsel for the appellant raised the following submissions before this Court :
(i) The presence of both the alleged eye witnesses at the time and place of occurrence was highly doubtful. According to the learned counsel, both the witnesses are closely related to the deceased and there are material contradictions between their statements and the prosecution case, with regard to the recovery of the weapon of offence. In their statements made before the police, both these witnesses had stated that the accused had run away from the spot along with the weapon, whereas in the court, while appearing as prosecution witnesses, both of them had categorically stated that after the occurrence, the accused threw the weapon at the spot and then ran away. Learned counsel further argued that both the witnesses, who are father and real brother of the deceased, did not try to catch hold the accused.
According to the learned counsel, this conduct of the alleged eye witnesses is highly improbable. She further pointed out that PW.7 Mann Singh has stated in the court that when they reached near Sunita Devi, she was alive and when he left to inform the police, she was struggling for life. According to the learned counsel, instead of taking his daughter Sunita Devi to the Crl. A. No. 685-DB of 2006 -7- Hospital, PW.7 Mann Singh had left for lodging the report. This conduct is also improbable, which creates doubt regarding the fact that PW.7 Mann Singh had witnessed the occurrence. Learned counsel further pointed out that as per the testimony of PW.7 Mann Singh (complainant), his statement was recorded at the spot, whereas PW.12 SI Kulwant Singh (Investigating Officer) has stated that statement of the complainant was recorded in the area of New Bus Stand, Bhawanigarh. According to the learned counsel, this contradiction further creates doubt regarding the presence of Mann Singh complainant at the spot. Learned counsel submits that all these facts create doubt regarding the presence of both the alleged eye witnesses at the spot, particularly when both of them are interested and chance witnesses.
(ii) The prosecution has failed to prove the motive. Neither Manjit Kaur (the sister of the deceased), who was married to Mukesh (brother of the accused) nor any independent witness from the locality, was examined to prove the motive. The evidence of motive is also coming from the mouth of the aforesaid two eye witnesses, whose version has not been corroborated by any other independent witness.
(iii) The trial court has rightly disbelieved the recovery of Daat at the instance of the accused. This fact causes dent in the prosecution case and in the absence of the recovery of the weapon of offence from the appellant, he cannot be connected with the alleged crime.
20. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, argued that even though recovery of the weapon of offence has not Crl. A. No. 685-DB of 2006 -8- been proved, but on the basis of the statements of both the eye witnesses, who fully supported the case of prosecution and are consistent on each and every material aspect of the case, as well as the medical evidence, it has been established that the appellant caused injuries to Sunita Devi, which resulted into her death at the spot. Thus, according to the learned counsel, on the basis of the evidence, available on record, the trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant.
21. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, and gone through the record of the case carefully.
22. In this case, the homicidal death of Sunita Devi has been established. According to the Post Mortem Report (Ex.PB), which has been proved by PW.2 Dr. Makhan Singh, three injuries were found on the body of the deceased, which were caused by a sharp edged weapon. Those injuries were found sufficient to cause death in an ordinary course of nature. Further, according to the Doctor, the probable time between injuries and death was within few minutes, and the time between death and post mortem was within 24 hours. Now, the question arising for consideration is that who caused injuries to the deceased, which resulted into her death, and what was the motive of crime.
23. According to the prosecution case, which is based upon the testimony of two eye witnesses, namely PW.7 Mann Singh and PW.8 Satwinder Singh, who are the father and brother of deceased Sunita Devi, Crl. A. No. 685-DB of 2006 -9- appellant Amritpal Singh alias Ghola, the un-married younger brother-in- law (husband's brother) of the deceased, has caused those injuries, as he used to harass the deceased for indulging in sexual activity. In order to prove the said version and the motive, the prosecution has examined both the aforesaid eye witnesses, who have categorically supported the prosecution case on both the aspects of the case. It is true that they came to the house of the deceased on the day of occurrence and when they reached the place of occurrence, they saw the appellant giving Daat blows to the deceased, but merely because they were the chance witnesses, their testimonies cannot be discarded. Unless their evidence is otherwise assailable, it cannot be whittled down merely on the theory that they were chance witnesses. Both the witnesses to what they respectively saw of the occurrence also mutually and substantially corroborate one another in the present case. The only safeguard, which the court is required to adopt, is that testimony of chance witnesses are to be evaluated with caution and care.
24. In this case, learned counsel for the appellant seriously questioned the presence of both the eye witnesses at the time and place of the occurrence. According to her, both the witnesses were the chance witnesses and the version given by them regarding the occurrence and the manner, in which the same had taken place as well as their conduct before and after the occurrence, creates serious doubt regarding their presence at the time and place of the occurrence, particularly keeping in view the Crl. A. No. 685-DB of 2006 -10- contradiction in their initial version given to the police and subsequently stated in the court, while appearing as prosecution witnesses, with regard to the weapon of offence.
25. We have carefully and cautiously examined the testimony of both the witnesses and are of the opinion that their presence at the time and place of occurrence is not doubtful and suspicious, at all. While assessing the evidence of eye witnesses, the Court must adhere to two principles : (i) Whether in the circumstances of a case, it was possible for the eye witnesses to be present at the scene; and (ii) whether there was anything inherently improbable or unreliable.
26. In the present case, PW.7 Mann Singh and PW.8 Satwinder Singh, the eye witnesses, came from their village Bahadurgarh to village Balad Kothi, the village of the accused, in order to know the well being of Sunita Devi (deceased), daughter of PW.7 Mann Singh and real sister of PW.8 Satwinder Singh, because she was being harassed by the accused, as was told by her to her father and brother many times. Both of them reached the house of Sunita Devi at 2.00 PM in the noon time and when they entered in the house, they heard the voice of shrieks of Sunita Devi and saw that the accused gave two Daat blows on the right side of neck and back of the head of Sunita. Mann Singh stated to the police that after causing injuries to his daughter Sunita Devi, the accused ran away from the spot along with the Daat. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is highly improbable that on the day of occurrence both the witnesses had come to the house of their Crl. A. No. 685-DB of 2006 -11- daughter and sister at 2.00 PM. If it would have been the night time, then probably this argument could have been raised, but in the day time, the arrival of father and real brother of Sunita Devi in her house cannot be said to be improbable.
27. It has been argued that the conduct of both the witnesses at the time of occurrence to the effect that they did not try to save the deceased or to catch hold the accused is improbable. This argument also cannot be accepted, because PW.7 Mann Singh stated that when the accused caused injuries to the deceased, they were at a distance of about 20 feet, therefore, from that distance, it was not possible for them to catch hold the accused, because immediately after causing injuries, the accused had run away from the spot.
28. It is true that there is a material contradiction in the statements of both the eye witnesses with regard to the running of the accused from the spot with weapon. In their statements before the court, they have stated that on 7.3.2005, after the occurrence, the accused threw the weapon at the spot and ran away, but as per the prosecution case, the police effected recovery of the weapon subsequently on 29.3.2005, in pursuance of the disclosure statement made by the accused. In view of this contradiction, the trial court has disbelieved the recovery of weapon. In our opinion, the trial court has rightly disbelieved the recovery of the weapon of offence, because once it has been stated by both the eye witnesses that the accused, after throwing the weapon, ran away from the spot, the recovery of the weapon Crl. A. No. 685-DB of 2006 -12- subsequently on the basis of the alleged disclosure statement of the accused itself becomes doubtful. Merely because the recovery of weapon has been disbelieved, it cannot be taken that the entire testimony of both the witnesses is untruthful or their presence at the time and place of occurrence was doubtful. The showing of recovery of weapon may be merely a padding by the Investigating Officer and due to the said lapse on the part of the investigating agency, the entire case of the prosecution cannot be thrown away. In order to reach the truth, it is the duty of the court to separate chaff from the grain. In the present case, there was no motive on the part of both the eye witnesses, whose another daughter/sister is married in the family of the accused, to depose falsely against the appellant, who was younger brother of their son-in-law/brother-in-law. It is well settled (Sukhdev Yadav v. State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 86) that evidence in the case of a criminal trial is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness and once the same stands satisfied, it ought to inspire confidence in the mind of the Court to accept the stated evidence, ignoring minor inconsistencies which may have arisen due to lapse of time. Therefore, the testimony of these two eye witnesses are trustworthy and reliable and cannot be discarded on minor discrepancies in their testimony. Merely because the trial court has disbelieved the recovery, the prosecution case cannot be discarded, because once we come to the conclusion that the testimonies of two eye witnesses are reliable and trustworthy, then proving of recovery of weapon looses its significance.
Crl. A. No. 685-DB of 2006 -13-
29. So far as the motive of the crime is concerned, both the eye witnesses have categorically stated that the accused was forcing the deceased to indulge in sexual activity, to which she was objecting. About the said malice, she had told to both the witnesses, who are her father and brother. Therefore, their testimony to the effect that the deceased had told them about the said malice cannot be disbelieved, merely on the ground that neither Manjit Kaur, sister of the deceased, who was married to brother of the accused, nor any independent witness from the locality was examined to prove the motive. It is true that Manjit Kaur could have been examined to prove the motive, but the prosecution while taking into consideration the fact that she may not depose against the accused, because she was to live in the same family, may not have cited her as a witness. Merely because she has not been examined, no adverse inference can be drawn that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive.
30. There is one important fact in this case, which is in favour of the prosecution, but has not been noticed by the trial court. It has come in the evidence, i.e. the statement of PW.1 Dr. Rajiv Kumar Gupta, who proved the MLR of the accused as Ex.PA, that in the evening of 7.3.2005, i.e., the day of occurrence, the accused consumed caustic soda. As per his MLR (Ex.PA), he was admitted with the said history on the next day. It has also come in the statement of PW.12 SI Kulwant Singh, the Investigating Officer of the case, that he came to know about admission of accused in the hospital on the next day and the guards were placed there. Subsequently, on Crl. A. No. 685-DB of 2006 -14- 26.3.2005, the accused was formally arrested. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused did not give any explanation that why he had consumed caustic soda immediately after the occurrence. Even no suggestion, giving explanation in this regard, was put to any of the prosecution witnesses. This fact further corroborates the prosecution case, because after committing the murder of his real Bhabhi (elder brother's wife), on realising his mistake, the accused repented and consumed caustic soda, may be in order to commit suicide. This shows that some thing had happened in the family. In our opinion, this piece of evidence strengthens the case of the prosecution that it is only the appellant, who has committed the crime. Thus, in our opinion, the learned trial court, while relying upon the statements of both the eye witnesses as well as the medical evidence, and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused for committing the murder of Sunita Devi.
31. For the reasons recorded above, we are of the opinion that in the present case, the trial court has not committed any illegality in convicting and sentencing the appellant. Consequently, the instant appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order, passed by the trial court, is upheld.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
JUDGE
August 24, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR )
ndj JUDGE