Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harmeet Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 4 December, 2012
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Inderjit Singh
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
Criminal Appeal No.D-762-DB of 2002
.....
Date of decision:4.12.2012
Harmeet Singh and another
...Appellants
v.
State of Punjab
...Respondent
....
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Kumar Mittal
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
.....
Present: Mr. P.S. Khurana, Advocate for the appellants.
Mrs. Ritu Punj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the
respondent-State.
......
Inderjit Singh, J.
This appeal has been filed by appellants-Harmeet Singh and Ranjit Singh alias Prince against the judgment and order dated 29.5.2002 passed by Sessions Judge, Amritsar whereby they have been held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' - for short). Appellant No.1-Harmeet Singh has also been convicted for the offence under Section 404 IPC. Appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of `500/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Appellant No.1-Harmeet Singh has also been sentenced to Cr. Appeal No.D-762-DB of 2002 [2] undergo imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of `250/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days for the offence under Section 404 IPC. Substantive sentences of imprisonment of Harmeet Singh has been ordered to run concurrently.
In the present case, the FIR has been registered on the statement of Hardial Singh-brother of deceased Gurdial Singh. He mainly stated that on 22.1.2000 at about 4.00 p.m. Ranjit Singh alias Prince came to their house at Village Kaunke and told his elder brother Gurdial Singh that they had to go to Attari. His brother Gurdial Singh proceeded towards Attari along with Prince after putting `10,000/- in his pocket from his house in Jeep No.PB-63-6964 Mark Mahindra. At about 7.00 p.m., Mistri (mechanic) Jaswant Singh, Adda Attari had told on telephone at their house that Prince had parked their Jeep near his shop and he should take the Jeep. On that, the complainant and his younger brother Harpal Singh came to Adda Attari and brought their Jeep back to the house. All the family kept on waiting for Gurdial Singh whole of the night but he did not return to home. Next morning, they started search for Gurdial Singh from their relatives and in town Attari but could not found. Then Gurdial Singh son of Sucha Singh told the complainant that yesterday at about 5.00 p.m. he had seen Prince and Gurdial Singh going in a Jeep on the berm of defence drains towards Village Rattan Khurd but later on only Prince came in the Jeep. Then the complainant, Gurmail Singh and his brother Harpal Singh and Jagir Singh, Sarpanch Kaunke started search for his brother Gurdial Singh in the trenches made by the side of defence drain. When they entered into trench No.CX-192, then at the end inside the trench the dead body of his brother Cr. Appeal No.D-762-DB of 2002 [3] Gurdial Singh was lying smeared with blood, having injury on his head upon the left ear. The complainant stated that he had full belief that above said Ranjit Singh alias Prince had committed the murder of his brother Gurdial Singh with the help of his some other companions and `10,000/-, which was in the pocket of his brother, two gold rings, which he was wearing in both hands and one wrist watch mark Rado, were also found missing. When he was going to give information along with Jagir Singh, Sarpanch to the Police, the Police party met to complainant Hardial Singh and got his statement recorded to SI Nihal Singh, SHO, Police Station, Gharinda at about 6.30 p.m. on 23.1.2000. `Ruqa' was sent to the Police Station, on the basis of which formal FIR was recorded.
Then the Investigating Officer along with Hardial Singh- complainant reached at the place of occurrence. Photographer was summoned. Place of occurrence was inspected and rough site plan was prepared. Inquest report Ex.PE was also prepared and injury statement Ex.PD in the presence of witnesses was prepared. Blood stained earth was taken from the spot after preparing sealed parcel. He also recovered a turban from the place of occurrence which was also taken into Police possession. Dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. Appellant- Harmeet Singh was arrested on 10.2.2000 in this case. He was interrogated, who made disclosure statement that he kept concealed a gold ring in the room used for storing `Chaff' and then he got recovered the same in pursuance of his disclosure statement which was taken into Police possession vide recovery memo. Appellant-Ranjit Singh was arrested on 20.4.2000. On interrogation, he made disclosure statement and got Cr. Appeal No.D-762-DB of 2002 [4] recovered a knife. The accused was again interrogated on 23.4.2000. Then he got recovered Jersey and a shirt, which were blood stained, in pursuance of his disclosure statement. After necessary investigation, the challan was presented.
On presentation of challan, the trial Court finding prima facie charges against accused-appellants Harmeet Singh and Ranjit Singh alias Prince, framed charges for the offences under Sections 302, 302 read with Section 34 IPC and 404 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty to above charges and claimed trial.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Dr. Ashok Chanana, Assistant Professor who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Gurdial Singh on 23.1.2000 and found the following injuries:-
"1) Multiple (five) incised wound with clotted blood obliquely placed varying in size from 1.5 x 0.5 cms to 1.2 x 0.4 cm were present on the antero-lateral (right) aspect of neck in its centre.
On dissection. The wounds communicated with the underlying neck muscles upto the depth of 2.5 to 2 cm. Clotted blood was present in the track, which was directed downward, laterally and backward.
Dark coloured infiltration of blood in an area of 7 x 2.5 cm was present in the injured muscles.
2) Multiple (six) reddish brown abrasion varying in size from 1.2 x 0.4 cm to 1.5 x 0.4 cm were present on the left antero- lateral aspect of the neck in its lower one third.
Cr. Appeal No.D-762-DB of 2002 [5]
3) A reddish brown abrasion 1.4 x 0.4 cm was present on the left cheek over the malari aminence.
4) A reddish brown abrasion 1.5 x 0.5 cm was present on the right side of the forehead 4 cm above the inner end of right eyebrow.
5) Multiple (four) reddish brown abrasions varying in size from 2 x 1 cm to 1.5 x 0.8 cm were present on the right antero-lateral aspect of the abdomen.
6) Multiple (four) reddish brown abrasions varying in size from 3 x 1.4 cm to 1 x 0.8 cm were present on the back of the digits of fingers of right hand.
7) A reddish brown abrasion 1.5 x 0.8 cm was present over the left thumb.
8) An oblique incised wound 4 x 1 cm bone deep with clotted blood was present on left side of head 6 cm above the tragus of the ear."
The cause of death was declared as haemorrhage and shock, as a result of multiple incised wounds, as described under injury No.1, which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
PW-2 Constable Manjinder Singh, PW-3 Constable Mohinder Singh and PW-4 Constable Rajpal Singh are formal witnesses, who tendered in evidence their affidavits Ex.PH, Ex.PJ and Ex.PK respectively. PW-5 Hardial Singh-complainant mainly deposed as per prosecution version. PW- 6 Gurmail Singh mainly deposed as per prosecution version. PW-7 Cr. Appeal No.D-762-DB of 2002 [6] Sukhdev Singh is the witness of extra-judicial confession. As per him both the accused came to him on 27.1.2000 when he was sitting outside his house. Accused told him that they had committed a blunder. As he had acquittance with Police, he should produce both of them before the Police, as they had committed a wrong work. He told them that he had no time on that day and they should come on the next day, but the accused did not come to him. Accused Harmeet Singh and then Ranjit Singh stated before him that Gurdial Singh always used to keep with him `One Lac or `two Lacs and also used to wear sufficient ornaments. The accused further stated that they both out of greed for money and gold, had killed Gurdial Singh. The accused told him that Prince had brought Gurdial Singh from his house and Harmeet Singh joined him near defence bankar, near Guava garden. The accused also stated before him that after eating guava, they administered poisonous tablets to Gurdial Singh and after that they dragged him towards defence bankar, where his turban fell on the ground, as he was under
intoxication. Thereafter, accused Harmeet Singh caught hold of the arms of Gurdial Singh and accused Prince gave him knife blows. As a result of which, he died at the spot. The accused also stated that they removed `10,000/- from the pocket of Gurdial Singh and also removed his two gold rings, which he was wearing. They had also removed a wrist watch. They also told that after killing Gurdial Singh, they came back in the jeep. Harmeet Singh got down in the way and accused Ranjit Singh parked the jeep on the shop of Jaswant Singh. PW-8 Harvinder Singh is the witness of last seen. He stated that on 22.1.2000, he had gone to Village Bachiwind to Cr. Appeal No.D-762-DB of 2002 [7] meet his relatives. He reached at about 9.00/10.00 a.m. He returned from Village Bachiwind at about 6.30 p.m. When he reached near turning of Atalgarh, he found accused Harmeet Singh and Prince coming in a jeep. No other person was the occupant of the jeep. Jeep stopped near Dera Radha Swami ahead of Atalgarh turning, when accused Harmeet Singh got down from the jeep. The said jeep belonged to Gurdial Singh. At that time, Gurdial Singh was not accompanying the accused. This witness was declared hostile and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor and then he stated that accused Prince drove the jeep and parked it near the shop of Jaswant Singh. He further stated that on 23.1.2000, he proceeded to Delhi and came back on 25.1.2000, when he came to know that accused Prince and his companion had murdered Gurdial Singh. PW-9 Harpal Singh is the brother of the deceased. He also deposed as per prosecution version. PW- 10 SI Nihal Singh is the Investigating Officer, who mainly deposed regarding the investigation. PW-11 Inspector Gurdip Singh also conducted partly investigation in this case regarding arrest of accused Ranjit Singh and recovery from him in pursuance of his disclosure statement. Public Prosecutor then closed the evidence.
At the close of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and were confronted with the evidence of the prosecution. Accused stated that they are innocent and had been falsely involved in this case.
After going through the evidence and material on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants for the Cr. Appeal No.D-762-DB of 2002 [8] offences as mentioned above.
At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants firstly contended that the accused-appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no cogent evidence against appellant-Harmeet Singh. He next argued that PW-7 Sukhdedv Singh, before whom extra-judicial confession was made, cannot be believed as he does not belong to the same village. He was not Sarpanch or Member Panchayat. He had not produced the accused. He was not known to the appellants. As per confessional statement poisonous tablets were given but no such poison was found, therefore, the extra-judicial confession was not supported and corroborated. Otherwise also, the appellants came to him on 27.1.2000 but the statement of this witness had been recorded on 2.2.2000 and he says that, till then he had not told regarding this extra-judicial confession to anybody including the complainant etc. Therefore, he argued that this witness cannot be believed. Learned counsel for the appellants next contended that PW-8 Harvinder Singh is the partner of the deceased. He also states regarding the last seen on 22.1.2000 but his statement was also recorded on 25.1.2000 which also shows that this witness has been falsely introduced. PW-9 Harpal Singh mainly deposed regarding disclosure statement made by accused Harmeet Singh and recovery of one ring from him. No independent witness was joined. Gold rings are available in the market. This recovery also cannot be connected with the appellant-Harmeet Singh. He next contended that there is discrepancy regarding the injury on neck given in the post-mortem report but no such Cr. Appeal No.D-762-DB of 2002 [9] injury was stated to have been caused in the FIR or in the injury statement Ex.PD. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellants argued that a reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution version and the benefit should go to the appellants.
On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the respondent-State argued that the case of the prosecution has been duly proved. It is a case of circumstantial evidence. There is last seen evidence. Accused-appellant Ranjit Singh alias Prince had taken away Gurdial Singh from the house and he was also seen while going towards the place of occurrence. There is also evidence that only Ranjit Singh was returning in the jeep and the other co-accused Harmeet Singh was dropped in the way. The jeep was parked in front of the shop of Jaswant Singh, Mistri (Mechanic). The extra-judicial confession made by both the accused further supports and corroborates the prosecution version. The recovery of knife, blood stained clothes and the ring from the accused further supports and corroborates the prosecution version. She argued that the case of the prosecution is duly proved beyond reasonable doubt and there being no merit in the appeal, the same should be dismissed.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully.
From the evidence on record, we find that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and in the case of circumstantial evidence extra care and caution is to be taken whether the chain of circumstances is complete which points towards the guilt of the accused or not. From the evidence on record, we find that PW-7 Sukhdev Singh, before whom extra-judicial Cr. Appeal No.D-762-DB of 2002 [10] confession, was stated to have been made is not a reliable witness. Firstly, he does not belong to village of the appellants and was not known to the appellants. He had not produced the accused before the Police. He was not Sarpanch or Member panchayat of the village and had no influence over the Police. There was no reason or ground why the appellants would go to him. Again as per him appellants have made statements that they administered poisonous tablets etc. but no such poison was found in the Chemical Examiner's report. The cause of death as given by the doctor is due to injuries. However, extra-judicial confession was made before him on 27.1.2000, but his statement was recorded on 2.2.2000 and in cross- examination he says that he had not told regarding this extra-judicial confession to the complainant or to anybody which is not believable. Otherwise also, if the accused had made extra-judicial confession on 27.1.2000, then he should have informed the Police also immediately. The fact that the accused were also not produced by him before the Police further creates a reasonable doubt regarding the fact whether any extra- judicial confession was made by the accused before PW-7. Therefore, testimony of PW-7 cannot be relied upon.
As regards the recovery of ring, as per disclosure statement, from Harmeet Singh, it also looks doubtful. Firstly, no independent witness was joined. Secondly, such type of rings are easily available. Thirdly, it is stated to have been recovered from a room meant for storing `Chaff' and it is stated that about 50-60 quintals of `Chaff' was lying in that room. In the present case, recovery becomes further doubtful as no money or wrist watch and other ring were got recovered by the Police. The statement of PW-8 Cr. Appeal No.D-762-DB of 2002 [11] Harvinder Singh, partner of the deceased also cannot be believed that he saw Harmeet Singh and Prince coming in one jeep. Firstly, Public Prosecutor himself made the request to get the witness declared hostile as he was suppressing the truth. Secondly, we find that if he had seen accused Harmeet Singh and Prince coming in a jeep on 22.1.2000, then why he did not inform the Police regarding the same immediately. His statement had been recorded on 25.1.2000 and in the statement he stated that he had gone to Delhi and returned from Delhi, which is not supported and corroborated by any cogent evidence. The version given by PW-8 Harvinder Singh cannot be believed. From the evidence on record, we also find that the only evidence against appellant-Harmeet Singh was statement of PW-8 Harvinder Singh, recovery of ring and the extra-judicial confession. Otherwise also, Harmeet Singh is stated to have caught hold of Gurdial Singh. As per prosecution version, no injuries were attributed to him. From the evidence on record, we find that a reasonable doubt exits in the prosecution version. Chain of circumstances does not point towards the guilt of appellant-Harmeet Singh. Therefore, benefit of doubt is to go to appellant-Harmeet Singh and by giving him benefit of doubt, we acquit him of all the charges framed against him.
As regards, accused-appellant Ranjit Singh alias Prince, we find that he had taken away Gurdial Singh from his house from Village Kaunke as per statement of PW-5 Hardial Singh-complainant. Therefore, there is a last seen evidence as regards appellant-Ranjit Singh. Secondly, PW-6 Gurmail Singh has also deposed that he had seen accused going towards Village Rattan Khurd along the drain with Gurdial Singh. He had Cr. Appeal No.D-762-DB of 2002 [12] also seen accused coming all alone in the jeep from the side of Rattan Khurd. Therefore, the statement of PW-5 has been duly supported and corroborated by PW-6. Further, the statement of PW-5 that he received telephonic call that jeep was parked in front of the shop of Jaswant Singh, Mistri (Mechanic) and he brought the jeep from there further supports and corroborates the statement of these PWs. Accused-appellant Ranjit Singh as per his disclosure statement further got recovered blood stained knife and the blood stained clothes. Though the knife was not stained with blood as per FSL report but even then recovery of weapon of offence in pursuance of disclosure statement further supports and corroborates prosecution version against accused-appellant Ranjit Singh. The oral evidence of the PWs is duly supported by medical evidence and the investigation of the case. The PWs have no motive or enmity to falsely depose against appellant-Ranjit Singh. The prosecution has duly proved its case against accused-appellant Ranjit Singh beyond any reasonable doubt. Therefore, his conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC is upheld.
Therefore, from the above discussion, the appeal qua appellant No.1-Harmeet Singh is partly allowed and judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court qua him is set aside and he is acquitted of the charges framed against him. He is on bail. His bail bonds and surety bonds shall stand discharged.
However, the appeal qua appellant No.2-Ranjit Singh alias Prince is dismissed. The sentence of imprisonment of appellant No.2-Ranjit Singh alias prince was suspended by this Court vide order dated 3.5.2006 and he was released on bail during the pendency of the appeal. As he is on Cr. Appeal No.D-762-DB of 2002 [13] bail, his bail/surety bonds stand cancelled. He is directed to surrender himself before the jail authorities immediately for completing remainder of sentence, failing which the concerned authority shall proceed against him in accordance with law.
(Satish Kumar Mittal) (Inderjit Singh)
Judge Judge
December 4, 2012.
*hsp*