Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 22 April, 2010
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Jora Singh
Crl.Appeal No.567-DB of 2006 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.Appeal No.567-DB of 2006
Date of decision: 22.4.2010
Karan Singh
... Appellant
versus
State of Punjab
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH.
Present: Mr.Manoj Kumar, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Ms.Gurveen H.Singh, Addl.AG, Punjab.
...
JORA SINGH, J.
Karan Singh son of Harchand Singh, resident of Village Naraingarh Channa, District Fatehgarh Sahib, filed this appeal to challenge the judgment of conviction dated 11.7.2006 and order of sentence dated 13.7.2006 passed by Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, arising out of FIR No.41 dated 10.6.2003 under Section 302 IPC. By the said judgment, he was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for six months.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that Major Singh, complainant, is the father of Amandeep Kaur (deceased). 3-1/4 years before the occurrence, Amandeep Kaur was married with Karan Singh son of Harchand Singh, resident of Village Naraingarh Channa, and from this wedlock, she had one son, namely, Jugraj Singh, aged about 2-1/4 years. One year earlier to the occurrence, Karan Singh had borrowed Rs.70,000/- from Major Singh to repay the debt after family partition. Rs.70,000/- was arranged from the Crl.Appeal No.567-DB of 2006 2 Commission Agent, but despite payment of Rs.70,000/-, Karan Singh used to pressurise Amandeep Kaur to bring more money. Amandeep Kaur requested Karan Singh to return the earlier payment, then he gave beatings to Amandeep Kaur. Due to this reason, on 9.6.2003, Major Singh and his nephew Joga Singh son of Nachhatar Singh, resident of Mohan Majra, had gone to the house of Karan Singh. At about 8.30/8.45 PM, Major Singh and Joga Singh, after taking meal, were sitting in the verandah. Karan Singh and Amandeep Kaur were inside the room. There was some altercation amongst Karan Singh and Amandeep Kaur. Karan Singh was compelling Amandeep Kaur to bring more payment. Then Amandeep Kaur replied that her parents had already paid Rs.70,000/- and the amount was not returned. Now they are unable to pay more money. Karan Singh was requested to arrange money from his parents, then he felt offended and picked up a small gandasi lying in the room and gave blow on the head of Amandeep Kaur. Second blow was given on the left side of face on cheek of Amandeep Kaur. On receipt of blows, Amandeep Kaur fell down. Major Singh and Joga Singh made an effort to save her. Then Karan Singh gave another blow hitting on the right side of her cheek. Two more blows were given on the forehead of Amandeep Kaur. Raula was raised, then Karan Singh had fled away from the spot with gandasi. On hearing raula, father, mother, and uncles of Karan Singh, and several other villagers came to the place of occurrence. After arranging vehicle, Amandeep Kaur was got admitted in Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. After first aid by the doctor, Amandeep Kaur was referred to PGI, Chandigarh, but she was being shifted to DMC, Ludhiana, for treatment. Near Dholewal Chowk, Ludhiana, Amandeep Kaur had succumbed to her injuries. Dead body was brought Crl.Appeal No.567-DB of 2006 3 back to Village Naraingarh Channa. Motive to murder was that Karan Singh was compelling Amandeep Kaur to bring more money from her parents, but she had refused to bring money Relatives were deputed to guard the dead body. Major Singh had met police party near turning point of Village Jakhwali Channa, where his statement (Ex.PA) was recorded by SI Surjit Singh. After making endorsement at 8.30 AM, statement was sent to the police station, on the basis of which, formal FIR was recorded at 8.50 AM. Special report was handed over to the Ilaqa Magistrate at 8.30 PM on 10.6.2003. SI Surjit Singh along with party had gone to the spot. Photographer was arranged through PHG Lakhvir Singh. Photographs of the dead body and scene of occurrence were got clicked. Inquest report (Ex.PC) was prepared. Rough site plan with correct marginal notes (Ex.PW15/C) was prepared. Blood stained earth was lifted from the spot and made into a sealed parcel. Sealed parcel was taken into police possession vide memo (Ex.PD). Finger Print Expert and Dog Squad were summoned to the spot but no clue could be lifted. Dead body was sent to hospital for postmortem examination. After postmortem examination, dead body was handed over to the relations of the deceased for cremation. On return to the police station, case property was deposited with the Incharge of Malkhana.
On 11.6.2003, investigation of the case was with ASI Malkiat Singh, who along with police officials had raided the house of the accused, but he was not available. Police party was present near Bus Stand, Jakhwali, then received secret information that accused was present near Bus Stand, Nandpur Kesho. Raid was conducted. Accused was arrested on 11.6.2003. On 13.6.2003, accused was interrogated and in pursuance of disclosure Crl.Appeal No.567-DB of 2006 4 statement (Ex.PE), he got recovered his shirt and pyjama from the specified place. Clothes were taken into police possession vide memo (Ex.PF) attested by the witnesses. On return to the police station, case property was deposited with the Incharge of Malkhana. On 15.6.2003, again accused was interrogated and in pursuance of disclosure statement (Ex.PW13/G), he got recovered gandasi from the specified place. Sketch of gandasi (Ex.PW13/H) was prepared. Gandasi was taken into police possession vide memo (Ex.PW13/J) attested by the witnesses. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in Court against accused-Karan Singh.
Private complaint was also instituted by Joga Singh against Karan Singh and five other persons, namely, Harchand Singh, Harpal Singh, Manjit Kaur wife of Harpal Singh, Rupal alias Rupaljit Kaur and Manjit Kaur wife of Amar Singh. After summoning the accused vide order 19.8.2004, complaint was also committed to the Court of Session for trial.
Vide order dated 28.9.2004, complaint case was clubbed with State case.
Accused were charged under Section 302 IPC read with Section 115 IPC and in alternative, under Section 304-B IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined Dr.G.S.Sidhu, who stated that on 10.6.2003, he had conducted medico legal examination of Amandeep Kaur brought by her husband Karan Singh at 12.10 AM and found the following injuries on her person:-
"1. Incised wound above the right eye including right eye brow and 4 cm towards the right cheek and goes upward and medially towards mid of the fore-head upto Crl.Appeal No.567-DB of 2006 5 the hair line of scalp. It was 10 x 4 x 3 cm in dimensions. Underlying bone was damaged. Advised X- ray skull A.P. Lateral view.
2. Two incised injuries on the left of forehead.
i) 6 cm long and it was outer one and (ii) was 5 cm long. These were above the left eye brow. Bone was damaged which was lying underneath the injuries. Advised X-ray skull as in injury no.1.
3. One large incised wound in the centre of the skull was there. Underlying bone was damaged. It was 9 x 2 x 1.5 cm in dimensions. Advised X-ray skull as in injury no.1.
4. A 7 x 2 cm incised wound on the left cheek about 4 cm below left eye. Underlying bone was damaged. Advised X-ray to rule out any fracture of maxilla or any other bone."
PW7 Dr. Sunita Paul on 11.6.2003 had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Amandeep Kaur and noticed following injuries on her person:-
"1. Incised wound 5 cm x 1 cm on the fore-head on the right side with underlying bone cut.
2. Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm on the right side of fore-head starting from outer angel of eye running up-ward and joining injury no.1, under lying bones were fractured.
3. Incised wound 8 cm x 1 cm on the left side of face starting from left upper lip to left eye at its lateral places. Underlying bones were into pieces.Crl.Appeal No.567-DB of 2006 6
4. Two incised wounds 5 cm x 1 cm each running parallel to each other on the left side of the fore-head starting from left eye brow extending up-wards medially.
5. Incised wound 8 cm x 1 cm on the middle of the skull running vertically with underlying bone cut and brain matter coming out of it. On dissection the brain was cut and clotted blood was present in the cranial cavity."
Cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock due to injury No.5 which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature.
PW1 Major Singh and PW2 Joga Singh are the eye witnesses and have supported the prosecution story by saying that in their presence, Amandeep Kaur was murdered by Karan Singh.
PW3 HC Satpal Singh stated that special report was handed over to him and he had started from the police station at 10.20 AM. Special report was handed over to Ilaqa Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib, at 8.30 PM. Distance of police station from Fatehgarh Sahib was 22 KM.
PW4 Constable Kashmira Singh, PW5 Constable Pritam Singh and PW6 HC Suresh Kumar tendered their affidavits (Exs.PW4/A, PW5/A and PW6/A), respectively.
PW8 Rajesh Kumar stated that he was a Photographer and on 10.6.2003, as per request of Karan Singh, he had gone to the spot and taken the photographs. Photographs along with negatives were handed over to Surjit Singh, SHO, which were taken into police possession vide memo (Ex.PW8/A). Photographs were taken at 12.15 PM.
PW9 Gurmukh Singh stated that scaled site plan (Ex.PW9/A) Crl.Appeal No.567-DB of 2006 7 was prepared by him.
PW10 Manjit Singh, Assistant Manager, State Bank of Patiala, stated that cheque, copy of which is Ex.PW1-/A, worth Rs.70,000/- issued by Sardar Trading Company, Khanna, through Gurdeep Singh, partner of the firm, was deposited in the bank and payment was collected by Major Singh.
PW11 Gurdip Singh stated that Major Singh used to sell produce at his shop. On 11.11.2002, on the request of Major Singh, Rs.70,000/- was paid as loan.
PW12 Nahar Singh, employee of PSEB, stated that on 9.6.2003, there was 24 hours electric supply.
PW13 ASI Malkiat Singh had arrested the accused on 11.6.2003. On 13.6.2003, kurta and pyjama of the accused were got recovered in pursuance of his disclosure statement. Same were taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. On 15.6.2003, in pursuance of 2nd disclosure statement, accused got recovered gandasi from the specified place and same was taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses.
PW15 SI Surjit Singh had also partly investigated the case. He had recorded statement of Major Singh (Ex.PA). After inquest report, dead body of the deceased was sent to hospital for postmortem examination. He further stated that on 18.6.2003, he had collected copy of MLR from Rajindra Hospital, Patiala.
PW16 ASI Kuldeep Singh stated that on 11.6.2003, he was with the party of ASI Malkiat Singh. Karan Singh was arrested in this case.
After close of the prosecution evidence, statement of the Crl.Appeal No.567-DB of 2006 8 accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied all the prosecution allegations and pleaded to be innocent. Defence version of the accused was as under:-
"I am innocent. I have been falsely implicated in this case. I was married with Amandeep Kaur in the year 2000. Amandeep Kaur was not happy in the joint family and at her instance, a family partition took place. Myself and Amandeep Kaur started living separately in a house situated at distance of about 2 killas away from the house of my father Harchand Singh, who is living with my brother Harpal Singh and my brother Jaspal Singh is also living separately. My sister Manjit Kaur was married in 1991 in Village Sarana, which is about 4.00 KM from my village. I was preparing my land for paddy transplantation and Amandeep Kaur was alone in the house. When came home, I saw Amandeep Kaur in injured condition. I raised alarm and brought a car and transported Amandeep Kaur to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, to save her life. My name was mentioned by the doctor in the MLR and because her condition was serious, Amandeep Kaur was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. The seriousness of Amandeep Kaur was explained to me and my signature was obtained by the doctor in Bed Head Ticket. When I was transporting Amandeep Kaur from Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, to DMC, Ludhiana, then she expired on the way and dead body was brought back in my house. Her parents were informed who came in the morning and with the connivance of the police, they falsely implicated Crl.Appeal No.567-DB of 2006 9 me in the present case."
In defence, DW1 Navdeep Gupta, Handwriting & Finger Prints Expert, was examined.
After hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State, defence counsel for the accused and from the perusal of evidence on the file, Karan Singh was convicted and sentenced as stated aforesaid.
Co-accused were acquitted of the charge levelled against them. Against acquittal, no appeal has been filed by the State.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, State counsel and gone through the evidence on the file.
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that Amandeep Kaur (deceased) was the legally wedded wife of the appellant. They were residing separately and their house was outside the phirni of Village Naraingarh Channa. Harchand Singh, father of the appellant, was separately residing with his second son Harpal Singh. Jaspal Singh, 2nd brother of the appellant, was also residing separately. At the time of occurrence, Amandeep Kaur was alone in the house. Appellant was in the fields and when came back, then Amandeep Kaur was found in the house in injured condition. After arranging a vehicle, Amandeep Kaur was shifted to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. After first aid, she was referred to PGI, Chandigarh, but keeping in view her condition, she was being taken to DMC, Ludhiana. Near Dholewal Chowk, Ludhiana, Amandeep Kaur had succumbed to her injuries. Dead body was brought back by the appellant to his house. Parents of Amandeep Kaur were informed. With the connivance of the police, appellant was implicated by his in-laws. Amandeep Kaur was medico legally examined in Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, at about 12.10 AM Crl.Appeal No.567-DB of 2006 10 during night time. Four injuries were noticed on her person. According to copy of MLR, Amandeep Kaur was shifted to the hospital by Karan Singh. This fact is also clear from the entry in bed head ticket (Ex.PW14/C), but on 18.6.2003 when copy of MLR was collected by the Investigating Officer, then the doctor was forced to make cutting in the MLR. After cutting the name of the appellant, name of Major Singh was written. Dr. G.S.Sidhu while appearing as PW14 stated that he had medico legally examined Amandeep Kaur brought by her husband. Entry was also made in the MLR. Amandeep Kaur was taken away by her husband for admission in PGI, Chandigarh, and on 18.6.2003, he had made cutting in the MLR. After cutting the name of the appellant, name of Major Singh was written. No suggestion was given to Dr. G.S.Sidhu by learned Public Prosecutor that there was no cutting in the MLR on 18.6.2003 at the instance of Investigating Officer. After death near Dholewal Chowk, Ludhiana, dead body was brought back to the house of the appellant. If the appellant had murdered his wife, then there was no idea to bring back dead body to his house, in case occurrence was witnessed by Major Singh and Joga Singh, as per prosecution story. Amandeep Kaur was shifted from Village Naraingarh Chhana to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, in car arranged by the appellant. Major Singh and Joga Singh stated that they had arranged a car, but intentionally, they had not disclosed the number of the car, name of the driver and owner to avoid their production in defence. In case occurrence was witnessed by Major Singh and Joga Singh and they had shifted Amandeep Kaur to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, then their names should have been entered in the MLR. Appellant was arrested on 11.6.2003. While in custody, how the doctor obtained his signatures on the bed head ticket. Crl.Appeal No.567-DB of 2006 11 There was a telephonic message to the complainant party. Then complainant along with Joga Singh came to Village Naraingarh Chhana but no record of telephone department that telephonic message was sent from Naraingarh Channa to the complainant. According to prosecution story, injuries were caused in the presence of Major Singh and Joga Singh, but they did not try to catch hold the appellant. In the FIR, only appellant was named. There is not a word about the role of Ranjit Kaur and others, who were acquitted by the trial Court after summoning in a complaint case filed by Joga Singh. While appearing in Court, Major Singh and Joga Singh have changed the story. Both were confronted with their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and in the private complaint. No suggestion to the Investigating Officer that he did not record the statement of Major Singh correctly. No complaint against police officials that statements of Major Singh and Joga Singh were not recorded correctly. Private complaint was instituted by Joga Singh and not by Major Singh after one month of registration of FIR. Father, brother, sister-in-law, and niece of the appellant, who were residing separately, were named in the complaint. Major Singh and Joga Singh stated that parents of Karan Singh, appellant, had also boarded the same car, in which Amandeep Kaur was shifted to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, after the occurrence. If they were the accused, then why they allowed the parents of Karan Singh to board the car. After death, Major Singh and Joga Singh should have brought the dead body to their house or Civil Hospital, Fatehgarh Sahib. There was no idea to shift the dead body to the house of the appellant. In defence, photocopies of ration cards were produced showing this fact that appellant was residing separately. In the FIR, no allegation that appellant was demanding CD Crl.Appeal No.567-DB of 2006 12 Player, mobile phone, goggle of Rayband company, or Rs.1,00,000/-, to purchase a car, but in Court, Major Singh and Joga Singh stated that above said articles were demanded by the appellant and the articles were given to him. Presence of both the alleged eye witnesses is doubtful. Explanation by the appellant regarding his presence in the fields and shifting of injured to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, seems to be probable and plausible, but evidence on the file was not properly scrutinized by the trial Court. Story qua role of Ranjit Kaur and others acquitted by the trial Court was not accepted. Presence of eye witnesses was found to be natural and only the appellant was convicted, but approach of trial Court seems to be not correct one.
Learned State counsel argued that Amandeep Kaur had one issue from the loin of the appellant. At the time of unnatural death in her in- laws' house, she was pregnant. Rs.70,000/- was demanded by the appellant. After arranging the payment from the Commission Agent, same was paid to the appellant, but after that, appellant was forcing the deceased to bring more money. As per telephonic message, Major Singh and Joga Singh had gone to the house of the appellant and in their presence, appellant had given gandasi blows to Amandeep Kaur . Presence of Major Singh and Joga Singh in the house of Amandeep Kaur was natural. No evidence on the file that appellant was residing separately. Appellant was to explain under what circumstances, Amandeep Kaur received injuries.
About three years earlier to the present occurrence, Amandeep Kaur was married to the appellant and from this wedlock, she had one minor son, aged bout 2-1/4 years. As per defence version, appellant was residing separately from his father and brother in a house situated outside Crl.Appeal No.567-DB of 2006 13 the phirni of Village Naraingarh Chhana. This fact is clear from the photocopies of ration cards on the file and site plan.
According to prosecution story, Major Singh received telephonic message. Then he along with his nephew Joga Singh had gone to Village Naraingarh Chhana, but no record of telephone department that on 9.6.2003, complainant had received telephone from Village Naraingarh Chhana. When documentary evidence could easily be produced and no effort to produce the same, then presumption is that allegation is not correct one.
Major Singh and Joga Singh when appeared in Court, then stated that on receipt of telephonic message, they had gone to the house of the appellant. Appellant had a dispute with Amandeep Kaur. Then appellant gave gandasi blows to Amandeep Kaur in their presence. Amandeep Kaur was shifted to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. When they were sifting Amandeep Kaur to DMC, Ludhiana, then on the way, she had succumbed to her injuries. Dead body was brought back to the house of the appellant. After that, matter was reported to the police. Now question is whether presence of Major Singh and Joga Singh at the time of occurrence is natural or not. Firstly, no record of telephone department that Major Singh received a telephonic message from Village Naraingarh Chhana when he had telephone connection at his house. Without telephonic message, no idea to visit the house of Amandeep Kaur. Suppose the complainant had received telephonic message, then whether he along with Joga Singh had witnessed the occurrence at about 8.30/8.45 PM. According to prosecution story, after injuries were caused to Amandeep Kaur, she was shifted to Rajindera Hospital, Patiala, after arranging a vehicle. Complainant or Joga Crl.Appeal No.567-DB of 2006 14 Singh failed to disclose about the number, make or owner of the vehicle so that appellant is not a position to produce the owner in defence to state that he was engaged by the appellant and not by Major Singh or Joga Singh.
When a patient is admitted in the hospital, then entry is made in the register while conducting MLR as to who brought the patient to the hospital. Ex.PW14/A is the copy of MLR dated 10.6.2003. Dr.G.S.Sidhu had medico legally examined Amandeep Kaur at 12.10 AM. Four injuries were noticed on the person of Amandeep Kaur. Name of the appellant was written by the doctor while recording the MLR. Bed head ticket was also prepared. Signatures of the appellant were obtained by the doctor when patient was referred from Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, to better institution. Dr. G.S.Sidhu while appearing as PW14 stated that Amandeep Kaur was brought to the hospital by her husband. After first aid, Amandeep Kaur was taken away by her husband for treatment in PGI, Chandigarh. On 18.6.2003, copy of MLR was collected by the police. At the instance of police, cutting was made in the MLR, i.e., by cutting name of Karan Singh, name of Major Singh was written in the MLR. No suggestion was put to Dr. G.S.Sidhu by the Public Prosecutor that name of Major Singh was written at the time of admission. Secondly, there was no pressure by the police to change the name after cutting in the MLR. No question was put to the Investigating Officer that he had not forced the doctor to make cutting in the name of the person who had shifted the injured to the hospital. Investigating Officer admitted that he had obtained copy of MLR on 18.6.2003. In the bed head ticket, signatures of the appellant were obtained by the doctor when patient was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. Instead of shifting the patient to PGI, Chandigarh, she was being shifted to DMC, Crl.Appeal No.567-DB of 2006 15 Ludhiana, but on the way, patient had succumbed to her injuries. Appellant was arrested by the police on 11.6.2003. Record from the doctor was collected by the Investigating Officer on 18.6.2003. Then question is how the signatures of the appellant were obtained on the bed head ticket when he was in custody. No suggestion to the doctor by Public Prosecutor that record was fabricated and later on signatures of the appellant were obtained on the bed head ticket.
When Amandeep Kaur was being shifted to DMC, Ludhiana, then near Dholewal Chowk, Ludhiana, she had succumbed to her injuries. Evidence on the file is to the effect that parents of the appellant had forcibly boarded the same car, in which Amandeep Kaur was shifted to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. If parents of the appellant were also accused and the vehicle was arranged by the complainant party, then there was no reason for the complainant party to allow the parents of appellant to board the same car. If by force, parents of the appellant had boarded the same car, then after death, complainant party should have brought the dead body to their village or Civil Hospital, Fatehgarh Sahib, because place of occurrence is within the jurisdiction of District Fatehgarh Sahib. After death, there was no idea to again bring back the dead body to the house of the appellant.
Major Singh and Joga Singh stated that occurrence was at about 8.30/8.45 PM. At about 11.30 PM, they were in Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. At 2.00 AM, Amandeep Kaur was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. At about 6.45 AM, police party had met the complainant, whereas statement of Major Singh, complainant (Ex.PA) recorded by SI Surjeet Singh shows that after recording the statement, endorsement was made at 8.30 AM. That means, at about 8.00 AM or 8.15 AM, statement of Major Singh was Crl.Appeal No.567-DB of 2006 16 recorded by SI Surjeet Singh. Formal FIR was recorded at 8.50 AM. HC Satpal Singh while appearing as PW3 stated that special report was handed over to him at 10.20 AM on 10.6.2003. At 8.30 PM, he had delivered special report to the Ilaqa Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib. Distance of police station from Fatehgarh Sahib is 22 kms. He tried to explain why delay in handing over special report to Ilaqa Magistrate by saying that firstly he had gone to Patiala. IG/DIG were not available in their offices. Readers were available. Copies were supplied to the Readers of IG/DIG. Then he came to Fatehgarh Sahib but explanation regarding delay in handing over special report to the Ilaqa Magistrate seems to be not reasonable one because after special report is handed over to the police official, then firstly, he is to deliver the same to the Ilaqa Magistrate and after that, to other police officers. No record of the offices of IG/DIG, Patiala, was produced to show at what time, special reports were handed over to their Readers. When distance from police station to Fatehgarh Sahib was only 22 kms., then very strange that special report collected by HC Satpal Singh at 10.20 AM was delivered to the Ilaqa Magistrate at 8.30 PM. Delay in handing over special report to the Magistrate was utilized to concoct the story.
In the FIR, only appellant was named. No role of the accused, who were acquitted by the trial Court. After one month, private complaint was preferred by Joga Singh against six accused, including the appellant. No suggestion to the Investigating Officer that statements of Major Singh and Joga Singh were not recorded correctly. No complaint against police officials till today. Major Singh and Joga Singh when appeared in Court then they were confronted with their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the statements in a private complaint. No explanation why there are Crl.Appeal No.567-DB of 2006 17 major improvements in their statements. In the FIR, there is not a word that appellant was also demanding CD Player, mobile phone, goggle of Rayban company or Rs.1,00,000/- to purchase a car. As per Major Singh, only Rs.70,000/- was paid. Joga Singh stated that CD Player, mobile phone, goggle of Rayban company were given to the appellant. Investigating Officer when appeared in Court then admitted that Finger Print Expert and Dog Squad were also summoned to the spot but there was no clue. When Major Singh and Joga Singh had witnessed the occurrence and there was no dispute regarding the identity of the accused, then there was no idea to summon the Finger Prints Expert and Dog Squad. Investigating Officer admitted that after summoning Finger Prints Expert and Dog Squad, there was no clue. That means, till the appearance of police, complainant party was not clear as to who had committed the crime. As per appellant, he had summoned Rajesh Kumar, Photographer. Rajesh Kumar when appeared in Court, then stated that on the request of appellant, he had gone to the spot. Then had taken the photographs in the presence of police. Investigating Officer stated that after visiting the scene of crime, PHG Lakhvir Singh was sent to summon the Photographer, but PHG Lakhvir Singh was not examined. There is no statement of Lakhvir Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on the file. As per eye witnesses, appellant had fled away from the spot with gandasi, but the record maintained by Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, statement of Photographer, non-production of the driver of the car and shifting of dead body to the house of appellant, also creates doubt. All this shows that Major Singh and Joga Singh were not present at the time of occurrence. Their presence is doubtful. In fact, they were summoned by the police. Then prosecution story was concocted. That is why there is a delay Crl.Appeal No.567-DB of 2006 18 in handing over special report to Ilaqa Magistrate. Inquest was prepared and if Major Singh and Joga Singh were present, then while preparing inquest report, their statements should have been recorded by the Investigating Officer. Inquest report was not signed by Major Singh nor his statement was recorded. Statement of Joga Singh was recorded qua identification of dead body only. While shifting the injured to the hospital, head of the injured was in the lap of complainant party. That means, clothes worn by the complainant party were stained with blood. If they had witnessed the occurrence, then they should have produced their clothes stained with blood before the Investigating Officer for sending the same to the Laboratory to report whether human blood was on the clothes or not.
As discussed above, unnatural homicidal death of Amandeep Kaur in the house of the appellant. Appellant had only minor son and as per his version, he was residing with the deceased separately from his father and brothers. Then appellant is to explain how homicidal death in his house at about 8.00/9.00 PM on 9.6.2003. House of the appellant was outside the phirni of the village. Copies of ration cards on the file show that appellant was residing separately from his father and brothers. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is to the effect that Amandeep Kaur was alone in the house. He was in the fields. When came back, then found Amandeep Kaur in injured condition. Car was arranged and Amandeep Kaur was shifted to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala. After first aid, Amandeep Kaur was being shifted to DMC, Ludhiana, but unfortunately she had succumbed to her injuries near Dholewal Chowk, Ludhiana. Record maintained by Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, regarding shifting of Amandeep Kaur and after death, dead body to the house of the appellant and Crl.Appeal No.567-DB of 2006 19 summoning of Photographer by the appellant after the police came to the spot, show that explanation put forward by the appellant seems to be reasonable and plausible. When no complaint by the complainant party against the police officials that their statements were not correctly recorded and later on filing of private complaint by Joga Singh by implicating close relations of the appellant, including married sister residing separately, shows that crime was not committed as per prosecution version.
Appellant was arrested on 11.6.2003. In pursuance to disclosure statement dated 13.6.2003, appellant got recovered his shirt and pyjama. Second disclosure statement is dated 15.6.2003 and in pursuance thereof, he got recovered gandasi from the specified place but no report of the Laboratory that gandasi was found to be stained with blood.
About three years earlier to the occurrence, deceased was married with the appellant and from this wedlock, there was one minor son, aged about 2-1/4 years. Rs.70,000/- was paid to the appellant. If appellant was forcing the deceased to bring more money from her parents, then there was no motive to murder because on the day of occurrence, Major Singh and Joga Singh were present in the house of the appellant. Appellant could easily request Major Singh to arrange more money to purchase a car or any other article. Something could be said if before the present occurrence, appellant was doubting the integrity of the deceased. If appellant was forcing the deceased to bring more money, then why no complaint to any authority. At least a panchayat could easily be convened. In the FIR not a word that Rs.70,000/- was paid to the appellant in the presence of Amandeep Kaur. Simple line in the FIR is that complainant had paid Rs.70,000/- after arranging from Commission Agent. In Court as PW1, Crl.Appeal No.567-DB of 2006 20 Major Singh stated that payment was handed over to Karan Singh in the presence of Amandeep Kaur. After that, Karan Singh and Amandeep Kaur had gone to their residence. Later on, Karan Singh and his family members started harassing Amandeep Kaur for bringing more dowry. They were also demanding mobile phone, CD Player etc. Not a word was stated that above said articles were given to the appellant, whereas Joga Singh stated that articles were given to the appellant. When appellant and his wife were enjoying married life and there was no dispute, then there was no idea to give five gandasi blows on the vital parts, particularly when Major Singh and Joga Singh were present in the house.
Judgment of the trial Court is to be set aside, if the same is perverse and against law and facts. For the reasons recorded above, we are of the opinion that evidence on the file was not rightly scrutinized by the trial Court. Explanation put forward by the appellant seems to be natural and plausible. When presence of eye witnesses is doubtful and two views are possible, then the view favourable to the accused is to be accepted.
In view of all discussed above, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are set aside, and the appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him. Appellant, who is in custody, be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Appeal stands allowed.
( JORA SINGH )
JUDGE
22.4.2010 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
pk JUDGE