Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sher Singh vs State Of Haryana on 3 November, 2011
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Sabina
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3-DB OF 2006 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
DATE OF DECISION: November 3, 2011.
Parties Name
Sher Singh
...APPELLANT.
VERSUS
State of Haryana
...RESPONDENT
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina
PRESENT: Mr. Ashwani Bhardwaj,
Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. P.S.Punia, Addl. A.G., Haryana,
for the respondent.
Jasbir Singh, J.
JUDGMENT
It is an allegation against the appellant that he, in the intervening night of 22nd and 23rd November, 2004, committed murder of his wife, namely,Geeta by giving her injuries.
The process of law was set in motion on a statement made by Gabruddin, the landlord of the appellant, on the basis of which FIR Ex. PA/2 was recorded against the appellant on November 23, 2004, at 12.40 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3-DB OF 2006 -2- PM.
Case of the prosecution, as noted by the trial Judge, reads thus:
"Accused Sher Singh was residing with his wife and two daughters, aged 5 and 2 years, in rented room on first floor in the house of Gabruddin, complainant, in village Gaunchhi for about one month before the occurrence. The accused used to ply goods Three Wheeler. He used to take milk from the complainant. On the night of 22.11.2004, the accused came at about 10.00 p.m. with his three wheeler and went to his rented room. On the morning of 23.11.2004, the complainant as usual called up the accused for the milk but there was no response from him or his wife Geeta. The complainant thought that they might be asleep. After quite sometime, Sher Singh brought his wife wrapped in clothes and put her in his three wheeler and started going away along with his children. The complainant enquired as to what was the matter. The accused replied that his wife Geeta was sick and he was taking her to hospital. Thereupon the complainant wanted to enquire from Geeta as to what had happened but there was no response from Geeta. The complainant became suspicious. He saw Geeta after removing the wrapped clothes and found that she had injuries on her face and head and she was lying dead. Thereupon her dead body was taken down from the three wheeler. It was found that she also had injuries on her limbs. The complainant then saw the rented room of the accused and found that there was blood CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3-DB OF 2006 -3- splashed over floor and walls inside the room. However, no blood was seen on the clothes which the deceased was wearing. Earlier also, the accused had beaten Geeta many times. During the preceding night also, the accused murdered Geeta by causing injuries to her. He was removing her dead body to conceal the same. In the meanwhile, other villagers also reached the spot. The accused after murdering Geeta had changed her clothes and concealed her blood stained clothes some where. The complainant telephonically informed the police about murder of Geeta by her husband Sher Singh accused. In the meantime accused Sher Singyh fled away leaving behind the three wheeler and his children at the spot."
On receipt of information, SI Narender Kumar (PW9), the Investigating Officer, went to the spot, prepared inquest report on the dead body and sent it for post-mortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. Shanta Passi (PW3) on November 24, 2004. The Investigating Officer also recorded statement of Hakimuddin son of Gabruddin, who also corroborated version of the prosecution given above. The Investigating Officer got the dead body and the place of occurrence photographed. He also picked up blood with cotton swabs from the room where the appellant, his wife and the children were living. Broken glass bangles found at the spot were also taken into possession. The Investigating Officer also got prepared rough site plan Ex. PQ of the place of occurrence with correct marginal notes.
On November 24, 2004, Kali Charan (PW2), father of the CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3-DB OF 2006 -4- deceased, reached the Hospital. His statement was also recorded, wherein he levelled serious allegations of beating by the appellant to the deceased at earlier occasions also.
At the time of post-mortem examination, following injuries were found on the person of the deceased:
"1. Three lacerated wounds measuring 3 cm x 1.5 cm to 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm each present over left parietal region of scalp. Injuries were bone deep, semi clotted blood was present around wound.
2. Lacerated wound 3.5 cm x 1 cm present over right parietal region, injury was bone deep.
3. Lacerated wound 4 cm x 1.5 cm in right frontal region of scalp. This injury was also bone deep.
4. Contusion present over forehead and face leaving the part of chin. Contusion was purple in colour and face was swollen. Swelling present around eyes. Sub conjuctival haemorrhage present in both eyes, clotted blood was present in both nostrils.
5. Multiple contusions of variable sizes all over body like abdomen, all limbs, chest and back. Contusion was purple in colour.
6. 1 cm x .5 cm scab present over anterior aspect of right leg. Similar scab on left knee was present."
PW3 Dr. Shanta Passi further stated that on dissection of scalp, there was fracture of left parietal bone and frontal bone. On further dissection, there was sub-dural and extra-dural haemorrhage present in both CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3-DB OF 2006 -5- frontal and parietal regions. There was laceration of left parietal lobe. On dissection there was fracture of 3rd, 4th and 5th ribs on right side and 3rd, 4th and 5th and 6 ribs on left side. Pleural cavity on both sides contained blood. Both lungs were ruptured. Left and right chambers of heart were empty.
Cause of death was stated to be shock as a result of haemorrhage due to injuries to the vital organs. Injuries were found ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course. PW3 has specifically stated that possibility of the injuries found on the person of the deceased being suffered by fall from a staircase was not there. The appellant was arrested on November 24, 2004.
The Investigating Officer on completion of investigation put in the final report in Court for trial. Copies of the documents as per law were supplied to the appellant-accused. He was charge-sheeted, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
It is necessary to mention here that Gabruddin, complainant, died on May 11, 2005. The version given in his statement Ex. PA was supported by his son Hakimuddin (PW1).
In order to prove its case, the prosecution produced nine witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He refuted the allegations, pleaded innocence and false implication. He also led evidence in defence. The trial Court, on appraisal of evidence, found him guilty and vide judgment dated August 25, 2005, convicted him for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. Vide order dated August 27, 2005, sentenced him to undergo CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3-DB OF 2006 -6- imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- with a default clause for commission of an offence under Section 302 IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- with a default clause for an offence punishable under Section 201 IPC.
Counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the statement made by Hakimuddin (PW1) does not inspire confidence. By making reference to delay in lodging the FIR, he argued that an attempt has been made to falsely implicate the appellant. He has further stated that the prosecution has failed to produce tenant, who was residing in the next room, which proves that the incident had not occurred in the manner as was stated by the complainant. If the injuries had been given by the appellant, it is natural that hue and cry raised by the deceased would have attracted many neighbours. He contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. He prayed that the appeal be allowed, conviction and sentence of the appellant be set aside.
Prayer made has vehemently been opposed by the State counsel. He by making reference to the statements of the prosecution witnesses, especially PW1 and PW2 and also medical evidence on record, argued that factum of committing murder of his wife by the appellant is proved on record. He further argued that an attempt was also made by the appellant to conceal the dead body. It is by chance that he was caught when he was going to throw the dead body out of the house. He prayed that the appeal having no substance be dismissed.
It is proved on record that the appellant along with his wife CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3-DB OF 2006 -7- ( deceased) and two daughters aged about 5 years and 2 years was residing in a rented 1st floor accommodation in the house owned by Gabruddin. The circumstances under which the murder of Smt. Geeta was detected was given by Gabruddin in his statement Ex. PA, wherein he has stated that the appellant - accused brought his wife wrapped in clothes, put her in the three wheeler and started going away along with his children. Then Gabruddin asked him what has happened to his wife. The appellant told that she was ill. On further probing, it was found that she had already died and Gabruddin noticed many injuries on her face and other parts of the body, which led to his making a statement to the police. The appellant slipped away from the spot and was arrested on November 24, 2004. In the FIR, it is specifically stated that earlier also the appellant - accused used to beat his wife. Kali Charan (PW2) father of the deceased has also corroborated the above version. The trial Court has rightly found that both Gabruddin and Hakimuddin (PW1) were independent and reliable witnesses. They had no motive to falsely implicate the appellant in this case. The FIR was lodged in a very prompt manner.
Perusal of medical evidence on record shows the brutal manner in which the appellant had given beatings to the deceased. During post- mortem examination, fracture on the head and ribs of the deceased were noticed by PW3 Dr. Shanta Passi. As per statement made by the Investigating Officer, blood was found on the floor and walls of the room. It has also come on record that on a disclosure statement made by the appellant, blood stained clothes of the deceased and the accused were recovered by the Investigating Officer. The accused had concealed the CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3-DB OF 2006 -8- clothes to make the evidence disappear. The clothes were identified by Kali Charan (PW2) as belonging to the deceased. Otherwise also, it is unbelievable that if wife of the appellant was killed by somebody else, then he would not lodge a report with the police. When caught with the dead body, he preferred to run away from the place. This fact also indicates towards involvement of the appellant in this case. It is proved on record that the appellant along with his wife and two children was residing in a room. He came to his house at about 10 PM on the fateful night when murder had taken place. Under the circumstances, it is for him to explain how death of his wife had occurred. In view of the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872, burden lies heavily upon the appellant to explain the circumstances of death of his wife.
A Division Bench of this Court in Amarjit Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 1989(1) R.C.R. 18, has opined that in a family house, if death has occurred, it was for other members to explain the circumstances under which incident had taken place. Their lordships of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Prasad Tamarkar v. State of Bihar and another, (2007)10 SCC 433, by taking note of a fact that the death had occurred in a bedroom, where husband and wife were alone, when husband failed to give any explanation for the same, it was held a circumstance against him. To the same effect is the ratio of the judgment in Duyaneshwar v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 10 SCC 445, in which their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"10. It has not been disputed before us that the deceased was murdered in her matrimonial home. It is not the case of the CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3-DB OF 2006 -9- appellant that the offence was committed by somebody else. It is also not his case that there was a possibility of an outsider to commit the said offence. One of the circumstances which is relevant is that when the couple was last seen in a premises to which an outsider may not have any access, it is for the husband to explain the ground for unnatural death of his wife. In Raj Kumar Prasad Tamarkkar v. State of Bihar, this Court held:(SCC p. 440, paras 22-23).
"22. The conspectus of the events which had been noticed by the learned Sessions Judge as also by the High Court categorically goes to show that at the time when the occurrence took place, the deceased and the respondent only were in the bedroom and the terrace connecting the same. There was no other person. The cause of death of the deceased Usha Devi i.e. By a gunshot injury is not disputed. The fact that the terrace and the bedroom are adjoining each other is not in dispute.
23. The autopsy report shows that 'a blackening and charring' existed so far as Injury (i) is concerned. The blackening and charring keeping in view the nature of the firearm, which is said to have been used clearly go to show that a shot was fired from a short distance. Blackening or charring is possible when a shot is fired from a distance of about 2 feet to 3 feet. It, therefore, cannot be a case where the death might have been caused by somebody by firing a shot at the deceased from a distance of more than 6 feet. The place of injury is also CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3-DB OF 2006 -10- important. The lacerated wound was found over glabella (middle of forehead). It goes a long way to show that the same must have been done by a person who wanted to kill the deceased from a short distance. There was, thus, a remote possibility of causation of such type of injury by any other person, who was not on the terrace. Once the prosecution has been able to show that at the relevant time, the room and terrace were in exclusive occupation of the couple, the burden of proof lay upon the respondent to show under what circumstances death was caused to his wife. The onus was on him. He failed to discharge the same."
A Division Bench of this Court in Amarjit Singh's case (supra), by taking note of the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, opined that where husband and wife were last seen together in their house in each other's company, thereafter wife found dead, it was for the husband to state the circumstances leading to death of his wife.
Furthermore, the investigation done inspires confidence. It was very prompt. The Investigating Officer made an attempt to collect each and every piece of evidence available at the spot. The defence version given by the appellant was rightly rejected by the trial Judge being untrustworthy. The version, which was pleaded in defence by DWs, was not put to any of the prosecution witnesses and furthermore, the story of receiving injuries by fall from the staircase was completely ruled out by Dr. Shanta Passi, who conducted post-mortem on the dead body.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3-DB OF 2006 -11-
In view of facts, mentioned above, no case is made out for interference. Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
( Jasbir Singh ) Judge ( Sabina) Judge November 03, 2011 DKC