Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhpal Kaur vs State Of Punjab on 21 September, 2011
Author: Sabina
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Sabina
Crl. Appeal No. 547-DB of 2001 - 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Criminal Appeal No. 547-DB of 2001
Date of Decision: 21.9.2011.
Sukhpal Kaur .......Appellant
Vs.
State of Punjab ......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. S.P.S.Sidhu, Advocate
for the appellant.
Ms. Manjari Nehru Kaul, Addl. A.G., Punjab
for the respondent.
.....
SABINA, J.
Appellant faced the trial for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) in FIR No. 48 dated 09.4.1999 registered at Police Station Mamdot. Vide judgment/order dated 19.9.2001, the trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant for commission of offence under Section 302 IPC. Hence, the present appeal by the accused.
The prosecution story in brief is that on 09.4.1999, complainant Sukhbir Singh made a statement before SI- Darshn Singh that he had come to his maternal house about two days prior to the occurrence. His maternal grand father Dalip Singh had gone to Anandpur Sahib. His maternal uncle Balraj Singh had gone to inquire about the combine for Crl. Appeal No. 547-DB of 2001 - 2- harvesting the wheat crop. A day before, at about 7.00 P.M., when he came from outside and was about to enter the house, he saw that his maternal aunt Sukhpal Kaur wife of Balraj Singh was inflicting injuries on the person of his maternal grand mother Harbhajan Kaur with a gandasi. Sukhpal Kaur inflicted blows on the head, fore-head and both the eye-brows of Harbhajan Kaur. As a result of this, Harbhajan Kaur fell on the ground. Sukhpal Kaur fled away from the spot along with the gandasi. He stepped forward to take care of his maternal grand mother but he found that his maternal grand mother had died. No other family member was present in the house. After bolting the door of the house, he immediately rushed to his village and narrated entire occurrence to his father Hakam Singh and other family members. He returned back to village Kohar Singh Wala along with his mother. Their relatives Harbans Singh and Jit Singh also came there on receipt of his telephonic message.
On the basis of the statement of the complainant, formal FIR was registered at 3.05 P.M. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, final report was presented against the appellant.
Charge was framed against the appellant by the trial court under Section 302 IPC vide order dated 22.9.1999.
In support of its case, prosecution examined nine witnesses. After the close of prosecution evidence, the appellant when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short) stated as under:-
"I am innocent. My father-in-law, Dalip Singh, had given me and my son landed property through Will. Crl. Appeal No. 547-DB of 2001 - 3- Mother of Sukhbir singh complainant namely Gurdev Kaur, daughter of Dalip Singh and wife of Dalip Singh namely Bhajan Kaur wanted the share from the land of Dalip Sigh which he (Dalip Singh) was not ready to part with. Therefore, there used to be a quarrel between Dalip Sngh from one side and his wife Harbhajan Kaur and daughter from other side. Sukhbir Singh never used to come to our village during those days. I was found innocent during enquiry. I will produce defence."
Appellant examined DW-1 Ajaib Singh, DW-2 Udik Singh and DW-3 Rachhpal Singh DSP in her defence evidence.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant had been falsely involved in this case due to property dispute. The complainant had not witnessed the occurrence. There was unexplained delay in lodging of the FIR which made the prosecution story doubtful. During investigation, the matter was duly inquired into by DW-3 Rachhpal Singh DSP and he found that the alleged eye witness was not present at the spot.
Learned state counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the present case rests on an eye witness account. The statement of the complainant, who was examined as PW-3 during trial, was liable to be believed. The said witness was the maternal grand son of the deceased and had no reason to falsely involve the appellant in this case who was also closely related to him. The complainant had withstood the test of lengthy cross examination.
Crl. Appeal No. 547-DB of 2001 - 4-
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record available on the file, we are of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves to be allowed.
The prosecution case was set in motion on the basis of the statement of complainant Sukhbir Singh. The present case relates to an eye witness account and hinges on the testimony of PW-3.
The complainant while appearing in the witness box as PW-3 has deposed as per the contents of the FIR. In his cross examination, complainant deposed that his maternal grand father and maternal uncle with his wife and son were residing in the same house in the village Hari Nau. He was matriculate. The distance between his village and Kohar Singh Wala was 50- 60 kilometers. He had reached village Kohar Singh Wala along with his mother at about 8.00/9.00 A.M. He had gone towards Police Station Guru Har Sahai at about 9.00 A.M. The land of Dalip Singh was at a distance of about one kilometer from the village. Dalip Singh owned 20 Killas of land. He had come to know that Dalip Singh had executed a will in favour of Sukhpal Kaur but later he came to know that he had executed a will in favour of his grandson. Dalip Singh had undergone life imprisonment in a murder case. Dalip Singh was not having cordial relations with Harbhajan Kaur. His clothes might have become blood stained but he had left his clothes, worn by him at the time of the occurrence, at his village. He denied the suggestion that his mother was requesting Dalip Singh to give her share out of his land. He also denied the suggestion that he had been an eye witness at the instance of his mother. Crl. Appeal No. 547-DB of 2001 - 5-
The occurrence had taken place at 7.00 P.M. on 08.4.1999, whereas the complainant got recorded his statement on 09.4.1999 at about 2.00 P.M. As there was delay in lodging the FIR, it becomes imperative to examine the statement of the complainant with due care and caution. Although, the complainant has deposed that he had seen his maternal aunt Sukhpal Kaur inflicting injuries on the person of his maternal grand mother Harbhajan Kaur with a gandasi but the statement of the said witness fails to inspire confidence. The complainant was aged 22 years at the time of occurrence. After witnessing the occurrence, the complainant left the spot and without informing the police immediately went to his house. The occurrence had taken place in a populated area and the complainant could have gathered some persons from the neighbourhood if he had witnessed the occurrence and left someone with the dead body. Rather, the complainant left the dead body of his maternal grand mother at the spot and went to his village. Thereafter, the complainant got recorded his statement on the next day i.e. 09.4.1999 at 1.00 P.M. In his cross examination, he deposed that he reached village Kohar Singh Wala at about 8.00/9.00 A.M. along with his mother. However, the complainant got recorded his statement before the police at about 2.00 P.M. Although, the complainant has deposed in his cross examination that he had gone towards Police Station Guru Har Sahai at about 9.00 A.M. and had met the police at 9.50 A.M. but PW-6 SI Darshan Singh, who had recorded the statement of the complainant, has deposed in his cross examination that Sukhbir Singh had met them at 1.00 P.M. Crl. Appeal No. 547-DB of 2001 - 6- However, as per Ex.P-6, the statement of the complainant was recorded by SI- Darshan Singh at 2.00 P.M. As per the complainant, the distance between his village from Kohar Singh Wala was about 50-60 kilometers. The occurrence had taken place in the month of April. It was not impossible for the complainant to have returned back to the place of occurrence with his parents if had he actually witnessed the occurrence. Moreover, there was no occasion for the complainant to have left the spot. His uncle Balraj Singh had only gone to enquire about the combine and would have returned back home. Complainant could have narrated the occurrence to his uncle and facilitated him to lodge the FIR. Since, the behaviour of the complainant was most unnatural, the delay in lodging of the FIR gains significance. It appears that the delay in lodging of the FIR has been used by the complainant to falsely involve the appellant in this case. The complainant has admitted in his cross examination that Dalip Singh, his maternal grand father, owned 20 killas of land. He had come to know that Dalip Singh had executed a will in favour of the appellant but later on, he came to know that Dalip Singh had executed a will in favour of his grand son.
On 16.4.1999, the appellant was arrested by PW-7 ASI Joginder Singh while he was present near bus stand of village Godder Dhandi. As per the complainant, Sukhpal Kaur had fled away from the spot along with the gandasi. However, as per the investigating officer PW-6 SI Darshan Singh, Sukhpal Kaur was interrogated on 18.4.1999 and during interrogation, she had suffered the disclosure statement that she had kept Crl. Appeal No. 547-DB of 2001 - 7- concealed one gandasi in the room meant to store chaff. The gandasi was taken in possession from the disclosed place at the instance of Sukhpal Kaur. In these circumstances, the recovery of gandasi, from the house of the appellant, is rendered doubtful as the appellant could not possibly have any occasion to hide the gandasi in the house after she had allegedly fled away from the spot with the weapon.
From the post mortem examination report it is evident that deceased Harbhajan Kaur had died on 08.4.1999 on account of injuries suffered by her. The injuries on the person of Harbhajan Kaur were opined by PW-1 Dr. Sandeep Gupta as ante-mortem in nature. The doctor further opined that the time between injury and death was immediate and between death and post mortem was within 12 to 24 hours. The prosecution has, however, failed to establish that the appellant had inflicted injuries on the person of deceased Harbhajan Kaur. An accused is presumed to be innocent till proving guilty. However, the prosecution is required to prove its case by leading cogent and convincing evidence. In the present case, the statement of the complainant, who is alleged to be an eye witness to the occurrence, fails to inspire confidence. It appears that the complainant has falsely involved the appellant in this case due to some other consideration. During investigation, DW-3 Rachhpal Singh DSP had found that the complainant Sukhbir Singh was not present at the place of occurrence.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment/order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Crl. Appeal No. 547-DB of 2001 - 8- court against the appellant are set aside. Consequently, the appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against her.
(SABINA) JUDGE (JASBIR SINGH) JUDGE September 21, 2011 Gurpreet