Punjab-Haryana High Court
Joginder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 20 September, 2024
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126000-DB
CRA-D-1040-2022 (O & M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
CRA-D-1040-2022 (O & M)
Reserved on: 06.09.2024
Pronounced on: 20.09.2024
Joginder Singh .....Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Argued by: Mr. Madhur Singh, Advocate
for the applicant-appellant.
Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
****
SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.
1. The instant appeal is directed by the convict-appellant, against the verdict of conviction, as made on 09.05.2017, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, upon, Session Case No. 92-SC of 2015, wherethrough, in respect of charges drawn for offences punishable under Section 302/201 IPC, he made a finding of conviction against the accused.
2. Moreover, through a separate sentencing order drawn on 12.05.2017, the learned trial Judge concerned, proceeded to impose upon the convict (supra) both sentence(s) of imprisonment as well as of fine, but in the hereinafter extracted manner :-
Name of accused Convicted U/s Sentence
1 of 21
::: Downloaded on - 24-09-2024 00:11:14 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126000-DB CRA-D-1040-2022 (O & M) -2- Joginder Singh 302 IPC To undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for a period of two months.
Joginder Singh 201 IPC To undergo imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for a period of one month.
3. The convict-appellant becomes aggrieved from the above drawn verdict of conviction, besides also, becomes aggrieved from the consequent thereto sentences of imprisonment, and, of fine as became imposed upon him, by the learned convicting Court concerned, and hence has chosen to institute thereagainst the instant appeal before this Court.
Factual background
4. The genesis of the prosecution case, becomes embodied in the appeal FIR, to which Ex.PW16/B is assigned.
5. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.02.2015 a telephonic message was received in P.S.Ellenabad from Pala Ram Sarpanch of village Moju Khera to the effect that human skull and human bones have been kept in the house of one Jaspal son of Sawraj Singh. On receipt of aforesaid information, a police party headed by ASI Raghubir Singh reached at the house of said Jaspal Singh. The police party found the human skull and human bones in white sack. Photographer was called who had taken the photographs of the skull 2 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 24-09-2024 00:11:15 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126000-DB CRA-D-1040-2022 (O & M) -3- and bones. One Pappu Ram son of Sawraj Singh resident of village Moju Khera got recorded his statement to the police to the effect that they are four brothers. One of his brother was named Krishan Ram who was having a son namely, Joginder Singh. The relations between Krishan and Joginder were not cordial. His brother Krishan was missing from the house since July, 2012 His son Joginder could not give any satisfactory reply about the whereabouts of his father Krishan. They have been trying to search for their missing brother Krishan. The complainant further stated that on 18.02.2015 at about 11 A.M. his nephew Jagdeep and brother-in-law of Joginder were digging out the land for laying the pipes in the house of Joginder. He stated that when they dug out the land adjacent to the wall of the house, human bones were discovered. In the mean time, Joginder reached there at the spot and on asking, he told that about 2 ½ years ago, an altercation took place between him and his father. He had hit his father on head with a 'Danda' as a result of which his father died and he buried his father there. After that he ran away from there after leaving skull and bones. The complainant took the sack and brought it to the house of Jaspal. Sarpnach and other villagers were informed about the incident. The complainant stated that his brother Krishan was killed by his son Joginder and he had buried the dead body of his father and destroyed the evidence. The complainant further suspected that some one else also might be involved in the occurrence. He prayed for taking legal action in the matter.
3 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 24-09-2024 00:11:15 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126000-DB CRA-D-1040-2022 (O & M) -4- Investigation proceedings
6. Pursuant to the statement of the complainant, FIR in the instant case was got registered. The investigation was set into motion. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. Site plan was prepared. Accused was arrested on 20.02.2015. During the course of investigation, the accused got recovered the weapon of offence i.e. danda from the roof of his house and the same was taken into possession by the police. Sample of the blood of the accused was taken for DNA test. Postmortem on the skull and bones of deceased Krishan was got conducted from Medical Board.
7. After completion of investigations by the investigating officer concerned, into the FIR (supra), he instituted an affirmative report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. against the accused, before the learned Committal Judge concerned.
Committal proceedings
8. Finding the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, to be exclusively triable by the Court of Session, thus the learned committal Court vide order dated 18.05.2015, committed the case for trial to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa.
Trial Court Proceedings
9. On finding a prima facie case, charges under Section Section 302/201 IPC became framed, against the accused concerned, to which he pleaded not guilty, and, claimed trial.
4 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 24-09-2024 00:11:15 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126000-DB CRA-D-1040-2022 (O & M) -5-
10. In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined twenty three witnesses. After completion of recording of the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Additional Sessions Judge Sirsa, drew proceedings under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., but thereins, the accused claimed false implication, and, pleaded innocence. The accused did not examined any witness in his defence.
11. After conclusion of the trial, as, became entered into the FIR (supra), by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, the latter proceeded to make the afore verdict of conviction, and, also made the consequent therewith sentence(s) (supra), upon, the accused-appellant. Submissions of the learned counsel for the convict-appellant.
12. The learned counsel for the aggrieved convict-appellant herein, has vigorously argued before this Court, that the impugned verdict of conviction, and consequent therewith sentences (supra), as imposed, upon the convict-appellant, both become ridden with a gross infirmity of gross mis-appreciation, and non-appreciation of the evidence, existing on record. Therefore, he has argued that the appeal be accepted, and, the verdict, as challenged before this Court, be quashed, and set aside.
Submissions of the learned State Counsel
13. On the other hand, the learned State counsel has argued that the appreciation of evidence as made by the learned Convicting Court, is merit-worthy, and, that it does not require any interference being made by this Court.
5 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 24-09-2024 00:11:15 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126000-DB CRA-D-1040-2022 (O & M) -6- Circumstantial evidence based case.
14. For proving the charges (supra) drawn against the convict, the prosecution made reliance upon the deposition of the complainant, who stepped into the witness box, as PW-1. However, the said witness was declared hostile and with the leave of the Court, was cross examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. The relevant parts, as occur in the cross examination of PW-1 are ad verbatim extracted hereinafter.
"We were four brothers. Krishan, father of accused Joginder was my eldest brother. Bhola Singh was younger to him and Jaspal Singh is the youngest. Deceased Krishan was residing with accused Joginder Singh at his house in village Mojukhera. My brother Krishan was missing since July 2012. I had not heard whether accused Joginder Singh used to quarrel with Krishan and used to harass him. Joginder my nephew was also searching for my brother Krishan. We were also searching for him. I have heard the contents of statement Ex.PW1/A, signed by me at point-A. Volunteered I did not make any such statement before the police. They had obtained my signatures on blank papers. It is incorrect to suggest that I had voluntarily made my signed statement Ex.PW1/A with the police on 18.2.2015. It is incorrect to suggest that in my statement I had stated to the police that accused Joginder used to quarrel with and harass my brother Krishan. (Confronted with portion A to A1 of Ex.PW1/A wherein it is so recorded). It is incorrect to suggest that on enquiry about my brother Krishan going missing since July 2012 accused Joginder failed to give any satisfactory reply and used to give evasive explanation. (Confronted with portion B to B1 of Ex.PW1/A wherein it is so recorded). It is correct that my nephew has stated to me that he had reported to the police about missing of his father from his house since July 2012. It is incorrect to suggest that I had got recorded in my statement Ex. PW1/A that on 18.2.2015 at about 11 a.m. my nephew Jagdeep and Gopi, brother in law of Joginder Singh were 6 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 24-09-2024 00:11:15 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126000-DB CRA-D-1040-2022 (O & M) -7- digging near the wall of outer room in the house of Krishan for the purpose of laying pipe for water of bathroom. (Confronted with portion C to C1 of Ex.PW1/A wherein it is so recorded). It is incorrect to suggest that he had stated to the police that human bones were recovered during that digging process and in the meantime accused Joginder Singh reached there, who picked up all the bones in a plastic bag and tried to take them away but I reached there at that time. (Confronted with portion D to Di of Ex.PW1/A wherein it is so recorded). It is incorrect to suggest that I had stated to the police that on enquiry accused Joginder Singh told me that about 2-1/2 years back he had a quarrel with his father, upon which he had killed him by giving many danda blows on his head and had buried his dead body near the wall of Baithak (drawing room). (Confronted with portion E to E1 of Ex. PW1/A wherein it is so recorded). It is incorrect to suggest that I had stated. to the police that after telling the above fact accused ran away by leaving the bag and I took the bag to my brother Jaspal's house and intimated Sarpanch and respectables of the village about the incident. (Confronted with portion F to F1 of Ex.PW1/A wherein it is so recorded). xxxx xxxx
15. Similarly, PW-2 and PW-3 respectively were also declared hostile. The relevant contents, as occur in their respective testification(s) are ad verbatim extracted hereinafter.
PW-2-Shukar In the month of February, 2015 I was present at my village Partap Nagar, I received information about presence of police and gathering crowd in the house of my maternal uncle Krishan (since deceased). I went there and found police and many peoples present there and skeleton of human being was found in the street and I was told by the villagers that police had dug out the skeleton from the 7 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 24-09-2024 00:11:15 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126000-DB CRA-D-1040-2022 (O & M) -8- street outside the house of Joginder accused. Lateron I was called in the police-station by police and my signatures were obtained on many blank papers as well as on some printed peformas by the police. (At this stage learned PP requested that the witness is suppressing the truth. He may be declared. hostile and allowed to cross examine him. Heard. Request allowed).
Xxxx by Sh. Ajit Singh, Public Prosecutor for the State.
I have heard the contents of statement Ex. PW2/A. I did not make any such statement before the police. It is incorrect to suggest that I had stated to the police that on 18.2.2015 when I had gone to the house of my relative Jaspal and I had heard about his brother having gone missing about 2-1/2 years back and on that day i.e. 18.2.2015 Joginder Singh was taking the skeleton of his father in a plastic bag for disposing of and when he was seen by Pappu Ram he left the plastic bag on the spot and ran away. (Confronted with portion A to A1 of Ex.PW2/A wherein it is so recorded). It is incorrect to suggest that thereafter the skeleton of Krishan Kumar was taken to the house of Jaspal Singh by Pappu. (Confronted with portion B to B1 of Ex.PW2/A wherein it is so recorded). It is incorrect to suggest that I had stated to the police that I was sure that the skeleton was that of Krishan Kumar. (Confronted with portion C to C1 of Ex.PW2/A wherein it is so recorded). xxxx xxxx PW-3- Jagdeep Singh In the month of February, 2015 on the day of occurrence I was present at village Nagrana near Rania and was doing labour work. I received information about presence of police and gathering crowd in the house of my uncle (Tau) Krishan (since deceased). I went there and found police and many people present there and 8 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 24-09-2024 00:11:15 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126000-DB CRA-D-1040-2022 (O & M) -9- skeleton of human being was found in the street and I was told by the villagers that police had dug out the skeleton from the street outside the house of Joginder accused. Lateron I was called in the police- station by police and my signatures were obtained on many blank papers as well as on some printed performas by the police. (At this stage learned PP requested that the witness is suppressing the truth. He may be declared hostile and allowed to cross examine him. Heard. Request allowed).
Xxxx by Sh. Ajit Singh, Public Prosecutor for the State.
I have heard the contents of statement Ex. PW3/A. I did not make any such statement before the police. It is incorrect to suggest that on 18.2.2015 I alongwith Gopi Ram, brother-in-law of accused were digging a line for laying pipe line of bathroom in the house of accused Joginder Singh and when we reached near the Southern wall of Baithak while digging the line, we found skeleton and bones of human being. (Confronted with portion A to A1 of Ex.PW3/A wherein it is so recorded). It is incorrect to suggest that thereafter we informed about it to Joginder Singh upon which Joginder Singh said that do not make noise about the dead body it be internal affair and while saying so he put the skeleton and bones in a plastic bag and started taking them for disposal, in the meantime my uncle Pappu came there. (Confronted with portion B to B1 of Ex.PW3/A wherein it is so recorded). It is incorrect to suggest that I had stated to the police that accused Joginder had confessed in our presence that he had killed his father krishan Kumar and buried his dead body at that place. (Confronted with portion C to C1 of Ex.PW3/A wherein it is so recorded). It is incorrect to suggest that on seeing the skeleton and bones I had stated to the police that I was sure that the bones and skeleton were of my uncle Krishan Kumar. (Confronted with portion D to D1 of Ex.PW3/A wherein it is so recorded). xxxx xxxx Inferences from the testimonies of the witnesses (supra).
9 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 24-09-2024 00:11:15 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126000-DB CRA-D-1040-2022 (O & M) -10-
16. A reading of the above rendered respective testification(s) by the witnesses (supra) reveals that though they did not support the prosecution case. However, yet the factum qua theirs resiling from their previously made statements in writing rather does not underwhelm the efficacy of the hereafter alluded to adduced evidence by the prosecution, thus for sustaining the charge drawn against the convict.
17. The reason for forming the above conclusion becomes firmly entrenched in the evident fact, that the complainant PW-1, in his deposition, thus unfolding that the deceased Krishan was residing with accused Joginder, at his house and his brother Krishan was missing since July 2012. Moreover, the complainant has also spoken in his examination-in-chief, that when had enquired about the missing of his deceased brother from his nephew (accused), thereupon, he became intimated that he had reported the matter to the police about the missing of his father since July, 2012. It appears that though therebys the accused intended to proclaim his innocence but yet for the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, an entrenched incriminatory role, yet is required to be assigned to the accused, as the said intimation appears to mismaneuver or mislead the police in discovering the body of the deceased.
18. Moreover, the complainant has also deposed in his examination-in-chief, that when he reached at the spot, he had noticed a heap of bones enclosed in a plastic bag, thus occurring on the street near the house of the accused.
10 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 24-09-2024 00:11:15 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126000-DB CRA-D-1040-2022 (O & M) -11-
19. Similarly, though both PW-2 and PW-3 also did not support the prosecution version, but yet when both in their respective examinations-in-chief, did admit that when they reached near the house of the deceased, they noticed the police to be present there, and that other persons were also available. Moreover, when they both in unison state that the police had dug out a skeleton from the street outside the house of accused Joginder.
20. Therefore, the inferences which are to be garnered from the above, is that.
a) the accused through reporting the missing of his deceased father to the police thus intending to mis-maneuver and mis direct the police in discovering the body of his deceased father.
b) that he therebys was intending to mis-proclaim his innocence.
c) that since the instant case is based upon the best forensic science evidence comprised in FSL Report (Ex. PZ/3) besides become based upon the disclosure statement made by the accused (Ex.PW3/C), which led to the recovery of the incriminatory weapon.
Reiteratedly, therebys, the effect of the above improvements being made by the PWs (supra) rather becomes completely inconsequential.
21. At the outset, the human skull and bones of one Krishan were found wrapped in a white sack and the said sack was found on 18.02.2015, at about 11.00 A.M., by nephew of the complainant and his brother-in-law one Jagdeep, while they were excavating land for laying 11 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 24-09-2024 00:11:15 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126000-DB CRA-D-1040-2022 (O & M) -12- pipelines in the house of accused Joginder. Therefore, the body of the deceased was not recovered in pursuance to the disclosure statement made by the accused to the police officer.
22. Be that as it may, the sheet anchor of the prosecution case is the signatured disclosure statement made by the accused Joginder, contents whereof are extracted hereinafter. The said disclosure statement is assigned Ex.PW3/C. "In the presence of the witnesses, arrested accused Joginder Singh alias Jinna son of Krishan, caste Majbi Sikh without any pressure greed confessed that about 2 ½ years ago when my mother and my wife went to their village, the alteration took place between me and my father. Upon which, I gave a danda blow at my father, which hit on his head, which danda was of kassi and which was lying in the room. Due to this, he died and I put him in the plastic bag and buried in the land near the wall which is adjacent to drawing room of my house. On dated 18.02.2015, in my absence, when digging the land for pipe line the bones were discovered and I put these bones in plastic bag to destroy the evidence, then the family members of my family were gathered and I disclosed the truth before them and due to fear, I ran away. But, today Sarpanch produced me before you and from which wooden danda I murdered my father, that wooden danda lying at the roof of outside room of house. No body know about me except me. And I can recover it and I put the cloths in a polythene and buried in the land of fodder room of Mukhtiar Singh, cousin of my grand mother at Village Suchania, District Gurdaspur, which I wear at the time of 12 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 24-09-2024 00:11:15 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126000-DB CRA-D-1040-2022 (O & M) -13- murder and no one know about it except me. I can recover it. Disclosure statement of accused recorded. "
23. Pursuant to the above incriminatory signatured disclosure statement, convict Joginder Singh ensured the effectuation of the recovery of the weapon of offence i.e. wooden danda, which was taken into police possession, through recovery memo(s) Ex. PW3/E and Ex.
P1.
INFERENCES DRAWN FROM THE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND RECOVERY MEMO(S).
24. The disclosure statement (supra), carries thereons the signature, in Hindi, of the convict-appellant. In his signatured disclosure statement (supra), the convict-appellant, confessed his guilt in committing the crime event, by inflicting fatal injuries on the deceased concerned, hence with the user of the incriminatory weapon of offence. The further speaking therein is qua his keeping, and, concealing the incriminatory weapon of offence, at the place concerned, and, qua his alone being aware about the location of his hiding and keeping the same, and, also revealed his willingness to cause the recovery of the incriminatory weapon of offence to the investigating officer concerned, thus from the place of his hiding, and, keeping the same.
25. The above disclosure statement, does acquire, the utmost evidentiary solemnity, as thereons exists the signature, in Hindi, of the convict-appellant, which, however, he has neither ably denied nor proven the said denial. Moreover, the above confession of guilt is neither a bald nor a simpliciter confession, nor is hit by the bar,
13 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 24-09-2024 00:11:15 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126000-DB CRA-D-1040-2022 (O & M) -14- encapsulated in Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. The reason for drawing the above inference, ensues from the factum, that in pursuance thereof, through proven recovery memo(s) Ex. PW3/E and Ex. P1, the convict-appellant, caused the recovery of the incriminatory weapon of offence, to the investigating officer concerned, wherebys both disclosure statement (exhibit PW3/C) and consequent therewith recovery are admissible besides readable in evidence.
26. Since the recovery of the incriminatory weapon of offence, as made through recovery memo(s) (supra), has not been proven to be false or a contrived recovery, inasmuch as, it has not been cogently established, that prior to the making of the above recovery, rather the investigating officer concerned, had taken to plant the same at the apposite site of its recovery, nor when any cogent evidence becomes adduced rather vividly exemplifying, that the place of the apposite recovery rather was an open place, hence leaving scope for any person, other than the convict-appellant to place it there. Thus, the above recovery is not only to be concluded to be a validly made recovery, but is also to be concluded to be of the very same incriminatory weapon, which did become used by convict-appellant, in causing the relevant fatal assault.
Medical Evidence
27. The doctor who conducted an autopsy on the body of the deceased, stepped into the witness box as PW-6. During the course of his examination-in-chief, he proved the post mortem report, as became 14 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 24-09-2024 00:11:15 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126000-DB CRA-D-1040-2022 (O & M) -15- authored by him. He also proved the existence thereons of his valid signatures and of his co-authors namely Dr. Vijay Vohra and Dr. R.P.Single. The post mortem report is assigned Exhibit PW6/A. He further tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex. PW6/C, whereins he justified the findings recorded by the Board of doctors in post mortem report Ex. PW6/A. The relevant observations, as become narrated in Exhibit (supra) are extracted hereinafter.
1. A 10.5 x 4.5 cm portion of the top of the skull is fractured and the RD portion is missing from the skull. The fractured segment is irregular in shape and is more broad. Posteriorly then Anteriorly. The left and right margins of the fracture segment are in the shape of two sharp cuts with well defined sharp margins. Dark brown colour infiltration of blood is seen at the fracture ends. The fractured missing portion of the skull comprises of posterior part of frontal bone near the centre and portion of the both parital bone more so on the right side and is also including a part of saggital suture the fracture line on the right margin is extending upto the right occipital bone posterorly.
2. Another cut fracture of the size of 2.7 x 2 cm and liner in shape is present on the right partial bone in its front region, 2 cm lateral to the injury No. 1.
28. Further, the doctor concerned also opined that the cause of death of deceased was owing to head injury arising from communicated fracture of the skull, which was caused by heavy shaped edge weapon.
15 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 24-09-2024 00:11:15 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126000-DB CRA-D-1040-2022 (O & M) -16- All the injuries of the skull were declared to be ante mortem in nature and also were declared to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course in nature.
29. Be that as it may, the fact that no inculpatory effect becomes mobilized from the doctor, who upon being shown the wooden danda Ex.PW6/F, thus stated that with user thereof, the fatal ante mortem injuries, as became entailed upon the body of the deceased, rather could not become entailed thereons, rather is inconsequential.
30. The reason for making the said inference ensues from the hereinafter made conclusions.
(i) Even if assumingly the echoing (supra) as made by PW-6 in his examination-in-chief, does prima facie, have some worthwhile exculpatory effect, yet no leverage therefrom can ensue to the present convict-appellant. The reason for forming the above inference becomes sparked from the factum, that since the unrefuted incriminatory signatured disclosure statement made by the convict-
appellant, thus led to the makings of unrebutted valid recovery of the weapon of offence at his instance to the investigating officer concerned. Resultantly therebys the unrefutedly validly drawn memo(s) (supra), do have a telling incriminatory effect. Moreover, predominance is to be assigned to the above un-rebutted evidence, than to the speakings (supra) as made by PW-6.
(ii) In addition, since reiteratedly the accused mis- proclaimed his innocence through making a report of missing of his father and did not proceed to subsequently file a habeas corpus petition 16 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 24-09-2024 00:11:15 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126000-DB CRA-D-1040-2022 (O & M) -17- before this Court rather for seeking the production of his father in Court, thereupons, the above omission leads to a firm conclusion, that the accused-present appellant, was not only mis-proclaiming his innocence, but also was suppressing the truth about the missing of his father. The said conduct is inconsistent with innocence of the accused rather is consistent with his guilt.
(iii) Since the demise of the deceased has been opined to arise from the apposite head injury leading to a fatal communicated fracture of skull. Though the weapon of offence has been opined by the doctor to not cause the said fatal ante mortem injuries. However, since the body of the deceased was recovered after almost two years eight months rather expiring, since the deceased concerned becoming stated to be missing by the accused. Therefore, the said hiatus inter-se the missing of the deceased, and an autopsy being made upon his person, thus is of immense significance. The significance thereto generates from the factum, that in case but in quick spontaneity to the crime event taking place, thus, an autopsy became made upon his body. Resultantly therebys the autopsy maker could more incisively decipher the apposite regions with flesh thereons, besides whereons existed the fatal ante mortem injuries. Moreover, therebys he could with utmost aplomb state about user or non user thereons of the recovered weapon of offence. In addition, he could also state thus without the availability of flesh on the relevant regions of the examined body, qua whether thereons existed either incised or lacerated wounds, besides could not affirmatively state 17 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 24-09-2024 00:11:15 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126000-DB CRA-D-1040-2022 (O & M) -18- whether the said wounds, could or could not be caused by a blunt weapon or by a sharp edged weapon. Contrarily, when evidently the above inter-se immense gap, took place since the missing of the deceased and an autopsy being made upon his person, especially when only the fractured skull of the deceased was available for the same being put to autopsy, but when obviously then the flesh over the relevant regions was not available nor thereby the (supra) opinion could be made. Therefore, the doctor concerned, in making an opinion against user of the recovered weapon of offence (wooden danda), on the fractured skull of the accused, thus prima facie became rather not guided by the relevant texts relating to medical jurisprudence. Resultantly, the applicable principle to the apposite fatal ante mortem injuries, becomes embodied in the trite canon, as to what an ordinary man of normal prudence rather may have conceived about the weapon of offence that may have cause the fracture of the skull. As such, the said common sense norm is available to be recoursed by this Court, as thereby justice would be done.
31. In consequence, upon recoursing the said principle, inasmuch as, what an ordinary man of normal prudence would conceive about the causing's of the fatal ante mortem injuries, as, occur upon the body of the deceased, with the user thereons of the recovered weapon of offence, therebys, the consequence thereof would be qua the entailment of the said injuries are to be concluded to be a sequel of user thereons of the recovered incriminatory weapon of offence. Resultantly, 18 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 24-09-2024 00:11:15 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126000-DB CRA-D-1040-2022 (O & M) -19- therebys this Court is not inclined to accept the purported exculpatory opinion rendered by the doctor concerned, especially when therebys the (supra) evidence would become untenably underwhelmed besides would not beget justice to victimology.
Report of the Radiologist.
32. Furthermore, the doctor who radiologically examined the dead body for age estimation and bone injuries stepped into the witness box as PW-7. During the course of his examination-in-chief, he proved the report, as became authored by him. He also proved the existence thereons of his valid signatures. The radiological report is Ex. PW 7/B. The doctor concerned opined that the approximate age of deceased was between 50-60 years. He also found fracture of fronto parito occipital bones on right side and fracture of left parietal bone on the body of the deceased.
33. Since Ex. PW7/B is also not disputed, therebys when the age of the murdered father of the deceased is in alignment with his age, as becomes pronounced in Ex. PW7/B, therebys, the recovered body of the murdered father of the convict, is to be declared to be in fact the body of the deceased father of the accused.
FSL Report
34. Furthermore, the prime incriminatory link, thus for connecting the accused with the murder of his deceased father, becomes comprised in the FSL Report, to which Ex. PZ/3 is assigned.
19 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 24-09-2024 00:11:15 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126000-DB CRA-D-1040-2022 (O & M) -20-
35. Through memo No. 89-5A dated 04.03.2015, four sealed parcels became sent through E/ASI Sube Singh to the FSL concerned. The FSL concerned, thus upon making inter-se examination of all the incriminatory items, as became sent to it, in a sealed cloth parcels, thus made an opinion thereons, which becomes ad verbatim extracted hereinafter.
" DNA was extracted from item Nos. 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 3C and subjected to Autosomal STR analysis by using Identifiler Plus Kit. DNA there is no amplification of DNA in item No. 2, 3B, 3C. DNA profile obtained from item No. 3A is compared item the DNA profile of item 1. The alletic pattern of item No. 3A matches with allelic pattern of item No. 1.
Conclusion The Autosomal STR analysis conclusively proves that DNA profile of source item No. 3A (Bone) is biological related with the DNA profile of Joginder (source) of item No. 1.
36. The DNA specialist after making the apposite inter se DNA profiling(s) of the above, came to a conclusion that the piece of bone marked as item No. 3A, hence showing similar characteristics with the blood sample of the accused marked as Item No. 1. Therefore, the report (supra) of the DNA specialist, as carried in Ex. PZ/3, does completely prove the charges drawn against the accused.
37. The effect of the above best forensic evidence when becomes combined with the unrefuted incriminatory disclosure statement made by the accused to the police officer concerned, especially when the evidentiary efficacy thereof remains unrepelled, thus with the recovered wooden danda, thus at his instance to the police 20 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 24-09-2024 00:11:15 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126000-DB CRA-D-1040-2022 (O & M) -21- officer concerned. Therefore, the charge drawn against the accused becomes unflinchingly proven.
Final Order of this Court.
38. In consequence, there is no merit in the appeal, and, the same is dismissed. The impugned verdict, and, consequent therewith sentence(s) (supra), as imposed upon the convict by the learned Convicting Court, is affirmed and maintained.
39. If the convict (supra) is on bail, thereupon, the sentences(s) as imposed upon the convict-appellant, be ensured to be forthwith executed by the learned trial Judge concerned, through his forthwith drawing committal warrants.
40. The case property, if any, be dealt with in accordance with law after the expiry of period of limitation for the filing of an appeal. The records be sent down forthwith. Since the main case itself has been decided, all the pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
(SURESHWAR THAKUR) JUDGE (KULDEEP TIWARI) 20.09.2024 JUDGE kavneet singh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No 21 of 21 ::: Downloaded on - 24-09-2024 00:11:15 :::