Punjab-Haryana High Court
***** vs State Of Punjab on 28 January, 2010
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Jora Singh
Crl. A. No. 576-DB of 2001
Crl. A. No. 584-DB of 2001 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
*****
Crl. A. No. 576-DB of 2001
Date of decision : January , 2010
*****
Harjinder Singh
............appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
...........respondent
Crl. A. No. 584-DB of 2001
Date of decision : January , 2010
*****
Balwinder Singh and Lakhwinder Singh
............appellants
Versus
State of Punjab
...........respondent
*****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH
*****
Present: Mr. Divyajot Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the appellant.
(In Crl. Appeal No.576-DB of 2001)
Mr. D.S Rajput, Advocate for the appellants.
(In Crl. Appeal No. 584-DB of 2001)
Ms. Gurveen H. Singh, Additional Advocate General,
Punjab for respondent.
*****
JORA SINGH, J.
Crl. A. No. 576-DB of 2001 Crl. A. No. 584-DB of 2001 [2] By this common Judgment, we propose to dispose of Crl. Appeal no. 576-DB of 2001 filed by Harjinder Singh son of Hardev Singh and Crl. Appeal No.584-DB of 2001 filed by Balwinder Singh and Lakhwinder Singh to impugn the Judgment dated 6.9.2001 rendered by Sessions Judge, Kapurthala in case FIR No.6 dated 18.1.1999 registered under Sections 302/201/406/420 IPC at Police Station Kotwali Kapurthala. By this Judgment all the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:-
I) Under Section 364 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for a period of six months each II) Under Section 302 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for a period of six months each. III) Under Section 379 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for a period of three months each.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Prosecution story, in brief is that on 18.1.1999, SI Raghbir Singh posted as Additional SHO at Police Station Kotwali was present near bus Stand Bhawanipur along with other police Crl. A. No. 576-DB of 2001 Crl. A. No. 584-DB of 2001 [3] officials, where Charan Singh had met the police party. Statement of Charan Singh Ex.PA was recorded. After making endorsement, statement was sent to the police station on the basis of which formal FIR Ex.PH was recorded.
Charan Singh, complainant reported to the police that he is the owner of Truck No. MP-09 KB 1217. On 12.1.1999, he had contacted Shashi Kumar alias Babi and Baldev Singh, commission agents with a request for loading his truck. Shashi Kumar replied that he has received a telephonic message from Village Ucha from one Kuldip Singh, contractor of potatoes. Potatotes are to be transported from village Ucha to Indore. After that he along with Baldev Singh, Driver and Kuldip Singh, cleaner in a truck came from Amritsar side. He had alighted from the truck near the turning of Baba Bakala. Truck was sent to Village Ucha for loading purposes. Baldev Singh, Driver and Kuldeep Singh, cleaner were directed to contact Kuldeep Singh, Contractor to load the truck and come back to Village Choong because he (Charan Singh) wanted to accompany them to Indore. They were further directed to come back to village even if the truck is not loaded. But Kuldeep Singh and Baldev singh failed to return with the truck. On 13.1.1999, he had gone to Village Ucha in search of them and came to know that there is no contractor, namely, Kuldip Singh. On 14.1.1999 also, he failed to trace Baldev Singh and Kuldeep Singh along with the truck. On 18.1.1999 at about 10:00/11:00 a.m, after making enquiry, came to know that Lakhwinder Singh, Harjinder Singh and Balwinder Singh had kidnapped Baldev Singh and Kuldeep Singh with the truck. Baldev Singh and Kuldeep Singh were murdered. All documents with billties Crl. A. No. 576-DB of 2001 Crl. A. No. 584-DB of 2001 [4] were in the truck.
On 8.2.1999, Lakhwinder Singh, accused was arrested and on 9.2.1999, he was interrogated. Lakhwinder Singh suffered disclosure statement that they had summoned a truck and murdered its driver and the cleaner. Their dead bodies were thrown in the river. Gold ring of Kuldeep Singh, cleaner was removed and was kept concealed in the iron box in his residential house. He knew about the same and could get the same recovered. In pursuance of the disclosure statement Ex.PB, gold ring was got recovered from the specified place. Accused had also pointed out the place where driver and cleaner were murdered.
On 8.6.1999, Resham Singh Lambardar had produced accused Balwinder singh and Harjinder Singh along with truck No. MP-09-KB-1217. Truck was taken into police possession vide memo Ex.PJ attested by Resham Singh, Lambardar and ASI Dilbagh Singh. Accused were arrested in this case.
After the completion of investigation, challan was presented against Lakhwinder Singh. Supplementary challan was presented against Harjinder Singh and Balwinder Singh. As per order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, case was committed to the court of Session for trial.
Accused were charged under Sections 364/302/379 IPC to which the accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution examined thirteen witnesses.
PW-1, Charan Singh is the complainant and stated that he was owning truck No. MP-09 KB 1217. Baldev Singh was driver whereas Kuldeep Singh was cleaner. On 12.1.1999, he along with Crl. A. No. 576-DB of 2001 Crl. A. No. 584-DB of 2001 [5] above said persons on a truck had contacted Shashi kumar alias Babi and Baldev Singh, commission agents carrying on business, in the name of Mani Road Lines Commission Agents, Amritsar with a request to load his truck. Shashi Kumar replied that he has received a telephonic message from Village Ucha for transportation of potatoes from Ucha to Indore. Shashi Kumar told us to contact Kuldeep Singh, Contractor. While returning from Amritsar, he had alighted from the truck near the turning of Baba Bakala. Thereafter driver and cleaner were sent to village ucha for loading the truck. They were told that they should contact Kuldip Singh contractor and after loading potatoes to come back to village Choong because he wanted to accompany them to Indore. They were further directed to come back to village Choong even if the truck is not loaded, but they failed to return. Ultimately, report was lodged on 18.1.1999.
PW-2, Harbhajan Singh stated his son, Baldev Singh was a driver on the truck of Charan Singh. Kuldeep Singh was cleaner. One day before Lohtri they had gone to village Ucha to load potatoes. After eight days, Charan singh reported that Baldev Singh and Kuldeep Singh are not traceable. Baldev Singh and Kuldeep Singh were kidnapped with the truck by Babi and Lakha resident of village Peerowal and Harjinder Singh resident of Village Desal.
PW-3, Kundan Singh, resident of Dahudpur, Tehsil Dhilwan stated that he had gone to the house of Lakhwinder Singh resident of Village Peerowal. Harjinder Singh and Balwinder Singh were also present in the house with Lakhwinder Singh. Lakhwinder Singh made extra judicial confession that two persons were murdered because Harjinder Singh owned one truck but failed to repay the Crl. A. No. 576-DB of 2001 Crl. A. No. 584-DB of 2001 [6] installments. Truck was taken into custody by the financer. Truck was summoned from Amritsar by saying that the potatoes are to be loaded for transportation to Indore. After murder, dead bodies of driver and cleaner were thrown in the river. Then he enquired from Balwinder Singh about the extra judicial confession made by Lakhwinder Singh. Balwinder Singh had also confessed the guilt. Thereafter. Harjinder Singh had also confessed his guilt.
PW-4, Manjit Singh stated that about one year and seven months back, he was coming from village Desal towards Fattudhinga. On the way near the hand pump in the area of village Desal, his scooter went out of order. He sighted all the accused in a truck. they stopped near the hand pump to take water. On enquiry, accused replied that they are going to load potatoes in the area of Mand.
PW-5, SI, Mangat Rai had partly investigated the case in hand.
PW-6, Dial Singh stated that in his presence, Lakhwinder Singh was interrogated. As per disclosure statement suffered by Lakhwinder Singh, ring Ex.P3 was got recovered from the specified place.
PW-7, Iqbal Singh stated that his son, Kuldeep Singh was a cleaner on the truck of Charan singh. Baldev Singh was the driver. Baldev Singh and Kuldeep Singh had gone on 12.1.1999 on a truck but failed to return. Kuldeep Singh was wearing a ring which was purchased vide receipt `mark-A'.
PW-8, SI Raghbir Singh had initially investigated the case in hand.
Crl. A. No. 576-DB of 2001 Crl. A. No. 584-DB of 2001 [7] PW-9, Shashi Kumar stated that on 12.1.1999, Charan Singh came to his shop for loading some luggage. On that day, he had received telephonic call from Kuldeep Singh, thekedar of Ucha Pind. He wanted a truck for transportation of potatoes to Indore. Charan Singh offered to supply truck for transportation of potatoes from Ucha Pind to Indore. Then bility was issued and the same was handed over to the driver of the truck.
PW-10, Bahadur Singh, Inspector had partly investigated the case in hand.
PW-11, Bal Krishan Patwari prepared the scaled site plan.
PW-12, Mohinder Singh, Financer stated that loan was not advanced to Harjinder Singh.
PW-13, Inspector, Gurmukh Singh had also partly investigated the case in hand. He had recorded the statements of Manjit Singh, Mohinder Singh and Shashi Kumar and had taken into police possession billty of truck No. MP-9-KB-1217.
After the close of prosecution evidence, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent.
Defence version of Harjinder Singh was that he was arrested from Pilibeet District in U.P while working on truck no. DAL
497. Defence version of Balwinder Singh is that he had gone to Assam and was arrested from there by SI Bahadur Singh. He was employed in Goods Transport Company. Whereas, defence version of Lakhwinder Singh is that he was arrested by SI Mangat Rai from Crl. A. No. 576-DB of 2001 Crl. A. No. 584-DB of 2001 [8] his village in the presence of village Panchayat along with his truck and brought to police station Kotwali, Kapurthala. He was kept in custody for number of days.
DW-1, Resham Singh stated that accused had not made extra judicial confession before him. The truck was not taken into police possession in his presence. He had gone to the police station. Accused was in police lock up. His signatures were obtained on blank papers.
DW-2, Rajwant Singh stated that he owned one truck but the same was sold in the year 1997. Manjit Singh son of Hari Singh was not employed by him as driver.
After hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State, learned counsel for the accused and from the perusal of the evidence on file, appellants-accused were convicted under Sections 364/302/379 IPC and were sentenced as stated above vide the impugned judgment under challenge.
We have heard the counsel for the appellants, learned State counsel and have gone through the evidence on the file. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that it is a case of blind murder. Case is based on circumstantial evidence. But prosecution failed to complete the chain of circumstantial evidence. Firstly there is delay in lodging the FIR. Occurrence was on 12.1.1999 whereas report was lodged on 18.1.1999. In case Baldev Singh and Kuldeep Singh failed to return with truck loaded or unloaded from Ucha Pind then report should have been lodged. Statement of Kundan Singh before whom appellants-accused had made extra judicial confession inspires no confidence because extra judicial confession is joint one. Crl. A. No. 576-DB of 2001 Crl. A. No. 584-DB of 2001 [9] Kundan Singh was related to the complainant so there was no idea to make extra judicial confession before Kundan Singh, relation of the complainant. Evidence of last seen as per the statement of Manjit Singh is also weak type of evidence. Manjit Singh stated that he was employed by Rajwant Singh as a Driver but Rajwant Singh stated that he never employed Manjit Singh. There was no motive to commit the crime. As per prosecution motive to commit the crime was that Harjinder Singh had one truck but he failed to repay its installments. Truck was taken into custody by the Financer. To support Harjinder Singh to have another truck, truck was summoned from Amrtisar. Later on its driver and cleaner were murdered. Their dead bodies were thrown in the river but dead bodies have not been recovered till today. In view of the statement of Rajwant Singh, statement of Manjit Singh is without any evidentiary value. Earlier appellants were not known to Manjit Singh so Manjit Singh cannot state that he had seen the appellants with the truck while returning to Fattudhinga from village Desal. According to the story, Shashi Kumar, Commission agent had received telephonic call from Village Ucha to send one truck for transportation of potatoes to Indore. Record of PCO was not taken into police possession to show that any call was made from Ucha Pind to Amritsar on that particular day requesting Shashi Kumar to send one truck for transportation of potatoes. Non- examination of the owner of PCO is fatal.
Learned State counsel argued that delay was fully explained. On 12.1.1999, complainant was requested to supply truck. Baldev Singh driver with Kuldeep singh cleaner of the truck had gone to Ucha Pind to load the potatoes for transportation to Crl. A. No. 576-DB of 2001 Crl. A. No. 584-DB of 2001 [10] Indore. As per direction of the owner of the truck, they failed to return. On 13.1.1999, Charan Singh had gone to Ucha pind to enquire about the truck. Later on, son of Charan Singh died an unnatural death. Ultimately on 18.1.1999, matter was reported to the police. Appellants were named in the FIR because on enquiry from Ucha Pind, Charan Singh came to know that appellants-accused had abducted the driver and cleaner of the truck. Before the occurrence, Charan Singh had no enmity with the appellants, so there was no idea to name them. Kundan Singh is the resident of Dahudpur. He is not related to the complainant. He had no enmity with the appellants. Kundan Singh had gone to the house of appellants in Village Peerowal to purchase buffaloes, where the appellants- accused had made extra judicial confession before him. When Kundan Singh is not related to the complainant, nor he was inimical towards the appellants then nothing to disbelieve him. Manjit Singh had seen the appellants-accused with a truck while going to village Fattudhinga. This witness is also not related to the complainant. Resham Singh had produced two accused namely, Balwinder Singh and Harjinder Singh with truck before the police. Resham Singh admitted his signatures on the recovery memo Ex.PJ. Resham Singh is matriculate. In case his signatures were obtained on blank papers then he could have reported the matter to the higher authorities. Till today, no complaint by Resham Singh with this allegation that his signatures were obtained on blank papers. Ring of the deceased was recovered in pursuance of the disclosure statement suffered by one of the accused, namely, Lakhwinder Singh. Harjinder Singh is the resident of Village Desal, whereas Balwinder Singh and Crl. A. No. 576-DB of 2001 Crl. A. No. 584-DB of 2001 [11] Lakhwinder Singh are the residents of Vilalge Peerowal. Earlier to the occurrence, appellants had no enmity with the complainant. So there was no idea to choose appellants from different villages. Evidence on file was rightly scrutinized by the trial Court.
First submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that there is delay in lodging the FIR. Delay was not explained. We have gone through the evidence on file and are of the opinion that submission of the counsel for the appellants carries little weight. Occurrence is dated 12.1.1999. Charan Singh owned truck no.MP- 09 KB 1217. Baldev Singh was employed as a Driver, whereas Kuldeep Singh was employed as a Cleaner. Charan Singh along with the driver and cleaner had gone to Amritsar and contacted Shashi Kumar, Transporter for loading of the truck. Shashi Kumar reported that he had received telephonic message from Kuldeep Singh contractor of village Ucha Pind for transportation of potatoes to Indore. Bility was supplied by Shashi Kumar. As per the request of Shashi Kumar, Transporter, Charan Singh agreed to supply his truck. Charan singh along with driver and cleaner came back from Amritsar. Near the turning of Baba Bakala, Charan Singh had alighted from the truck and told Baldev Singh and Kuldeep Singh to come back to village Choong after loading the Truck because Charan Singh wanted to accompany them to Indore. He further directed them to come back to Village Choong even if the truck is not loaded. But Baldev singh and Kuldeep Singh failed to return. On the next date, Charan singh had gone to Ucha Pind to enquire as to why Driver and cleaner failed to return on the next date also. Enquiry was made by Charan Singh about the driver and cleaner. Later on due to the death of his son, Crl. A. No. 576-DB of 2001 Crl. A. No. 584-DB of 2001 [12] Charan Singh failed to lodge report with the police. Thereafter on 18.1.1999, matter was reported to the police. Harjinder Singh appellant is the resident of Village Desal whereas Balwinder Singh and Lakhwinder Singh are the residents of Village Peerowal. Before the present occurrence, appellants had no enmity with Charan Singh, Baldev Singh, driver and Kuldeep Singh, cleaner. So without enmity, there was no idea to name the appellants. In case, we assume that there is delay then delay itself is not sufficient for the acquittal of the accused. Delay is one of the suspicious circumstance to scrutinize the evidence with great care and caution.
Next submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that evidence of extra judicial confession is not worth credence. Kundan Singh is related to the complainant. He is the resident of Village Dahudpur. Kundan Singh was not holding any influential post. He had no say in the police Department. Extra judicial confession, if joint, is not admissible as per law. But, we do not agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants because Kundan Singh is the resident of Village Dadupur. No evidence on the file that he is related to the complainant. Iqbal Singh father of Kuldeep Singh deceased appeared as PW-7, after the appearance of Kundan Singh, In case Kundan Singh is related to Charan Singh and Charan Singh appeared as PW-1 i.e before the appearance of Kundan Singh, and appellants had no occasion to cross-examine Kundan Singh and his relationship with Charan Singh then when Iqbal Singh appeared as PW-7 then he could easily be cross-examined as to how Kundan Singh is related to Charan Singh. Appellants when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C then did not Crl. A. No. 576-DB of 2001 Crl. A. No. 584-DB of 2001 [13] state a word as to how Kundan Singh is related to Charan Singh. No witness appeared in defence to state that Kundan Singh is related to Charan Singh. In the absence of evidence on the file, nothing to presume that Kundan Singh is related to Charan Singh. Evidence on the file shows that Kundan Singh had gone to the house of Lakhwinder Singh to purchase buffaloes, where all the appellants- accused were present. Firstly, Lakhwinder singh had made extra judicial confession before Kundan Singh, then Kundan Singh had enquired about the incident from Balwinder Singh. Balwinder Singh had also confessed his guilt. Later on Harjinder Singh had confessed his guilt by saying that by murdering driver and cleaner, their dead bodies were thrown in the river. No doubt evidence of extra judicial confession is a weak type of evidence especially when it is made before a person who is not in a position to save the accused from torture at the hands of police. But at the same time, statement is not to be ignored simply on the allegation that witness was from a different village and had no say in the police Department. No question was put to Kundan Singh as to whether he had a say in the Police Department or not and how he was in a position to save the appellant-accused from torture. It is for the appellants to see before whom they are to make extra judicial confession. Kundan Singh was not related to Charan Singh. He is from a different village. Then the question is how Kundan Singh was brought into a picture. No ground to ignore the statement of Kundan Singh.
Next submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is to the effect that evidence of last seen by Manjit Singh is also without any evidentiary value. Manjit Singh was the employee of Crl. A. No. 576-DB of 2001 Crl. A. No. 584-DB of 2001 [14] Rajwant Singh. But Rajwant Singh when appeared as DW-2 then stated that Manjit Singh was never employed by him as driver so statement of Manjit Singh be ignored. Manjit Singh is the resident of village Lakhan Kalan and he was returning to village Fattudhinga from village Desal when on the way near the hand pump he had to stop due to some mechanical defect in the scooter. Appellants in a truck came and had stopped near the hand pump to fetch water. Rajwant Singh no doubt appeared in defence and stated that Manjit Singh was not employed by him. As discussed earlier, Manjit Singh was also not related to the complainant. He was not inimical towards appellants. So there was no idea to choose Manjit Singh to state that he had seen the appellants with the truck near the hand pump in the are of Fattudhinga.
Crl. A. No. 576-DB of 2001 Crl. A. No. 584-DB of 2001 [15] On 8.2.1999, Lakhwinder Singh accused was arrested. On the next day, he had suffered disclosure statement ExPB that they had summoned a truck and after murdering, the driver and cleaner, threw their dead bodies in the river. He further disclosed that the gold ring of Kuldeep Singh was removed by him and kept in the iron box in his residential house. In pursuance to the disclosure statement, gold ring of Kuldeep Singh was got recovered. Ring was recovered in the presence of Dial Singh. Iqbal Singh father of Kuldeep Singh stated that ring Ex.P3 belongs to his son Kuldeep Singh purchased vide receipt `mark-A'. Receipt was not exhibited. But no idea to disbelieve Dial Singh and Iqbal Singh, particularly when Dial Singh had no enmity with the appellants and he was not related to the complainant-party. Recovery of ring as per disclosure statement suffered by Lakhwinder Singh shows that prosecution story inspires confidence.
Next submission of the counsel for the appellants is that there was no motive to abduct and murder Baldev Singh and Kuldeep Singh. When the case is based on circumstantial evidence, then there should be a strong motive to connect the accused with the crime. Evidence should inspire confidence that appellants-accused are the only person who had committed the crime. According to the story, crime was committed to arrange a truck for Harjinder Singh because earlier his truck was taken away by the Financer due to non- payment of installments. We agree that when a case is based on circumstantial evidence then prosecution is to lead cogent and convincing evidence that there was a strong motive to commit the crime. In the present case, PW-12 Mohinder Singh stated that he is Crl. A. No. 576-DB of 2001 Crl. A. No. 584-DB of 2001 [16] running a finance company but loan was not given to Harjinder Singh. At the request of the State counsel, further examination in chief was deferred with a direction to Mohinder Singh to bring the record regarding loan for the purchase of truck No. PB-7B-6277. But, despite, direction by the Court, entire record regarding advancement of loan was not brought. On cross-examination by the learned State counsel, Mohinder Singh admitted that truck No. PB-7B-6277 was financed by his Company. When Dilbagh Singh did not pay the complete installments then truck was taken into possession. In the absence of record, Mohinder Singh cannot state that truck No PB- 7B-6277 was got financed by Dilbagh Singh. Harjinder Singh accused when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C then did not state a word that he was not owning truck no. PB-7B-6277 and the abovesaid truck was not got financed from Mohinder Singh, Financer. He simply stated that he was brought from Pilibhit while working on truck No.DAL 497. In defence, owner of the above said truck was not produced. Dilbagh Singh was not produced to say that he got truck No.PB-7B-6277 finaned from Mohinder Singh. Mohinder Singh, PW- 12 failed to bring record to show that truck no. PB-7B-6277 was got financed by Harjinder Singh and he failed to repay the installments. Failure to bring record regarding advancement of loan shows that Mohinder Singh in order to help the appellants-accused despite direction by the Court did not bring record. Meaning thereby earlier Harjinder Singh got financed one truck and failed to pay installments and the truck was taken into custody by the financer. Shashi Kumar transporter was contacted on telephone to supply truck. Telephonic message was received from Contractor Kuldeep Singh from Ucha Crl. A. No. 576-DB of 2001 Crl. A. No. 584-DB of 2001 [17] Pind but there was no contractor namely, Kuldip Singh. Shashi Kumar, transporter had issued billty. Truck was sent to Ucha pind for loading of potatoes but driver and cleaner failed to return with the truck that means by deception, truck was summoned from Amritsar. Same truck was recovered from the appellants-accused. Recovery memo Ex.PJ was prepared and the same was signed by Resham Singh. Resham Singh in defence appeared as DW-1. He has admitted his signatures on recovery memo Ex.PJ but stated that his signatures were obtained on blank papers. In case his signatures were obtained on blank papers then he was not supposed to remain silent. He could easily sent complaints to different authorities that his signatures were obtained on blank papers. No explanation for what purpose, Resham Singh had gone to police station. He is a lambardar and a matriculate. So he cannot state that his signatures wee obtained on blank papers. Recovery memo Ex.PJ regarding truck no. MP-09-1217 further supports the prosecution story. If the truck was not taken away by the appellants then question is how Balwinder Singh and Harjinder Singh when produced by Resham Singh, produced truck owned by Charan Singh. That means truck was summoned from the Transporter of Amritsar with a motive to arrange truck for Harjinder Singh. After murdering driver and cleaner, their dead bodies were thrown in the river. No reason to ignore the prosecution story in case of non-recovery of dead bodies. In Bodh Raj alias Bodha and others vs. State of Jammuand Kashmir, 2002, Criminal Law Journal 4664, it was held that circumstantial evidence can be sole basis for conviction but the condition precedent before conviction could be based for Crl. A. No. 576-DB of 2001 Crl. A. No. 584-DB of 2001 [18] circumstantial evidence must be fully established.
In the present case, prosecution is in a position to complete the chain of circumstantial evidence. Firstly, appellants- accused made extra judicial confession before Kundan Singh. Secondly, ring of gold of one of the deceased was recovered as per disclosure statement and recovery of truck from the appellants. Appellants were seen with the truck by PW-4 Manjit Singh. Due to non recovery of dead bodies the story is not to be disbelieved as held in Badshah and others vs. State of U.P, 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 27, accused abducted and murdered a person. Dead body of deceased could not be recovered. It was held that (i) in the event of murder of an abducted person, either by direct or presumptive evidenec, an inference ofmurder can safely be drawn in respect whereof, it would not be necessary to prove the corpus delicti (ii) Discovery of the dead body is a rule of caution and not of law. In the event, there exists strong circumstantial evidence, a judgment of conviction can be recorded even in absence of the dead body.
In the present case, driver and cleaner namely, Baldev Singh and Kuldeep Singh are missing w.e.f 12.1.1999. Ring of Crl. A. No. 576-DB of 2001 Crl. A. No. 584-DB of 2001 [19] Kuldeep Singh deceased was recovered as per disclosure statement suffered by one of the accused namely, Lakhwinder Singh. Balwinder Singh and Lakhwinder Singh had produced the truck on 8.6.1999 which was taken into custody vide memo Ex.PJ attested by DW-1, Resham Singh.
Defence plea of Harjinder Singh is that he was working on truck No. DAL-497 and was arrested from Pilibeet. But no evidence as to who was the owner of the above said truck whether the truck was being plied in the area of Pilibeet and Harjinder Singh was working on the truck.
Allegation of Balwinder Singh is that he was arrested from Assam while serving with a Goods Transport Company but again no evidence as to whether there was any Goods Transport Company and Balwinder Singh was the employee of the above said Company. Defence of Lakhwinder Singh, appellant is that he was arrested from his village in the presence of panchayat along with his truck. But the question is whether he is owning any truck and if the truck was brought to the police station then where that truck has gone. If the truck is still in the custody of the police then why no report to any authority. That means defence version of the appellants is an afterthought.
No other submission was put forward.
Both, appeals without merit are dismissed.
As appellant Balwinder Singh is on bail, bail bonds stand cancelled. The appellant Balwinder Singh is directed to surrender himself before the jail authorities immediately for completing remainder of sentence, failing which the concerned authority shall Crl. A. No. 576-DB of 2001 Crl. A. No. 584-DB of 2001 [20] proceed against him in accordance with law.
( JORA SINGH )
JUDGE
January , 2010 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
ritu JUDGE