Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sumer Singh Son Of Kundan Ram vs State Of Haryana on 3 November, 2008
Author: S.S. Saron
Bench: S.S. Saron, Sabina
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No. 192-DB of 2005
Date of decision: 03.11.2008
Sumer Singh son of Kundan Ram
..... Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana
..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SARON.
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA.
Present : Mr. G.S. Lalli, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. H.S. Sran, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
S.S. SARON, J.
The appellant Sumer Singh by way of present appeal assails the judgment and order dated 11.04.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Narnaul whereby he has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code ("IPC" - for short) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life; besides, to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.
The FIR (Ex.PJ) in the case was registered on 21.06.2002 at Police Station Mohindergarh on the statement of Dharambir (PW-7) who is the brother of the deceased Chanderkala. According to the complainant-Dharambir (PW-7), his two sisters namely Chanderkala (deceased) aged 42 years and Ramkala aged 38 years were married with Sumer Singh (appellant) and Satbir Singh sons of Kundan resident of Jonawas about 20 years earlier to the incident that occurred on 20/21.6.2002. His brother-in-law Satbir had already died. His sister Chanderkala (deceased) had one daughter and two sons. The daughter Asha was married. The sons namely Satish aged 15 years and Sanjay aged 13 years were studying. The brother-in-law of the complainant i.e. Sumer Singh (appellant) had doubt about the character of his sister (Chanderkala-deceased) Crl. Appeal No. 192-DB of 2005 [2] and he used to beat her in this regard. In 1998, Sumer Singh (appellant) brother-in-law of the complainant had caused injuries to Chanderkala (deceased) regarding which a case for the offence under Section 307 IPC was registered against him at Police Station Mohindergarh. Sumer Singh (appellant) was arrested and 'challaned' in the said case. Later, on their advise and asking of the people and on the assurance of Sumer Singh for not beating Chanderkala in future, his sister had compromised the case and Sumer Singh was acquitted. However, Sumer Singh remained normal for some days and thereafter he again adopted his old habits of beating Chanderkala. Sumer Singh claimed that he was serving at Jodhpur in a private sector. He had been coming to the house of the complainant from Jodhpur for the last 15/20 days, so his sister Chanderkala (deceased) had been coming to the village of her parental home. About 8/10 days earlier, Sumer Singh (appellant) had come to the village of the complainant to take her back. At that time also the complainant Dharambir (PW-7) and his brother Anil had counseled him for not beating Chanderkala again. On the assurance given by Sumer Singh (appellant) to the effect that he would not beat her in future, they had sent their sister with him to Village Jonawas. Chanderkala, about 5/6 days earlier to the occurrence, had given a message on telephone from Village Jonawas that Sumer Singh (appellant) her husband used to beat and harass her in the same manner. On this the complainant Dharambir (PW-7) and his brother Anil had come to village Jonawas and after counseling Sumer Singh (appellant) they went back. On the day of the occurrence i.e. 20.6.2002 in the evening, they received a message on telephone from Village Jonawas that Sumer Singh had murdered Chanderkala by causing injuries to her. On this the complainant Dharambir (PW-7) along with his younger brother Anil and uncle Jailal (PW-2) reached near the temple of Jonawas. In the meantime, Sumer Singh (appellant) brother-in-law of the complainant was seen coming from the side of Village Jonawas who on seeing them intentionally slipped away towards the fields. On reaching the house of their sister Chanderkala, they found her lying dead on a cot in a room of her house. She had injuries on the right side of her head and neck which were Crl. Appeal No. 192-DB of 2005 [3] caused with a sharp-edged weapon like Kulhari. Besides, substantial blood was there on the floor. They verified the facts about the death of Chanderkala in the village at their own level and found that Sumer Singh (appellant) brother-in- law of the complainant had murdered Chanderkala by causing injuries to her. After leaving Anil and Jailal (PW-2) near the dead body, Dharambir had come to the Police Station for lodging a report and for taking action. The Police recorded the statement word by word as was narrated by the complainant- Dharambir. It was read over and explained to him who put his signatures below it in token of its correctness which was attested by SI/SHO Kurda Ram (PW-11). From the said statement, offence under Section 302 IPC was found to have been committed. After registering of the case the copies of the FIR were asked to be sent to the Ilaqa Magistrate and concerned Officer. A Special Report was sent through Constable Dharmender Singh (PW-5). SI/SHO Kurda Ram (PW-11) after taking the case file with him along with ASI Omparkash, HC Omparkash, UGC Dharampal, Constable Mahesh Kumar and the complainant proceeded to the spot in a Government Jeep driven by UGC Mohinder Singh. At the spot investigation in the case was carried out. The dead body of Chanderkala was found lying on a cot on which a 'Gurda' (a kind of mattress) had been spread. The 'Gurda' was taken in possession. Besides, inquest proceedings (Ex.PC) were prepared and a request (Ex.PB) for postmortem examination of the dead body of Chanderkala was made. The dead body was sent for post mortem examination with Constable Mahesh Kumar. A rough site plan (Ex.PP) of the place of occurrence was prepared and the statements of witnesses were recorded. SI/SHO Kurda Ram (PW11) then returned to the Police Station. Constable Mahesh Kumar, thereafter, brought the post mortem report (Ex.PA) and a sealed parcel containing shirt of the deceased which was taken in possession by way of recovery memo (Ex.PN). A search for the accused Sumer Singh was made who was arrested on 16.07.2002. On his interrogation, he made a disclosure statement (Ex.PK) regarding concealment of a 'Kulhari' (Ex.P1) on the shelf of the room of his house which was in his exclusive knowledge. On the basis of the same, a Kulhari (Ex.P1) was recovered vide Crl. Appeal No. 192-DB of 2005 [4] recovery memo (Ex.PN). A sketch (Ex.PL) of the Kulhari was prepared. A rough site plan (Ex.PQ) of the place of the recovery of a Kulhari was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded. On 21.07.2002, a Kulhari (Ex.P1) was produced before Dr. Karan Singh, Medical Officer, CHC Mohindergarh (PW-1) who had conducted the post mortem examination. Dr. Karan Singh (PW-1) in terms of his opinion (Ex.PD/1) opined that injuries No.1 and 2 which were found on the person of the deceased Chanderkala could have been caused with the Kulhari. After investigation of the case, the Police filed the Charge Report (Challan) in the Court of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Mohindergarh who vide order dated 13.09.2002 observed that offence under Section 302 IPC had been alleged which was exclusively triable by the Court of Session. Accordingly, the case was committed to the said Court for trial. The learned Sessions Judge on 30.09.2002 charge-sheeted the appellant on the allegation that on 20.06.2002 in the area of Village Jonawas, the appellant Sumer Singh committed the murder of Smt. Chanderkala and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as eleven witnesses and also tendered documents in evidence which include the FSL report Ex.PR and Ex.PS and closed the prosecution evidence. The statement of the appellant in terms of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("CrPC"
- for short) was recorded and the substance of the evidence appearing against him was put to him. It was stated by the appellant that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated. He did not lead any evidence in defence. After considering the evidence and material on record, the learned Sessions Judge, Narnaul convicted the appellant Sumer Singh for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life; besides, pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. Aggrieved against the said order of conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred the appeal.
Crl. Appeal No. 192-DB of 2005 [5]
Shri. J.S. Lalli, Advocate learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. It is submitted that the case is one of blind murder and is based only on hearsay evidence. There is no eye- witness to the occurrence. It is further submitted that the conviction of the appellant has been recorded only on the basis of the disclosure statement (Ex.PK) in pursuance of which a Kulhari (Ex.P1) was recovered. It is submitted that the occurrence in the case is of 20.06.2002, whereas the appellant was arrested on 16.7.2002 and the recovery of a Kulhari (Ex.P1) was effected on 16.7.2002 vide recovery memo (Ex.PM). Therefore, the inordinate delay in arresting the appellant and thereafter in recovering the alleged Kulhari (Ex.P1) it is submitted vitiates the prosecution case. It is also submitted that the complainant Dharambir (PW-7) reached the place of occurrence after considerable delay inasmuch as he had received information regarding the death of Smt. Chanderkala at about 10.00/11.00 am. However, he reached village Jonawas at about 7.30 pm and then he went to the Police Station at about 9.00 p.m. This according to the learned counsel gave sufficient time to the complainant to falsely involve and implicate the appellant. It is also submitted that HC Lal Chand who witnessed the disclosure statement (Ex.PK) was given up and therefore, not much reliance can be placed on the disclosure statement.
In response, Shri H.S. Sran, Additional Advocate General Haryana appearing for the State has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant in all material aspects. It is submitted that the prosecution has conducted a fair investigation and reached at the truth of the matter. The disclosure statement (Ex.PK) which resulted in the recovery (Ex.PM) of a Kulhari (Ex.P1) goes to show that only the appellant was involved in the case and his guilt stands proved beyond shadow of doubt. It is also submitted that Dr. Karan Singh (PW-1) has deposed about the injuries suffered by Chanderkala (deceased) and gave his opinion (Ex.PD/1) regarding the Crl. Appeal No. 192-DB of 2005 [6] injuries being caused with the Kulhari (Ex.P1). It is also submitted that earlier also the appellant had attempted to murder his wife Chanderkala (deceased) but the matter was compromised and she was sent back. Therefore, it is submitted that the order of the learned trial Court warrants no interference by this Court.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and with their assistance, perused the records of the case.
The prosecution case is based on the statement of the complainant- Dharambir (PW-7) regarding the murder of his sister Chanderkala by the appellant Sumer Singh. The appellant Sumer Singh had a suspicion that Chanderkala (deceased) was not of a good character and he used to beat her on account of this. Earlier a case was registered against the appellant for the offence under Section 307 IPC in which it has been alleged that the appellant had attempted to murder his wife Chanderkala. The said case was compromised with the intervention of the Panchayat and Chanderkala (deceased) started living with the appellant. On 20.06.2002, Dharambir (PW-7) received a message on telephone that his sister Chanderkala had been murdered by Sumer Singh (appellant). On receipt of the said information, the complainant-Dharambir (PW-7) along with his brother Anil Kumar reached village Jonawas and found Chanderkala lying dead on a cot. She had been assaulted with a Kulhari (Ex.P1). On the basis of the complaint made by Dharambir (PW-7), the Police registered FIR (Ex.PJ). Thereafter, investigation in the case was carried out and inquest proceedings (Ex.PC) were conducted. Photographs (Ex.P2 to Ex.P6) and negatives (Ex.P7 to Ex.P11) of the place of occurrence were also taken by Devender Kumar (PW-8). Jai Lal (PW-2) attested memo Ex.PE regarding taking in possession a 'gurda' (mattress) and a portion of the ropes for making the cot. Both the mattress and the ropes were blood- stained; besides blood-stained earth was also taken from the place of occurrence. Mahesh Kumar, Constable-cum-Draftsman (PW-3) prepared the Crl. Appeal No. 192-DB of 2005 [7] site plan (Ex.PF). Dr. Karan Singh, Medical Officer, CHC, Mohindergarh (PW-1) conducted the post-mortem examination of Chanderkala (deceased) and he found the following injuries:-
"1. Incised wound of 8.5 x 1.5 x 5 cm with clotted blood around it. Hair bulbs were cut. Wound was spindal shape. Smooth margins located over right frontal bone obliquely placed on dissections, muscles were cut and gap was visible to the frontal bone. Brain tissue were oozing out and blood clots were present in the wound.
2. Incised wound of 8.5 x 1.5 x 5 cm over right side of neck. It was obliquely placed. On dissection trachea was cut into two pieces.
Both carotid artery and vein was cut on right side. The stern mastoid muscle on right side was cut and it was spindal shape.
Clotted blood was present over the wound.
3. Two penetrating wounds 1cm below second wound and 8 cm apart size 1 x .5 x .5 cm and it was oval in shape and clotted blood was present in it on the right side of the neck and another prong was on the left side of the neck. On thorax examination only the trachea was cut into two parts as already mentioned. Rest of the parts were healthy. On abdominal examination everything was healthy.
Opinion: The cause of death in my opinion was due to cutting of major blood vessel on right side Crl. Appeal No. 192-DB of 2005 [8] associated with head injury which was ante mortem in nature and was sufficient to cause death in routine course of life."
The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the case is of blind murder and based on hearsay evidence in which there is no eye- witness and that it is based only on the disclosure statement (Ex.PK) may be considered. Dharambir (PW7) appeared as a witness in Court and has reiterated the version as given by him in his statement made before the Police on the basis of which FIR (Ex.PJ) was registered. On receipt of the information about the death of his sister Chanderkala, he went to village Jonawas. The fact that he reached Village Jonawas in the evening whereas, he had received information at about 10.00 a.m. or 11.00 a.m. in the facts and circumstances of the case is inconsequential. The same is not such a discrepancy so as to hold that the prosecution has not established its case. When information had been received about the death of Chanderkala, it must have taken sometime for Dharambir-complainant (PW-7) to contact his brother Anil Kumar and Jai Lal (PW-2) and to get them to go with him to Village Jonawas. Dharambir (PW-7) had deposed that they got down from the bus at the bus stand of Village Jonawas and they were going to the house of Sumer Singh (appellant) and they saw him near the village. Seeing them coming, Sumer Singh had escaped and then they went home and saw that Chanderkala was lying dead. She had injuries on her neck and head. The injuries on the person of Chanderkala are proved by the medical evidence of Dr. Karan Singh (PW-1) who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Chanderkala. In cross- examination it is stated by Dr. Karan Singh (PW-1) that death in this case was instantaneous; besides, the deceased could not have remained in a position to speak for any time after infliction of injury No.2. The cause of death has been opined to be due to cutting of major blood vessel on the right side associated with the head injury.Crl. Appeal No. 192-DB of 2005 [9]
Kurda Ram SI/SHO (PW-11) in his cross-examination has stated that the appellant had not made any extra-judicial confession to anyone. Nothing was put in cross-examine to the prosecution witnesses as regards the case of the prosecution with respect to the offence under Section 307 IPC attributed to him and which was compromised. As is well-known a party is liable to put its case to the witnesses under cross-examination and failure to cross-examine on a particular point recorded in the examination in chief is deemed to be admitted. Dharambir (PW7) in his examination in chief had stated that in the year 1984 or 1985 the accused (appellant) had assaulted his sister Chanderkala with a 'Kulhari' regarding which a case was registered against him. In the said case a compromise was brought about between his sister (deceased) and the accused (appellant). There is indeed no cross-examination of Dharambir (PW7) in this regard. The fact regarding the earlier assault by the appellant on Chanderkala (deceased) goes to show that the appellant had been beating her and this aspect is not denied or controverted by him. The fact that earlier a case was registered against the appellant under Section 307 IPC with respect to the assault on his wife Chanderkala (deceased) goes to show his complete involvement in the murder of his wife Smt. Chanderkala. It is not a case which can be said to be based only on the disclosure statement (Ex.PK). In fact the disclosure statement (Ex.PK) has been recorded on the basis of the statement made by Sumer Singh (appellant) while in police custody which led to recovery of a 'Kulhari' (Ex.P1) in pursuance of recovery memo (Ex.PM). The 'Kulhari' was recovered in the presence of HC Lal Chand, Dharambir (PW-7) and Kurda Ram, SI (PW-11). The fact that Lal Chand who witnessed the disclosure statement (Ex.PK) as also the recovery memo (Ex.PM) has not been examined is inconsequential as the disclosure statement (Ex.PK) and the recovery memo (Ex.PM) are otherwise proved on the record by the statements of Dharambir (PW-7) and Kurda Ram SI/SHO (PW-11). Besides, the statement led to the recovery of Kulhari (Ex.P1).Crl. Appeal No. 192-DB of 2005 [10]
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has also contended that there is no examination of the finger prints and blood group on the 'Kulhari' that has been recovered. It may be noticed that in terms of the FSL report (Ex.PR) parcel 'V' contained Exhibit-5. It was mentioned as one 'Kulhari' approximately 56 cms having rusty metallic blade and wooden handle stained with dark brown stains towards sharper edge of blade; besides, there were four other articles i.e. Exhibit-1 small cut pieces of terry cot cloth stained with brownish stains; Exhibit-2 several cut pieces of 'baan' stained with dark brown stains; Exhibit-3 one yellowish cloth stuffed gadda (mattress) stained with numerous large and small dark brown stains and Exhibit-4 one cut opened check terry cot kurta stained with numerous large and small dark brown stains. All these articles including 'kulhari' Exhibit-5 were found to be stained with blood. The results of the Serologist analysis of blood were attached. In terms of the FSL report (Ex.PS) which is the result of Serological analysis of blood in respect of Exhibit-1 i.e. cloth, the material was mentioned as disintegrated. For the others including the 'Kulhari' the blood was stated to be human but the group was mentioned as; 'inconclusive'. Finger prints on rusty metallic blade and wooden handle are not normally decipherable and it is probably for this reason that there is no examination of finger prints on the 'Kulhari'. The blood on the 'Kulhari' has been opined to be human blood. The 'Kulhari' (Ex.P1) was recovered on the disclosure statement of the appellant. It may also be noticed that Devender Kumar (PW8) on the intervening night of 20.6.2002 and 21.6.2002 went to village Jonawas and took photographs (Exs.P2 to P6) and their negatives are Ex.P7 to Ex.P11. It is stated that he did not tamper with the photographs. The photographs (Exs.P2 to P6) have been seen which show the death of a lady and blood is smeared on her face. Dr. Karan Singh (PW-1) has given complete account of the injuries and has also given opinion (Ex.PD/1) that the injuries No.1 and 2 on the persons of deceased Chanderkala could have been caused by Kulhari (Ex.P1). He had seen the Kulhari that was produced before him on the day he gave his opinion. Therefore, the prosecution has proved its case in all material aspects beyond Crl. Appeal No. 192-DB of 2005 [11] shadow of reasonable doubt. The appellant Sumer Singh was earlier also involved in the case of attempt to murder his wife Smt. Chanderkala. In the said case, the matter was compromised in the Panchayat and Chanderkala was sent to reside with the appellant Sumer Singh. As such, even though the case is one of circumstantial evidence, the chain of events are so complete and consistent without any theory of innocence or doubt regarding the involvement of the appellant in the murder. There is nothing to show that the evidence is based on hearsay version rather the incident has been brought out in a truthful manner as it occurred. Therefore, there is complete chain of events which clearly point to the guilt of the accused and there is no escape from the conclusions that the murder of Chanderkala had been caused by the appellant. The findings recorded and reached at by the learned trial Court, therefore, warrant no interference.
In the facts and circumstances, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(S.S. SARON) JUDGE (SABINA) JUDGE November 03, 2008.
amit