Punjab-Haryana High Court
Palwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 16 January, 2012
Author: A.N. Jindal
Bench: Hemant Gupta, A.N. Jindal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. 749-DB of 2008
Date of decision: January 16, 2012
Palwinder Singh
.. Appellant
Vs.
State of Punjab
.. Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
Present: Mr. N.S. Minhas, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Sandeep Moudgil, DAG, Punjab for the respondent.
A.N. Jindal, J Palwinder Singh accused- appellant (herein referred as, 'the accused') having allegedly committed murder of his own wife was put to dock and vide judgment dated 29.8.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of `10,000/-.
The accused was married to Neetu Rani five months prior to her death. He was doubting her fidelity. On 9.2.2006, he had demanded motor cycle from his father-in-law Gurbax Singh complainant (herein referred as, 'the complainant') for going to Radha Soami Dera Beas, whereupon, Mangal Singh son of Gurbax Singh delivered the motor cycle at his house on the same day.
On 12.2.2006, the accused rang up the complainant to tell that Neetu Rani had died by drowning in the canal in the area of village Kalra and told him to reach there, whereupon the complainant, accompanied by his son Mohinder Singh and neighbour Budh Singh, rushed to the place of occurrence, where the accused apprised them that he was waylaid by two persons who were joined by three other persons. They first took them to Dargah of Peer Budhe Shah and after paying obeisance there, they brought them back and threw them in the canal. He tried to save Neetu, but she was washed away by the current of the water, whereas, he escaped and came out. However, since the complainant doubted the accused to be the culprit, he got registered the case against him on 13.2.2006 under Section 302/201 Criminal Appeal No. 749-DB of 2008 -2- IPC. However, the dead body of Neetu was recovered on 15.3.2006 in Doaba Canal in the area of village Kandola Kalan which was identified by the accused himself. The Investigating Officer (DSP Sukhdev Singh) conducted the inquest Ex.PH on the dead body; got it photographed vide photographs Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 and prepared site plan of the place of recovery Ex.PG. It would be pertinent to mention here that on 13.2.2006 after registration of the FIR Ex.PA/2, DSP Sukhdev Singh had arrested the accused vide memo Ex.PE and interrogated him. During interrogation, the accused made a disclosure statement that he had kept concealed the gold ornaments of his wife Neetu buried in the field near a place called Peer Baba Budhe Shah which was in his exclusive knowledge only and he could get the same recovered. Pursuant to the aforesaid statement Ex.PB, the accused got recovered the neckless, wrist watch and pair of ear rings from the disclosed place which were taken into possession by the Investigating Officer after getting the same identified from Darshan Kaur mother of the deceased. On 15.2.2006, the accused got recovered the motor cycle from the wheat field near village Kalra bridge pursuant to his disclosure statement Ex.PJ. On completion of the investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the court.
Finding a prima facie case against the accused under Sections 302/201 IPC, he was charged accordingly, to which he pleaded as incorrect and opted to contest.
During evidence, the complainant himself appeared as PW-1 and examined Varinder Singh (PW2) who is a witness to the extra judicial confession, Bakshish Singh (PW3), a neighbour and a witness to the motive; Darshan Kaur (PW4) mother of the deceased; Gurdial Singh (PW5); DSP Sukhdev Singh Investigating Officer (PW6), Kulwant Singh Photographer (PW7) and after tendering into evidence postmortem report Ex.PP and report of the Chemical Examiner Ex.PQ, the prosecution closed its evidence.
When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the allegations and pleaded his false implication in the case. No evidence was led in defence.
The trial resulted into conviction.
Arguments heard. Record perused.
Criminal Appeal No. 749-DB of 2008 -3-The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the postmortem report indicating the cause of death as drowning could not be proved which could be proved only by way of examining the doctor who had made the report. In this connection it may be observed that the requirement of examining the Medical Officer should have been insisted if the accused had denied such report having been made by the doctor. Since the accused has neither denied made of her death or the postmortem report Ex.PP, therefore, the said report would be deemed to have been proved. The report Ex.PP indicates that the cause of death of Neetu was on account of drowning. As a matter of fact, the accused has not disputed the death of Neetu as a result of drowning. Besides the testimony of the complainant that the accused had told him that she has been thrown into the canal by the miscreants, the dead body was also recovered from the canal. DSP Sukhdev Singh (PW6) has also deposed that on 15.2.2006, when the police party along with Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate Raj Kumar Nanda, in the company of the accused were searching the dead body of Neetu in doaba canal, then her dead body was found floating in the canal in the area of village Khandola Kalan. The accused identified the dead body to be that of Neetu. He has proved the photographs Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 which were taken with regard to floating of the dead body and after it was recovered from the canal. He had also conducted inquest proceedings. The recovery of the golden ornaments i.e. neckless, wrist watch, pair of ear rings from the dead body, which were identified by her mother also prove that it was the dead body of Neetu, who had died as of drowning. Not only this, the factum with regard to the death of the deceased as a result of drowning has not been denied by the accused. The accused while cross examining the complainant Gurbax Singh gave the following suggestions :-
"It is incorrect that when the accused and the deceased were travelling along side the Canal, near village Kalra that some miscreants misbehaved with her after getting the motor cycle halted. It is incorrect that when I resisted, both of them were thrown in the canal. It is incorrect that I have made a wrong statement."
However, the story appears to be unbelievable and creates a doubt over the conduct of the accused and directly points towards his guilt.
Criminal Appeal No. 749-DB of 2008 -4-Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that motive behind the occurrence does not stand established.
Having pondered over the contention, the same cannot be sustained. We have the independent witness namely Bakshish Singh (PW3) to support the motive. He had accompanied the complainant in response to the telephonic message sent by the accused. He states that during the night we had become suspicious that the accused himself had thrown Neetu in the canal as he was apprehensive of her fidelity and the same statement was made by him to the police. He was not cross examined qua this aspect of the case except asking that he had not disclosed this fact to the police, but that would not amount to cross examination qua this aspect of the case, therefore, it would be treated as proved. Gurbax Singh (PW1) and Darshan Kaur (PW4) have also supported this motive on the part of the accused to kill Neetu. Both have stated that the accused used to suspect her about her fidelity. Darshan Kaur (PW4) had gone to the extent that about 15 days prior to the incident, Neetu had disclosed that the accused had taken her to the shrine of Mata Chintpurni to ask her to vouchsafe about her fidelity and she did so. The marriage had taken place on 4.9.2005 and the occurrence had taken place on 12.2.2006. In view of the direct allegations against the accused that he was doubting the fidelity of the deceased, the accused had not levelled any such allegations that she was suffering from any mental dis-order that she could herself jump into the canal, therefore, we do not disbelieve the evidence of motive.
As regards the recovery of gold ornaments, learned counsel for the appellant has urged that some golden ornaments were recovered from the dead body of the deceased, therefore, the recovery of the neckless Ex.P1, pair of ear rings Ex.P2, panjeban Ex.P3, wrist watch Ex.P4 from near the Dera Baba Budhe Shah is false and vitiated, it may be observed that, as a matter of fact, as per recovery memo prepared on 15.2.2006, black leather shoes, nylon socks, maroon salwar, flowery jumper, black underwear, black sweater, black brassiere, lady watch of golden colour on the left wrist, gold ring in the right hand and bangles were recovered. All this goes to show that the accused appears to be very intelligent person. He left the minor ornaments on her body and the major ornaments i.e. golden neckless, gold ear rings, panjeban and one another wrist watch were taken Criminal Appeal No. 749-DB of 2008 -5- away by him and concealed near the Samadh of Baba Budhe Shah which were got recovered by him pursuant to the disclosure statement Ex.PB. The recovery of the golden ornaments stands proved from the statement of Dalip Singh (PW5) also.
The accused, without denying the place of occurrence where the dead body was thrown into the canal, he has set up the story that actually two persons came on motor cycle and they were accompanied by three others and they took them to the Samadh of Baba Budhe Shah and after paying obeisance there brought them back and threw them in the canal. This story does not appeal to the reason in any manner. The complainant in his statement has specifically mentioned that at the time when they reached the place of occurrence, the clothes of the accused were dry. It was the month of February, therefore, looking into consideration the duration of time consumed between the period and they reached the place of occurrence it cannot be believed that he would be seen in dry clothes and in the same condition. In any case, had he also been thrown in the canal or he had tried to save Neetu, then his clothes must have gone wet, torn and turban removed. Secondly, the event could not go un-resisted, therefore, the accused in a scuffle, must have suffered some injuries much less minor injuries, but not a scratch was seen on his body and his clothes were intact. Thirdly, the persons who had thrown them in the canal had no previous enmity, therefore, they must be the robbers or the dacoits and would have removed and taken away all the golden ornaments along with the belongings of the accused. But, amazingly some golden ornaments were recovered from the possession of the accused and few were recovered from the dead body of the deceased. Though, there are no reasons to discard the statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, made by the accused which led to the recovery of the golden ornaments from near the Samadh of Baba Budhe Shah, yet, in case, this recovery is not believed, and if the story of the accused is believed, then those persons were supposed to take away all the golden ornaments including the motor cycle and the same could not be recovered from the body of the deceased or possession of the accused. But the accused also got recovered the motor cycle which was in the name of his father-in-law and was left by his son Mangal Singh at the house of the accused for the use of the same. The other circumstance which unerringly Criminal Appeal No. 749-DB of 2008 -6- points towards the guilt of the accused is that the accused though remained in the company of the complainant during night, but when the case was going to be registered against him, he slipped away without caring about the recovery of the dead body.
In any case, the deceased was admittedly, in the company of the accused during that night and he himself admits that she died as a result of drowning. He has no proper explanation to make as to how she met this fate. His simple explanation that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case is also a suspicious circumstance as he being the husband would have taken that much defence in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. also and he should have explained the facts within his personal knowledge leading to the occurrence. But the accused has failed to make a true and correct account of the events and has not led any evidence to prove the story as set up by him during the cross- examination. The law regarding the indictment of the accused based on circumstantial evidence is well settled. Some times the direct evidence could be made subject to doubt but the circumstances never tell lie. The chain of circumstances in this case is complete and the evidence to prove the said chain is cogent and satisfactory convincing our conscience that it was accused and none else who committed the crime. The accused was having suspicion over the fidelity of the deceased Neetu; started from the dera during night and selected odd time to come back and then while coming at an isolated place, he removed some of her ornaments; threw her in the canal and projected that he was trapped by some persons who had thrown them in the canal. While ignoring the testimony of Varinder Singh (PW2), who may not be believed for some confusions created by him about the date, still lot of evidence has come to the fore for proving the complicity of the accused in the commission of the crime.
Thus while concurring with the judgment passed by the trial court and finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed.
(Hemant Gupta) (A.N. Jindal)
Judge Judge
January 16, 2012
deepak