Delhi District Court
State vs :-Harpal Singh, on 13 February, 2008
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. BHARAT PARASHAR: ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI
S.C.NO.238/06
STATE VERSUS:-HARPAL SINGH,
FIR NO.294/03
PS PASCHIM VIHAR
U/S 302 IPC.
ORDER ON SENTENCE
Vide my separate detailed judgment dated 13-02-08 accused
Harpal Singh has been convicted for the offences U/S 302 IPC.
I have heard ld. Chief PP and ld. Counsel Sh. Mukesh Kumar for
convict as well as convict himself on the point of sentence.
Ld. Chief PP has prayed for imposition of death sentence upon
the convict stating the present case to be one falling under the category
of rarest of rare cases. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance
upon the cases :
1 BHERU SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN, (1994) 2 SCC 467: 1994
SCC (CRI) 555: (1994) 1 CRIMES 630.
2 KAILASH KAUR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AIR 1987 SC 1368
3 SURESH CHANDRA BAHRI VS. STATE OF BIHAR AIR 1994 SC 2420:
1995 SCC (CRI) 60:1994 CR.LJ 3271.
It was further stated that the convict committed cold blooded
murder of his wife and son and thereby deserves no leniency.
2
On the other hand, it was submitted by learned counsel for
convict that the punitive theory in vogue now-a-days calls for reformation
of the convict rather than deterrence. It was stated that despite
application of all the guidelines as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in a number of cases on which death sentence should be inflicted,
the present case does not falls in the category of rarest of rare cases.
Convict himself stated that he is aged about 46 years and is lodged
behind bars since 25-6-2003. It was submitted by him that after completing
his class eleven he did a diploma in civil engineering and was gainfully
employed in construction business and supply of building material. It was
also submitted that he has no previous criminal record of any nature
whatsoever. It was also stated by him that his parents are no longer alive
and the only relatives left to him in the world are his two brothers and one
sister. It was also submitted that on account of love marriage he had with
deceased Sushila one of his brother and sister are already annoyed with
him and till date are not on talking terms with him. It was also stated that
during the course of entire trial the conduct of convict has completely
remained aboveboard. A lenient view was thus prayed for.
I have carefully perused the record.
Undoubtedly, the administration of criminal justice system
which earlier laid great emphasis on the deterrence theory is drifting away
towards the theory of reformation. However, as has been observed over a
3
period of time even by the Higher Courts of the Land that in the absence
of a proper system in place so as to ensure reformation of the convict, the
purist theory of reformation may also be held to be neither justifiable, nor
beneficial either to the administration of criminal justice system or for the
convict himself. It is also equally true that off-late the theory of victimology
is also gaining ground. The plight of the victim which they must have
undergone at the time of commission of crime or later on that of the close
relatives of the victim, who must have been undergoing all this trauma
since the commission of the offence can also be not overlooked.
However, it is well settled that for a case to fall under the
category of rarest of rare cases, the facts thereof must depict extreme
brutality and the fact that it was committed in diabolical circumstances.
In the present case, convict admittedly after committing the murder of his
wife and son himself went to the police station to report the matter and
which I may again reiterate was a case of repentance prevailing upon
him after the commission of the crime.
Thus, in order to arrive at a just sentence the court has to effect
and maintain a balance between the extenuating and mitigating
circumstances as have been brought to the notice of the court. I
accordingly, keeping in view the overall facts & circumstances of the
case, coupled with the submissions made besides the conduct of convict
during the course of trial, am of the considered opinion that the present
4
case does not fall in the category of rarest of rare cases.
I accordingly hereby sentence convict Harpal Singh to
rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the
offence U/S 302 IPC. In default of payment of fine, the convict shall
further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
Benefit of Section 428 Cr.PC shall be given to the convict.
A copy of the Judgment as well as that of Order on Sentence
be given free of costs to the convict and another copy be attached with
her jail warrants.
File be consigned to Record.
Announced in the open court on 20-2-08.
(BHARAT PARASHAR)
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE
FAST TRACK COURT:ROHINI:DELHI
5
IN THE COURT OF SH. BHARAT
PARASHAR:ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI
S.C.NO.238/06
STATE VERSUS:- HARPAL SINGH,
S/O SH. MUNSHI RAM,
R/O H.NO.A1/183B,
JANTA FLATS,
PASCHIM VIHAR,
DELHI.
FIR NO.294/03
PS PASCHIM VIHAR
U/S 302 IPC.
DATE OF INSTITUTION IN SESSIONS COURT:10-11-2003.
DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT RESERVED:28-1-2008.
DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED 13-2-2008.
JUDGMENT
Relationship with another is primarily based on dependence, either economic or psychological. Thus dependence creates fear, breeds in us possessiveness, results in friction, suspicion, frustration. But, how fragile the human values can be in a such a relationship with one another is evident from the facts and circumstances of the present case. 6
The extreme cruelty or brutality to be more specific on the part of accused Harpal Singh is depicted in the facts & circumstances of the prosecution case as stands unfolded by the report U/S 173 Cr.PC.
On 25-6-2003, accused Harpal Singh went to PS Paschim Vihar at about 8.15am and made a startling revelation to the Duty Officer-HC Subhash stating that he has killed his wife Sushila and son Harshit, aged about seven years by strangulation. He also stated that thereafter he himself had also consumed "All-out", the insecticide, in order to commit suicide but could not succeed in his said attempt. He also stated that he had written a suicide note in his house before taking such a step himself. He further stated that he has come to the police station to report the matter after locking his house. Upon this, HC Subhash Chand recorded DD No.2A in this regard and produced accused Harpal Singh before the Addl. SHO, namely, Inspt. Jagdish Meena. After hearing Harpal Singh, Inspt. Jagdish Meena along with other police staff of PS Paschim Vihar went to his house i.e at Flat No.A1/183-B, Janta Flat, Paschim Vihar. At the said flat, Harpal Singh opened the lock of the door after taking out a key from his pocket. Upon going inside, the police party found two dead bodies lying on a double bed viz that of Sushila, the wife of accused Harpal Singh and his son Harshit. Accused Harpal Singh thereafter gave four pages of a copy lying over there after tearing them from a copy stating it to be his alleged suicide note which he wrote before allegedly 7 consuming "All-out". During all this time, Kuldeep and Ram Kumar respectively, the brother and father of Sushila also happened to reach over there and it was in their presence only that Harpal Singh had opened the lock of his house. Inspt. Jagdish Meena thereafter prepared a rukka on the basis of DD No.2A which was recorded by HC Subhash on the information given by accused Harpal Singh and got a case registered at PS Paschim Vihar. On the dead body of Sushila, a telephone wire was also found tied around her neck with which accused claimed to have further strangulated her so as to ensure that she does not survive the murderous assault by way of strangulation upon her. Thereafter, inquest proceedings qua the two dead bodies were carried out and the bodies were sent for postmortem examination. The ligature material viz the telephone wire besides telephone instrument from which the said wire was taken out by accused Harpal Singh were also taken into possession. The said four pages which contained the alleged suicide note of the accused were also taken into possession besides the said notebook from which the four pages were torn. The key of the house with which accused Harpal Singh had opened the lock was also seized. Two empty bottles of "All-out" which appeared to have been recently purchased, lying in the rear bedroom were also taken into possession. Prior to the removal of the body, the spot was also got inspected by the crime team and was also got photographed. Accused Harpal Singh was thereafter arrested in this 8 case. Site plan was also prepared. Statement of various relatives of deceased Sushila viz her parents, brother and sisters were also recorded during the course of investigation. Specimen handwriting of accused Harpal Singh was also obtained for the purposes of getting it compared with that of the alleged suicide note. Upon completion of necessary further investigation, challan was prepared and was filed in the court against accused Harpal Singh for the offence U/S 302 IPC.
Upon committal of the case to the court of sessions, charge for the offence U/S 302 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution thereafter in order to prove its case examined twenty four witnesses. Accused was thereafter examined U/S 313 Cr.PC. He thereafter examined eleven witnesses in his defence.
The twenty four witnesses so examined by the prosecution can be clubbed under different heads and thereafter their deposition can be discussed.
EVIDENCE OF MOTIVE AND LAST SEEN PW2 Ram Kumar and PW3 Laxmi Devi, the father and mother of deceased Sushila along with PW4 Kuldeep, the brother of Sushila, PW5 Saroj Devi and PW6 Savita, the two sisters of Sushila were the star witnesses of the prosecution, who were examined so as to prove the 9 motive of committing this heinous crime by accused Harpal Singh.
PW3 Laxmi Devi was also the sole witness examined by the prosecution qua the last seen evidence when deceased Sushila and son Harshit were last seen alive in the company of accused Harpal Singh.
PW5 Saroj Devi, the sister of Sushila also deposed about an extra judicial confession made by accused Harpal Singh to her on the morning of 25-6-03 about his having murdered Sushila and Harshit. Though, I shall be discussing and analyzing the deposition of these material witnesses of the prosecution in detail at a later stage of my judgment but, the main thrust of the testimony of these witnesses centered around the fact that accused Harpal Singh in fact after few years of his marriage with Sushila had fallen in the company of bad woman and thus used to spend all his earnings on such kind of woman while ignoring Sushila. They also stated that accused Harpal Singh used to give beating to Sushila and he had even at one point of time shifted to Papankalan to reside along with one lady Veena. They further stated that after some time accused Harpal Singh was brought back by them after he was made to understand that such kind of activities were not good either for him or for his family. It was however stated by them that on 23-6-03 accused Harpal Singh , who was having his own house in Paschim Vihar shifted to Papankalan along with Sushila and Harshit in a rented accommodation despite objections by Sushila. However, on the very next day i.e on 24-6-2003 the couple along 10 with their son Harshit returned back to Paschim Vihar upon the insistence of Sushila.
PW3 Laxmi Devi, the mother of Sushila further claimed to have gone to the house of accused Harpal Singh in Paschim Vihar itself at around 7/7.30pm on the evening of 24-6-2003 during the course of her evening walk. She found the atmosphere in the house to be tense and she advised Harpal Singh and his daughter Sushila to not to quarrel and to live happily. She further stated that accused Harpal Singh however stated to her that now Sushila will have to face consequences of returning back to Paschim Vihar.
PW5 Saroj Devi however deposed that on 25-6-03, she had rang up accused Harpal Singh in the morning to ask for some building material for her house which was under construction and as accused Harpal Singh was dealing in the business of supply of building material. She further stated that accused very strangely stated to her that he has killed his wife Sushila and Harshit and that now it will be their turn. All the aforesaid witnesses thus deposed almost on identical lines while rendering corroboration to the prosecution story.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE The deposition of PW7 Dr. Anil Kumar Misra, PW8 Dr. Shareen and PW9 Dr. VK Jha falls under the category of medical evidence led by 11 the prosecution in this case.
PW7 Dr. Anil Kumar Misra had medically examined accused Harpal Singh on 25-6-2003 vide MLC Ex.PW7/A after he was arrested by the police.
PW8 Dr. Shreen had also examined accused Harpal Singh on 25-6-03 itself at around 9.50pm and had advised that gastric lavage and blood sample of the accused be sent for toxicological examination. He further referred the patient for forensic & medicine opinion vide MLC Ex.PW8/A. However, accused Harpal Singh refused to give his gastric lavage and made a specific endorsement in this regard on the MLC.
PW9 Dr. VK Jha had carried out the postmortem examination upon the dead body of the two deceased viz Sushila and Harshit vide his reports Ex.PW9/A and Ex.PW9/B. He opined the cause of their death to be by way of strangulation.
EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSION Besides PW5 Saroj Devi, PW10 Ravinder was also allegedly a witness of extra judicial confession made to him by accused Harpal Singh. However, he completely turned around and stated that accused Harpal Singh did not make any such confession to him on the morning of 25-6-2003. He rather chose to support the plea of alibi of accused Harpal Singh by stating that on the intervening night of 24-6-2003 and 25-6-2003 12 he along with accused Harpal Singh were at their work sites and accused Harpal Singh had dropped him at Najafgarh at around 5/5.30am in the morning. He further stated that after one and half hours accused rang him up and stated that someone has murdered his wife and son and that he is going to Police Station-Paschim Vihar to report the matter. He also asked him to come over to Police Station-Paschim Vihar. WITNESSES QUA PAST CONDUCT OF ACCUSED PW11Ms. Bhawna Babbar was the Principal MR Vivekanand Model School, Dwarka, who produced the admission form Ex.PW11/A of one child Raj Singh, who was admitted in their school and whose parents name was mentioned in the form as accused Harpal Singh and Veena Singh. This witness was primarily examined by the prosecution to support the theory that accused Harpal Singh was living with one Veena Singh, who already was having a child from her previous marriage.
PW12 Manohar Khan and PW13 BK Gupta were respectively a watchman and a resident of Maha Badri Society, Sector-13, Dwarka, Delhi where accused Harpal Singh allegedly resided along with said other lady Veena Singh for quite some time. However, both these witnesses completely disowned the prosecution story by claiming complete ignorance in this regard. They claimed to have not seen accused Harpal Singh ever before.
13FORMAL WITNESSES PW4 Kuldeep was the photographer, who was called by the police after the discovery of the impugned crime having taken place. He had taken photographs of the spot but as the relevant negatives were not available so, the deposition of this witness remained deferred.
PW16 SI Manohar Lal was the draftsman, who prepared scaled site plan Ex.PW16/A. INVESTIGATING OFFICER & OTHER ASSOCIATE POLICE OFFICIALS PW22 Inspt. Jagdish Meena was the main IO of the case. In his deposition, he reiterated the prosecution story while proving the various memos/documents prepared by him in the course of investigation carried out by him.
PW1 ASI Vinod, PW14 SI Naresh Dagar, PW15 HC Phool Kanwar, PW17 Ct. Dalbir Singh, PW18 Ct. Ram Kishan, PW19 Ct. Sukhvir Singh, PW20 SI Randhir Singh and PW23 HC Subhash were the various police officials, who had joined investigation with IO/Inspt. Jagdish Meena at different stages. They all deposed about the various documents/memos prepared during the course of investigation in their presence while reiterating the prosecution story in their respective deposition. I am not entering into a 14 detailed discussion of their deposition over here for the sake of brevity and this exercise will be entered into at the relevant stages at a later stage of my judgment. PW21 Inspt. JS Gill after collecting the FSL result merely prepared the challan and filed it in court.
HANDWRITING EXPERT PW24 SC Lohia was the handwriting expert, who examined and compared the impugned four pages allegedly written by accused in respect of the incident which led to the death of Sushila and Harshit along with certain specimen handwriting and signatures of accused Harpal Singh. He vide his report Ex.PW24/A and B opined the questioned writings Q1 to Q4 to be in the hand of accused Harpal Singh, who was the author of specimen handwriting Ex.PX1 to PX4.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED Accused in his statement U/S 313 Cr.PC however stated the case of the prosecution to be false and the prosecution witnesses to be deposing falsely. In fact accused in response to the last question put to him in his statement U/S 313 Cr.PC as to, whether he has anything to say in the matter, made a very long statement and thereby put forth his plea of defence as to how his wife and son came to be murdered by his in- laws and why he has been falsely implicated in this case at their instance only. He stated that primarily his in-laws were not financially well-off but, 15 he married Sushila even against the wishes of his own family members only because Sushila was an educated beautiful girl. He further stated that right after the marriage, his in-laws which included the parents of Sushila, brother and sisters of Sushila besides one acquaintance of their, namely, Ram Chander started exploiting him and Sushila so as to extract money from them. He further stated that he had taken his in-laws to various trips outside Delhi and even to Nepal and had even employed his brother-in-law Kuldeep with him so that he may stand in life. He further stated that Kuldeep however committed theft of certain cheques in his office and also by way of various dubious acts along with his parents took about Rs.30 lakhs from him. He further stated that a meeting was even held with the parents of Sushila and pursuant to which some amount of Rs.5-6 lakhs was even returned back by them but still a sum of more than Rs. 24 lakhs was left over due towards them. It was further stated that he had even purchased properties in the name of Sushila but, the parents of Sushila along with their other daughter and son Kuldeep were having an evil eye over the property of accused so as to grab it. He further stated that even Sushila had been repeatedly asking her parents and other relatives to return back the money owed by them. He thus stated that the murder of Sushila and Harshit was in fact committed by his in-laws so as to avoid their liability to repay the money owed by them towards him and Sushila and under a well thought out plan they got him falsely implicated 16 in this case in connivance with the police. He also stated that soon thereafter his in-laws trespassed over his property after stealing papers from his house and he thus stated that this fact further fortified his plea of defence as to the intention of his in-laws.
DEFENCE WITNESSES In fact, the long list of eleven defence witnesses examined by the accused were all towards rendering support to the aforesaid facts so stated by the accused in his statement U/S 313 Cr.PC.
DW1 Gajender Singh was an officer of Andhra Bank, Dwarka, who produced the statement of account of accused Harpal Singh maintained in their bank which showed that on 29-11-02 a cheque for a sum of Rs.3.85 lakhs was encashed in favour of Kuldeep, the brother of Sushila.
DW2 was again an officer, namely, Arun Bharti, Asstt. Manager, ICICI Bank, Palam Branch, who placed on record the statement of account of accused Harpal Singh in their bank which again showed an entry of a cheque of Rs.1.5 lakhs in favour of Kuldeep on 29-11-02 and yet another entry of Rs.50,000/- on 20-8-98 in favour of Savita, sister of Sushila.
DW3 Satish Kachhwha was the Sr. Asstt. from SBI, Mundka, Delhi. He produced statement of an account of Sushila being maintained in their bank which showed an entry of a cheque for a sum of Rs.1.77 lakhs 17 in favour of Ram Kumar Dahiya, the father of Sushila on 23-12-02.
DW4 Bhim Sain, Messenger, SBI, Lal Market, Paschim Vihar, Delhi produced the statement of account of an account maintained by the parents of Sushila in the said bank and as per which the said cheque of SBI, Mundka issued from the bank account of Sushila was encashed in the said account on 26-10-02.
DW5 Balwan Singh and DW6 Rajeev Mehta were the two witnesses examined by the accused in support of his plea of alibi to the effect that on the night intervening 24/25-6-2003 accused Harpal Singh was away at his work site where his JCB Machine and Dumper were working.
DW7 Navrang Pal was the elder brother of accused Harpal Singh, who in fact was all through the trial was also carrying out the 'pairvi" of the case on behalf of the accused. In his deposition, he corroborated the averments made by accused Harpal Singh in his statement U/S 313 Cr.PC qua the behaviour and conduct of his in-laws.
DW8 LS Bhandari was an officer of Meteorological Department, who led evidence as to the time of sunset and sunrise on 24-6-03 in Delhi.
DW9 Santram was an officer of South Indian Bank, Rohini Branch, Sector-8, Delhi, who also produced statement of a current account maintained in their bank under the name M/S Sushil Associates 18 which showed an entry of withdrawal of Rs.3 lakhs on 23-5-2001 by Laxmi Devi, the mother of Sushila.
DW10 Satish Kachhwaha, Cashier, SBI Mundka, Delhi again entered the witness box and produced the record pertaining to a savings bank account being held in the name of Ram Kumar Dahiya, the father of Sushila along with statement of account.
DW11 Vijender Singh Patwari, Halka Silana, Tehsil Parpoda, Distt. Sonepat produced the record pertaining to a piece of land in the said village being entered in the name of Ram Kumar, the father of Sushila. As per said record 1/8th portion out of the entire land of 29 kanal 15 marla came in the share of Ram Kumar.
I have heard ld. APP, ld. defence counsel Sh. BS Rana for the accused and also ld. Counsel Sh. RK Naseem on behalf of the complainant.
It was submitted by ld. Counsel Sh. BS Rana for accused that the present case is primarily based on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has miserably failed in proving the various circumstances conclusively lest they could form a complete chain of evidence pointing exclusively to the guilt of accused and not explainable on any other hypothesis consistent with the innocence of accused. It was submitted that there was an inordinate delay in the registration of the FIR despite the fact that the alleged information given by the accused amounted to 19 disclosure of a cognizable offence. It was further stated that for reasons best known to the IO, the FIR was not recorded by them on the basis of the statement allegedly made by Harpal Singh to them. It was further stated that the presence of Kuldeep and Ram Kumar Hooda at the Police Station when Harpal Singh went over there to report the matter clearly shows that they were well aware of the incident and this entire situation was created by them in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy hatched amongst them. As regards the motive for the accused to commit murder of his wife and son, it was submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed in leading any iota of evidence in this regard. It was further submitted that mere bald allegations that accused had started living in the company of bad woman cannot be held to be a conclusive proof of the said situation and it was imperative for the prosecution to lead some cogent and convincing evidence in this regard. As regards the alleged suicide note which was seized from the spot by the IO, it was stated that the same amounted to a confession and was thus clearly inadmissible in evidence. Similarly, the alleged confession made to Smt. Saroj Devi (PW5) by accused Harpal Singh was also stated to be a very weak type of evidence and especially in view of the various contradictions and improvements made by her in her deposition, looses its all validity in the eyes of law. It was further submitted that the impugned specimen handwriting of the accused were not taken either in the presence of the 20 Magistrate or with the permission of the court and thus any comparison of the questioned writing with the said specimen handwriting was of no use to the prosecution. As regards the deposition of PW3 Laxmi Devi, it was stated that the last seen evidence also could not be proved conclusively by the prosecution. It was pointed out that in her examination-in-chief she stated that she had visited the house of accused at around 7.30-7.45am. It was thus pointed out that there was a great degree of time gap when PW3 Laxmi Devi allegedly saw Sushila and Harshit alive in the company of accused Harpal Singh and thus accused cannot be called upon to explain the burden of proving facts exclusively to his knowledge even U/S 106 Evidence Act, 1872. It was further stated that even the admission form of Raj Singh as placed on record by PW11 Ms. Bhawna Babbar does not in any manner show that it was the present accused Harpal Singh, who had filled-up the said form for admission of the said child in the school. It was stated that prosecution has not ruled out the fact that the said admission form may pertain to some other boy, whose father's name was also incidentally Harpal Singh. It was also stated that both PW12 Manohar Khan and PW13 BK Gupta, the two witnesses of Maha Badri Society, Sector-13, Dwarka, Delhi where accused allegedly resided with Veena have also not supported the prosecution story in any manner whatsoever. It was further stated that the IO failed to collect any telephone call details which could show that accused Harpal Singh on 21 the morning of 25-6-03 had talked to Saroj Devi (PW5) so as to render corroboration to her deposition that at that time accused Harpal Singh disclosed to her of his having committed murder of his wife and son. It was further stated that the evidence in defence led by the accused rather supports the plea of defence taken by him that he has been got falsely implicated in this case by his in-laws in order to avoid their liability to repay the money owed by them towards accused Harpal Singh and Sushila. The prosecution was thus stated to have been unsuccessful in proving its case against accused Harpal Singh. He was thus prayed to be acquitted.
On the other hand, ld. APP and ld. Counsel for the complainant strongly opposed the contentions of learned defence counsel. It was stated that suicide note Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 rather reflected the repentance of a person which prevailed after his suicide attempt failed. It was stated that Ex.PW23/A which was the initial DD entry recorded at PS Paschim Vihar clearly supports the aforesaid fact. It was further stated that a bare reading of the alleged suicide note Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 clearly shows that all these intrinsic facts could not have been to the knowledge of any other person but for to accused Harpal Singh. It was further stated that PW3 Laxmi had last seen Sushila and Harshit alive in the company of accused on the evening of 24-6-03 and the fact that in her examination- in-chief, the said time came to be recorded as 7-7.30am, was nothing but a typographical mistake. It was pointed out that in the cross-examination 22 of the witness, ld defence counsel himself put a suggestion that she had not gone to the house of accused at 7.30pm/7.45pm. It was thus stated that nothing adverse against the prosecution case can be read on account of this typographical mistake. It was further stated that except for putting this bald suggestion, PW3 Laxmi Devi was not at all cross- examined on this aspect by the accused. It was thus stated that accused has though put forward a plea of defence at a later stage of the trial that he was not present in his house on the night intervening 24/25-6-2003 but, such a plea was never put forth by him at any earlier point of time. It was stated that had such a plea been truthful then, it would have been the natural reaction of a person to put forth it at the earliest opportunity. It was further stated that the overall conduct of the accused in giving information about the death of his wife and son after having failed to commit suicide himself clearly is an indicator of his conduct, which is admissible U/S 8 & 9, Indian Evidence Act. It was thus stated that the prosecution has been able to prove all the incriminating circumstances conclusively and which form a complete chain of evidence leading to the only hypothesis consistent with the guilt of accused and is not explainable on any other hypothesis consistent with the innocence of accused. Accused was thus prayed to be convicted.
I have carefully perused the record including the written submissions filed by both the sides.
23
At the outset, I may state that the present case is primarily based on circumstantial nature of evidence. Thus before I embark upon an analysis and discussion of the testimony of the various prosecution witnesses, it will be worthwhile to reiterate the often stated parameters as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court of the land in a number of cases which are required to be kept in mind by a court while dealing with a case based on circumstantial evidence exclusively.
It was observed in the case BODH RAJ @ BODHA & ORS. VS.
STATE OF J&K AIR 2002 SC 3164 that :
! #"%$& '$( )" "* + -,. 0/1 2 3 0/( 4 # 5 6 "- 7 " $8 9/ 2 9 $: 4 ; ! < = > +$( ?
6 "- A@B $C -DED% )
6F ;"- G +$(
)"4 H ( = I 2,J K # -
6 D + C - * L M $& ? 2,: NO + ; $P $2Q8 )R S 0/( I K6F T 0/&
" 4 7 +"= $P".UB/& ?/1 K V" $W X A"
4 ; E" ") L $1Y Z2/( :
R<R $& 8 * +$[ ( = \ 2,] )
6F ;"- G +$^ A _ -D
* _ P $(
V -D#" Y`Z2/(
(
$& ) a -D Rb c - & dRb c 6F e ( f M +$( P6F g f,; ^ ( = ; $( K # - ADG,T h,i * +$P"j
Rk
G - $
$PR )$( l"m K f OU^$WRL Rb c - _6F n ( f M +$M")@o 0/ 2 3 #")@o 0/( - * _ P $' A + -,IRb c - A"pYTZ m q6 r !
c #R<R )$^ ADG,; ) #
6F ;"+ G +$' A -DB * _ P $(
H #" $( & K # - ' 0/( 7
#$^ #$ #")"
6O s t6 B $M") #"- A"j
R
- * L M $& s
Rr + + + L K6 "u 0/& %Rb c - A"vU^/P L /w + H" o )DL
" )DG,x -")"= l 2 = ?U^ X 0/? 0/& Rb c - #$ #")" 6O
0/ 2 ( G +y& $I *Q - 0/& T 0/( z,vR { T / - $
Rq ) +6f ;"- G +$& )"kRL |U^/M < /` 0/( % Nc E"+ $& j
R
0/& } (
$& ) a -DHRb c - 5 = +$~ P 4D< bQM -D#DG,I $PR = 8 4 l" 6F = 2YZ2/& ; #";$( > M K6h d 0/ 2
$' * L - A < $ = +$ V M -"= = "
DL )DG, $ ) +6f ;"- G +$' A -D` - * _ P $& V t6 > 0/& W $( c ! A L $P"
( M $' 3 )R w $' * L - A < $ K6 D_ P M -"= = C $
l
6F ;"+ G +$' A -Dd * _ P $(
)@r
6F"- j
R)6 D#DG,} l"+ G D# #" /& = 2Y1Z2/( z,d + K 3
24
0& l
F;+G+& )9L ^M< e0& &)< )L Ht #Xr# ? 4KfO^ &KFLx ^) #Gxl+G ## &=2(2&3) K f;-G+& )r & &=S - l (K _ l+(d& f P )+G #E &=M ¡ 0& bc-A xl+G ## &=o &K _ Ps P)#- 'B PG '!0J0&rt*¢ 0())#s 0&3tFE!B u0&vc =>012 ET o*ff£0&z4 &K _ & BP} ¤+¢(_- 1 L} >+t 0() t*¢7 0&))#r ¤P <¢rt0 2t0(kc ==d#&t #!# ¥ 0&r) +f;-G+& )' &K _iP &d (l< !¦ '12_F q+(; (M &z § 0&z¨ &KFL ¤P)©hPª-¦ -.¢ ) L t*¢7 0&))#. ¤P <¢r 0&ª &ª 8 ¢( ¦ =i+ « 0& w -v `:)1-#¬ -¦*_P & ? ¨ }¢&L- `- & 9 .L*2¦ `+t *- c< c KF ?0&o &)< < . M)#- ' '!00&5 M& & } 50(vc F = +( F-( &h®012& J-#^BF +m¢( fM ##!#`0&oc-& +B12¦ d P (o2 0& c =2 ¯h° ±;°#²E³F´ ²Aµ2¶7³ ·d´ ¸ ¹K³F´ ºO·;»L¼M¸ ²E³ · »5· ¸ ¸=½S»L¼M¸ ¾F´ µ.³ ²#·)¾ »L¼M¸ ¿}¾F½ ÀÂÁP²E¸ ¯OÃÄ° ½»L¼P¸ ·)³F±;¸rÅ ³ ·)¸qÆc°#ÇkÈkÉ5Ês¿VËHÌ3Í}Ω¯ Ï%Ð(ËHÌuÑ ¾fÁ · ¸=´ Æc¸ ºi³ ·BÒP½PºO¸=´hÓ Ô-Õ ¼P¸v²#³ ·)»q·)¸ ¸=½ »L¼M¸ ¾F´ µ;Å ¾F±;¸ ·j° ½P»<¾4Ö ²#³fµ9×%¼P¸=´ ¸i»L¼M¸v»<° ±;¸o¹K³fÖ ÁP¸ »_×j¸ ¸=½ »L¼P¸ Ö ¾ ° ½P»u¾ Ø5»<° ±;¸ ×s¼P¸=½»L¼M¸ ³ Å Å=ÒP·)¸ ºª³F½PººM¸ Å ¸ ³ ·)¸ ºJ×%¸ ´ ¸ ·)¸ ¸=½²#³ ·)»u³ ²#°AÆc¸ ³F½Pºª×s¼P¸=½»L¼M¸ ºM¸ Å ¸ ³ ·)¸ ºC°#·9Ø<¾fÒP½PººM¸ ³ º°#·;·)¾I· ±;³ ²E²3»L¼P³ »uÖ ¾ ·)· ° ÁP°E²#°#»_µª¾ Ø}³F½2µ`Ö ¸=´ ·)¾F½:¾ »L¼P¸=´ »L¼P³F½»L¼P¸ ³ Å Å=ÒP·)¸ ºxÁ ¸ ° ½M¹i»L¼M¸%³fÒ »L¼M¾F´s¾ ØBÅ=´ ° ±;¸HÁ ¸ Å ¾F±;¸ ·° ±9Ö ¾ · ·)°AÁ ²#¸-ÙhÚ »&×%¾fÒ ²#ºxÁ ¸sºM°#Ø<Ø<°#Å*Ò ²#»^° ½4· ¾F±;¸ Å ³ ·)¸ ·s»<¾xÖ ¾ ·)°#»<°AÆc¸ ² µm¸ · »<³fÁ ²#°#· ¼`»L¼P³ »r»L¼M¸oºM¸ Å ¸ ³ ·)¸ º ×j³ ·%²E³ · »q·)¸ ¸=½ ×%°E»L¼ »L¼P¸o³ Å Å*Ò ·)¸ ºw×%¼P¸=½ »L¼P¸=´ ¸s°#·H³v²E¾F½O¹x¹K³fÖ ³F½Pº Ö ¾ · ·)°AÁ °#²#°E»_µi¾ Ø'¾ »L¼P¸=´3Ö ¸=´ ·)¾F½P·HÅ ¾F±;°#½O¹}° ½ Á ¸ »_×%¸ ¸=½ ¸*Ûc°#·)»<·zÙ2Úb½m»L¼P¸ ³fÁ ·)¸=½MÅ ¸u¾ Ø7³F½OµT¾ »L¼P¸=´5Ö ¾ ·)°#»<°AÆc¸u¸*Æc°#ºM¸=½PÅ ¸}»<¾9Å ¾F½PÅ ²AÒ ºM¸u»L¼M³ »q³ Å Å*Ò ·)¸ º ³F½PºwºO¸ Å ¸ ³ · ¸ º;×j¸=´ ¸ 25 Ü#Ý Þ)ßqÞ)à à=áIß<âFãKà ßLäPà=å ætç#ßèjâfé Ü#ê?ë àväPÝ ì ÝFå êMâféPÞdß<â í âFî;à}ß<â Ýmí âFáPí ÜAé Þ)ç#âFá`â ïqãFé ç#Ü#ßHç#á?ßLäPâ Þ à í Ý Þ)à Þ ð ñ Before proceeding further, I first of all propose to deal with the most important aspect of the present case or for that matter of any criminal case viz the motive.
Undoubtedly, motive is an important aspect of every criminal trial. Sometimes motive plays an important role and becomes a compelling force to commit a crime and, therefore, motive behind the crime is a relevant factor for which evidence must be adduced. A motive is something which prompts a person to form an opinion or intention to do certain illegal act or even a legal act but with illegal means with a view to achieve that intention. In a case where there is clear proof of motive for the commission of the crime, it affords added support to the finding of the court that the accused was guilty of the offence charged with. But, at the same time the absence of proof of motive does not render the evidence bearing on the guilt of the accused nonetheless untrustworthy or unreliable because most often it is only the perpetrator of the crime alone, who knows as to what circumstances prompted him to a certain course of action leading to the commission of the crime.
Coming to the facts of the case in hand, I may state that allegedly the motive which led accused Harpal Singh to commit such a 26 ghastly crime is stated to be his association with another woman. No- doubt, the prosecution has not been able to lead any direct and positive evidence to this effect but, it cannot be lost sight of that in respect of such kind of matters, it is very difficult if not impossible to lead direct evidence in this regard. The prosecution witnesses have stated that accused for some period of time had even shifted to Dwarka to reside along with one lady Veena. All the family members of Sushila, who entered the witness box were subjected to long arduous cross-examination but except for troubling the witnesses nothing substantial could be elicited from them which could help the accused in this regard. They were merely put suggestions in this regard by learned defence counsel stating this part of their testimony to be false but all such suggestions were denied by the witnesses. It was observed in the case SITA RAM PANDEY & ORS. VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 1976 CRL. LJ. 800 (PATNA) that mere suggestions if denied cannot take the place of evidence. Accused did try to show that he had been taking his wife Sushila along with other members of his in-laws family to different places in India and outside to Nepal for pilgrimage etc. but, all these facts in my considered opinion are of no assistance to the accused so as to save his skin from the present offence in question. It is the case of the parents of Sushila herself that for a period of 5/6 years after the marriage of Sushila with Harpal Singh, the relations between the couple were normal. They further stated that after Sushila gave birth to a 27 son, the accused fell in the company of a woman of bad character and thereafter started giving beating to Sushila. PW3 Laxmi Devi clearly stated that Sushila used to be perturbed upon finding chappal, bindi etc. in the vehicle of accused. However, in the cross-examination of PW3 Laxmi Devi though certain improvements were pointed out by learned defence counsel but, it was nowhere suggested that no such bindi, chappal etc were ever found by Sushila in the car of accused. Copy of a complaint which was allegedly lodged by Sushila with the police against accused Harpal Singh during her life time wherein also she stated about the conduct of accused Harpal Singh having fallen in bad company and residing with some other lady was also placed on record.
However, from the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case and the nature of evidence led on record by the prosecution, it is clear that accused Harpal Singh was having relations with one lady Veena Singh, who already was having a child-Raj Singh from her earlier marriage. This fact also find support from the testimony of PW11 Ms Bhawna Babbar, Principal MR Vivekanand Model School, Dwarka. She placed on record an admission form of child Raj Singh in which the name of the parents of Raj Singh was mentioned as Harpal Singh and Veena Singh. In her cross-examination, it was nowhere suggested to her that this examination form was not in the hand of accused Harpal Singh or that accused Harpal Singh had no connection with the said child-Raj Singh or 28 in getting him admitted in the said school. The aforesaid circumstances though does not conclusively establishes the factum of accused residing at "Pappan Kala" with the said lady Veena but does give birth to grave suspicion in this regard. The subsequent discussion of the prosecution evidence so led on record will also go to show that accused Harpal Singh was not happy with his matrimonial life with Sushila.
At this stage, I may also state that the prosecution case also throws up yet another line of thought wherein accused Harpal Singh seems to be not happy with the behaviour of his in-laws and was not at peace with his life either. As already stated by me herein above, the motive to commit a crime is undoubtedly an important piece of evidence in any criminal trial but, it is often the perpetrator of the crime, who only is aware of the same and no one else. It is thus difficult for the prosecution to lead positive or direct evidence in this regard as to what was there in the mind of the offendor at the time of commission of the crime. Thus, even if the prosecution has not been able to establish the motive for the commission of the crime conclusively but still if all the other incriminating circumstances proved on record form a complete chain of evidence pointing exclusively to the guilt of accused and not explainable on any other hypothesis consistent with the innocence of accused then the proof of motive ceases to have much consequence.
Before coming to the other important aspects of the 29 prosecution case, I would first like to deal with another important incriminating circumstance viz the last seen evidence.
PW3 Laxmi Devi stated that on 24-6-03 at about 7.30pm-7.45pm when she was returning from her routine evening walk, she saw lights-on in the house of her daughter Sushila which was just three houses away from her own house. She accordingly went up there and found accused Harpal Singh present over there along with Sushila and their son Harshit. She further stated that she found the atmosphere in the house to be tense and she accordingly advised them to live happily. Accused also stated that a controversy was raised by the defence that in the examination-in- chief, the witnesses stated that she went over there at the house of her daughter at around 7.30am. However, I may state that as rightly pointed out by ld counsel for complainant that this appears to be the result of a typographical error in as much as in the cross-examination of this witness, it was suggested to her by learned defence counsel that she had not gone on 24-6-03 at around 7.45pm to the house of accused Harpal Singh. She emphatically denied this suggestion stating it to be wrong. Furthermore, PW2 Ram Kumar, the father of Sushila also stated in his examination-in-chief that accused Harpal Singh, who had gone along with Sushila to live at a rented house at Papankalan on 23-6-03 came back to Paschim Vihar after staying for one day on the evening of 24-6-03. This statement made by PW2 Ram Kumar was not disputed in his cross- 30 examination by learned defence counsel. Thus, if accused Harpal Singh had returned back on the evening of 24-6-03 to Paschim Vihar then, there was no occasion for PW3 Laxmi Devi to have seen accused along with Sushila in their house at Paschim Vihar on the morning of 24-6-03. In fact, as is evident from the cross-examination of the star witnesses of the prosecution viz the family members and sisters of deceased Sushila, it is clearly evident that nowhere accused had disputed that he had not gone to stay at Papankalan in a rented accommodation along with Sushila on 23-6-03 or had not returned back on the evening of 24-6-03. Moreover, accused himself also stated in his statement U/S 313 Cr.PC that on the evening of 24-6-03 he had talked to his wife and son from his office at around 6pm. This fact thus goes to show that both Sushila and Harshit were very much alive till the evening of 24-6-03.
The aforesaid nature of last seen evidence as well as also the evidence led by the prosecution qua the motive aspect of the case can be better appreciated from the subsequent line of cross-examination of the various prosecution witnesses. The accused in fact has not been consistent in the cross-examination of the various witnesses. At this stage, I may add as a word of caution that I am not trying to eke out any benefit or drawing any conclusion from the weaknesses of the defence but is simply trying to emphasize that the entire plea of alibi which forms the crux of the plea of defence taken by the accused is a bundle of lies and 31 nothing else. No such plea of alibi taken by the accused that he was not present in his house on the night of incident was not at all put to PW2 Ram Kumar, PW3 Laxmi Devi, the parents of Sushila. Plea of alibi if has a ring of truth around it always results in a reflexive action on the part of the accused. Accused would not have left any stone unturned in raising the said plea of defence at the earliest opportunity available to him i.e in the bail application itself. In fact, accused has also been wavering in his plea of defence as put forward to various prosecution witnesses. To PW4 Kuldeep, it was suggested by him that all this action was being taken at the instance of one Ram Chander, an acquaintance of their family. He even suggested to him that Sushila had on one occasion complained that Ram Chander had outraged her modesty. He also tried to suggest that Ram Chander had a relationship with Laxmi Devi, the mother of Sushila. However, no suggestion or question were put in this regard to PW2 Ram Kumar or to PW3 Laxmi Devi in their entire cross-examination. Even otherwise it defies all logic or reason that if Ram Chander Hooda had outraged the modesty of Sushila in any manner then, there was no reason for the family members of Sushila to further remain associated with Ram Chander Hooda. In those circumstances, there was no reason that Ram Chander Hooda would have been present along with Kuldeep on the morning of 25-6-03 in the police station when accused Harpal Singh allegedly went over there to inform about the incident. 32
This also brings us to another aspect of the matter that neither Kuldeep nor Ram Chander, the brother and father of Sushila could have anticipated in any manner that accused Harpal Singh would be coming to PS Paschim Vihar to lodge a complaint and at that time he will be falsely implicated for the murder of his wife and son. The natural conduct in this regard for a person finding his wife and son to be murdered would have been to make a call at number 100 to the police. He admittedly was also having a phone at his disposal, as he himself stated that before proceeding to the Police Station he talked to Ravinder on telephone. Furthermore, it also defies logic that in order to avoid their liability the parents of Sushila and her other relatives will all conspire to kill her and her son and not accused Harpal Singh, for still accused Harpal Singh would have raised the said demand of more than Rs.24 lakhs from them. Accused thus tried to put different stories to the various prosecution witnesses and all of them as shown by me herein above were on the face of it untenable. Once again to PW5 Saroj Devi, it was suggested to by accused that she wanted to avoid making payment of building material supplied to her by accused to the tune of Rs.3 lakhs. These all different line of cross-examination of various prosecution witnesses also clearly shows that there could not have existed any criminal conspiracy amongst the relatives of Sushila to commit her murder. This fact thus also belies the plea of defence taken by the accused that his wife Sushila and his son Harshit 33 were murdered by his in-laws in order to avoid their liability of repaying more than Rs.24 lakhs. Both PW4 Kuldeep and PW2 Ram Kumar stated that upon coming to know of the incident, they had gone to police station. They were not all cross-examined on this aspect as to how they gathered this information. On the other hand, PW5 Saroj Devi stated that upon coming to know of the incident from accused Harpal Singh himself she informed about it to her husband and then to her brother Kuldeep. The testimony of these witnesses on this score was not challanged by the defence.
As regards the conduct of the accused on the morning of 25-6- 03, I may also state that the same does not appear to be normal. Even if, it is presumed for the sake of arguments that accused upon returning back to his house on the morning of 25-6-2003 found Sushila and Harshit to be murdered then his first reaction would have been to raise hue and cry. Ordinarily, a person would have given a call to police at number 100. His hue and cry would have attracted the attention of neighbourers. It is highly improbable that in such circumstances finding his wife and son to be murdered a person will first inform his friend and thereafter very calmly lock his house and will go to the police station in person to inform about the incident. In fact, accused himself has not disputed the aforesaid fact that he himself went to the police station to inform about the incident. He reiterated these facts in his answer to question number 20 put to him in his 34 statement under Section 313 Cr.PC. The subsequent conduct of the accused that he himself produced the key of his house also stands well established on record. Irrespective of the contention of accused as to how Ram Kumar and Kuldeep came to be present at that time when he returned back with the police to his house, it is clear from the deposition of PW17 Ct. Dalbir Singh also that accused took out a key out of his pant pocket and opened the lock of the flat. This witness was not at all cross- examined in this regard by learned defence counsel. No such question or suggestion was put to him in his cross-examination. Thus, it is clear that on the morning of 25-6-03 accused Harpal Singh finding his wife and son to be dead went to PS Paschim Vihar after locking his flat and reported the matter over there. He thereafter returned back to his flat along with the police and opened the lock of the flat with a key which was in his possession. These facts when seen in the overall facts & circumstances of the case coupled with the conduct of the accused completely belies the plea of alibi raised by the accused that he was not present in the house on the night of incident. In fact, the conduct of the accused shows it to be a case of repentance prevailing upon him after his alleged attempt to suicide failed if at all the same was undertaken by him. Moreover, the contention of accused that he was detained at the police station while the police party went to his house is also not tenable on the face of it. Even if it is presumed for the sake of arguments that police wanted to 35 frame him then no purpose would have been served by unnecessarily detaining accused at the police station when they themselves went to the spot. This exercise would have provided some sort of reality to their exercise.
The aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case brings us to the applicability of Section 106 Indian Evidence Act. Once again, if the accused had returned in the morning to his house and had found his wife and son to be already dead then, it was his duty to explain as to in what circumstances he found his house to be in. It was for him to explain as to whether the door of the flat was found open by him or was found locked from inside or outside, whether anything in the house was found to be missing by him or what was the overall circumstances of the scene of crime as were observed by him. Once again the immediate conduct of the accused in not raising any hue and cry at the spot not only belies the natural human conduct in such circumstances but also belies his plea of defence that he was not present on the said night at his house.
As regards the alleged suicide note written by him, it is clear from a bare reading thereof that the details as mentioned therein could not have been to the knowledge of any one else. Accused has no-doubt questioned the manner in which his specimen handwriting was taken by the investigating agency but, he has not disputed anywhere that the said suicide note was not in his handwriting. He has nowhere stated or alleged 36 in the cross-examination of any of the witnesses as to when and where he was made to write the said alleged suicide note. He has also not stated anywhere that the said specimen handwriting was not his. He merely suggested to PW22 Inspt. Jagdish Meena that accused Harpal Singh was made to write forcibly certain things at the police station. He did not specify as to which were the said documents which he was forcibly made to write in the police station. Thus, irrespective of the procedural technicalities as raised by the accused it remains on record that accused has nowhere disputed as to when he was made to write the said alleged suicide note or the said specimen handwriting. He has also not disputed that the said documents are not in his hand.
Moreover, if the in-laws of accused had conspired with the police to falsely implicate the accused then they would not have got written all such things against themselves in the suicide note, as is mentioned therein. They would not have even introduced Ravinder, who was admittedly a close acquaintance of accused for he would not have supported them.
At this stage, I would also like to deal with the various case laws relied upon by leared defence counsel in support of his arguments qua the various aspects of the case such as motive, the last seen evidence or the circumstantial nature of evidence or still as to the report of handwriting expert, extra judicial confession of the accused or the delay 37 in the registration of FIR. While, there cannot be any dispute to the settled preposition of law on the various aspects as have been enunciated in the various case laws so relied upon by learned defence counsel but, it will be also worthwhile to have a brief reference to the different cases so relied upon by learned defence counsel.
On the issue of Motive, learned defence counsel placed reliance upon the case VINOD KUMAR VS. STATE, III (1994 CCR-1639 (DB) DELHI to assert that absence of proof of motive is an additional factor to be taken into consideration in favour of the accused. However, a bare reading of the said judgment itself shows that this factor may be an additional issue in favour of the accused only when all the other circumstances have not been established beyond reasonable doubt. As already discussed herein above the various other circumstances in the present case have been established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution and thus absence of a cogent proof of motive to commit the impugned offence by accused Harpal Singh cannot lead to an inference so as to discard away the entire prosecution case or to create a break in the circumstantial chain of evidence.
As regards the Last Seen Evidence, learned defence counsel placed reliance upon the case ARJUN MALIK & OTHERS VS. STATE OF BIHAR, 1994 J.C.C 388 (S.C). Once again, I may state that undoubtedly 38 the last seen evidence, in itself will not be sufficient to base a finding of guilt of the accused but, this piece of evidence coupled with other incriminating nature of evidence such as conduct of accused immediately after the incident gives birth to a strong piece of incriminating evidence pointing to the guilt of accused.
As regards the Circumstantial Nature of Evidence, learned defence counsel placed reliance upon the case STATE VS. RAVI @ MUNNA, 2000 (1) JCC-15 (DELHI). However, once again, I may state that there cannot be any dispute as to the settled preposition of law as has been reiterated in the aforesaid case, that in a case based on circumstantial nature of evidence each and every circumstance must be cogently and firmly established and they should form such a complete chain of evidence which should unerringly point to the guilt of the accused and should not be consistent with the innocence of the accused.
As regards the Evidence of Handwriting Expert, learned defence counsel placed reliance upon the case RAKESH KUMAR VS. STATE, 2004 1 AD (CRL.) DHC-134. No-doubt Hon'ble Justice Sh. OP Divedi in the impugned judgment observed while relying upon a case titled Sukhvinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab (1994) 5 scc 152, that when the specimen handwriting of the appellant used for comparison 39 with the questioned handwriting were not taken with the permission of the court then the report of the handwriting expert is of no consequence at all.
However, with due respect, I may state that not only the said judgment was rendered by Hon'ble Justice Sh. OP Divedi in the peculiar facts & circumstances of the said case while placing reliance upon the case Sukhvinder Singh (Supra) which too had its own distinctive facts & circumstances but, in one other case titled State of Haryana Vs. Jagbir Singh and Another, AIR 2003 SC 4377, the Hon'ble Division Bench of Supreme Court of India while dealing with Section 73 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 observed that pendency of proceeding before a court is sine-qua- non before a court can given directions to accused to give specimen handwritings for anticipated necessity for comparison in proceedings which may be later on instituted in court. It was further observed that such a direction under Section 73 Evidence Act can be given by the court for the purpose of enabling the court to compare and not for the purpose of enabling the investigating or other agency to compare. It was also observed that if the case is still under investigation then, there is no present proceedings before the court in which or as a consequence of which it might be necessary to compare the writings. The language of Section 73 does not permit a court to give a direction to the accused to give specimen writings for anticipated necessity for comparison in a 40 proceeding which may later be instituted in the court.
Moreover, in the present case as already also observed by me, the accused has nowhere disputed the alleged handwriting on the impugned four pages of the suicide note stating it to be not in his hand. At the same time, he also nowhere disputed that the specimen writing S1 to S4 were not in his handwriting. It would be entirely a different matter that accused had not voluntarily given his specimen handwriting.
As regards the voluntariness in writing the impugned suicide note, I have already discussed that the facts mentioned therein clearly suggests that the same could not have been got written from the accused under any force or pressure. Firstly, the complainant party would not have chosen to get such facts written in the impugned suicide note if it was being manipulated by them and secondly, these facts can be to the exclusive knowledge of accused only and to no one else.
As regards the Delay in Registration of FIR, learned defence counsel placed relied upon the case STATE OF HARYANA VS. BHAJAN LAL, 1992 SCC (CRL.) (FIR) & LALLAN CHAUDHARY & ORS. VS. STATE OF BIHAR, 2006 IV AD (CRL.) SC-385. Once again, I may state that the importance of immediate registration of FIR pursuant to receipt of an information about commission of a cognizable offence does not require any re-emphasis as it is the prime and foremost duty of the police to do so. However, the 41 police in the given facts & circumstances of a situation may first choose to make some preliminary inquiry before proceeding to register the FIR. In the present case also the facts were so peculiar that suddenly a person comes to the police station and claims to have murdered his wife and son. In all human probabilities no police officer can be expected to first register the FIR in such circumstances and then to proceed with the investigation of the case. The first thought which will come to the mind of the police will be to first ascertain the veracity of the claim of the complainant. Moreover, complainant called upon the police to accompany him to his house where the two dead bodies were lying locked. The police however preferred to record the information in DD No.2A and after reaching the flat in question and finding the two dead bodies over there, a rukka was immediately prepared on the basis of said DD No.2A. No adverse inference can thus be drawn on the mere ground that the rukka was not prepared on the basis of statement of accused himself. In fact, had the investigating officer done so then, the defence would have argued that the FIR in itself is inadmissible being the confessional statement of accused as was also argued by learned defence counsel while placing reliance upon the case KHATRI HEM RAJ AMULAKH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT, 1972 CRL.L.J.626. I thus do not find any infirmity in the prosecution case or in the proceedings carried out by the IO in this regard.
42
Once again, there cannot be any dispute as to the preposition laid down in the aforesaid case KHATRI HEMRAJ (SUPRA) and the case AGHNOO NAGESIA VS. SATE OF BIHAR, 1996 CRL.J.J. P.100 as to the inadmissibility of a confessional statement made by the accused. However, as regards the contention of learned defence counsel while placing reliance upon the case KULDEEP SINGH VS. STATE, 2002 III AD (CRL.) SC-437 that recovery of dead body of deceased pursuant to disclosure statement made by accused and the extra judicial confession made by him cannot be relied upon, I may state is completely not tenable in the facts of circumstances of the present case. A bare reading of the said case law shows that the said observations were made by the court in the peculiar facts & circumstances of the said case finding that the evidence led in the said case was not cogent and convincing. It is however not the case in the present matter.
At this stage, I may also point out that in the case KHATRI HEM RAJ AMULAKH (SUPRA) relied upon by learned defence counsel, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while placing reliance upon the case AGHNOO NAGESIA (SUPRA) that no part of a First Information Report lodged by the accused with the police could be admitted into evidence if it was in the nature of a confessional statement but could be admitted so as to establish the identity of the accused to be the maker of 43 the report. The part of the information as related distinctly to the fact discovered in consequence of the information could also be admitted into evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act if the other conditions of that Section were satisfied. It was also observed in the case AGHNOO NAGESIA (SUPRA) that where the accused himself gives the first information, the fact of his giving the information is admissible against him as evidence of his conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act.
Thus, in the light of the facts & circumstances of the present case, coupled with the conduct of accused, it is crystal clear that the plea of alibi raised by the accused that he was not present in his house on the impugned night of incident is clearly an after thought and a ploy to escape away from the clutches of law. The prosecution on the other hand has been successful in proving by cogent and convincing evidence that the two deceased were last seen alive in the company of accused Harpal Singh by PW3 Laxmi at around 7.30pm on the evening of 24-6-2003.
In the case STATE OF T.N. RAJENDERAN AIR 1999 SC 3535, 'it was observed by Hon'ble SC that if in a case the accused takes a false plea then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances'.
The postmortem examination which was carried out on 25-6-03 at around 3.30pm states the time since death to be about 18 hours prior to carrying out the postmortem examination. This conclusion has not been 44 disputed by the accused. It is thus clear that the death of Harshit and Sushila took place at around 10pm on the night of 24-6-2003. Thus, the time gap between 7.30pm-10pm was so small in the overall facts & circumstances of the case and especially in view of the subsequent conduct of the accused that no benefit can be extended to the accused that during this period, there was any possibility of deceased Sushila and Harshit having come into contact with any other person. Once again, I may reiterate that accused himself failed to provide any explanation on record as to what was the condition of his house on the morning of 25-6-
03. For the sake of arguments even if , it is presumed that he had returned back to his house on the morning of 25-6-03 then, it was contrary to natural human conduct that a person upon finding his wife and son lying murdered in his house well calmly lock his house and will proceed to the police station to report the matter. Thus since Sushila and Harshit were last seen alive in the company of accused Harpal Singh at such a short interval of time prior to their death so the burden to explain the facts and circumstances leading to their murder lies exclusively upon accused Harpal Singh because these facts cannot be to the knowledge of any one else but to him. Moreover, as the murder admittedly took place within the four walls of the house of accused so, it cannot be expected that any one from outside could have been a witness to all such happenings. It will be also worthwhile to mention that if Sushila and Harshit 45 would have been killed by some outsider then, there must have been some external injuries on their body pointing out to some signs of struggle having taken place. The position in which the bodies were found in the house and absence of any struggle signs rather goes to suggest that they were not given any chance to resist by the assailant and this could not have been possible but, for the involvement of a person already present in the house and upon whom the deceased may not have any suspicion of his ill feeling. The manner in which the two dead bodies were found lying on the double bed also goes to suggest that after committing their murder accused had put them on the double bed.
Thus, from the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that accused for one reason or the other was not happy with his wife and in-laws and wanted to bring to an end all his relationship with his in-laws by breaking of the main intimidatory link viz his wife Sushila and his son Harshit. The circumstance that the two deceased were last seen alive in the company of accused has also been very cogently proved on record by the prosecution. At the same time, the conduct of accused on the morning of 25-6-2003 in going to PS Paschim Vihar to report the matter and thereafter leading the police party to his house and after opening the lock of his flat by a key from his possession has also been clearly and cogently established on record. The undisputed postmortem examination report which fixes the time of death of Sushila and Harshit to be at around 9- 46 10pm on the night of 24-6-2003 further renders support to the aforesaid chain of circumstantial evidence so led on record by the prosecution. The impugned suicide note which has been proved to be in the hand of accused Harpal Singh proved to be the final nail in the coffin of guilt of accused.
The contradictions or improvements pointed out are minor in nature and does not affect the merits of the case. They are rather by away of elaboration and are bound to occur in such kind of cases where immediate relatives of deceased are the witnesses. The trial in such cases is often carried out in a surcharged atmosphere resulting in not only some exaggeration of facts on the part of the witnesses but also to long arduous cross-examination by defence which is primarily aimed at troubling the witnesses.
Another important incriminating aspect in the present matter is the admission by accused that he had not consumed "All-out" or lizard milk as stated by the doctor in his MLC. Accused stated so in his answer to question no.33 in his statement U/S 313 Cr.PC. Thus, the impugned suicide note also seems to have been prepared by the accused so as to not to arouse any suspicion upon him. This fact also explains as to how on the morning of 25-6-2003 accused in a planned manner went to PS-Paschim Vihar to report about the incident.
Thus, in view of my aforesaid discussion, coupled with the 47 wavering nature of defence taken by the accused wherein he has chosen to put different plea of defence to different witnesses as highlighted by me herein above, it is clearly apparent that the murder of Sushila and Harshit i.e his wife and his son was committed by accused Harpal Singh only.
It is thus clear that not only each and every incriminating circumstance has been cogently and convincingly proved on record by the prosecution but also the circumstances individually as well as collectively point to the guilt of accused only. These circumstances form such a complete chain of evidence so as to lead to the only conclusion as to the guilt of accused and are not explainable on any other hypothesis much less consistent with the innocence of accused. Prosecution has thus been able to prove its case against accused Harpal Singh beyond shadows of all reasonable doubt to the effect that he committed murder of his wife Sushila and his son Harshit. I accordingly hold him guilty of the offence U/S 302 IPC and convict him there under.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13-2-2008.
(BHARAT PARASHAR) ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE FAST TRACK COURT:ROHINI COURTS D E L H I. 48 FIR NO.294/03 PS PASCHIM VIHAR U/S 302 IPC.
13-2-08 Present Chief PP for the State.
Accused is present in JC.
Vide my separate detailed judgment dated 13-2-08 accused Harpal Singh has been convicted of the offence U/S 302 IPC.
Case is now adjourned for Arguments on Sentence to 20-2-08 at 2pm.
(BHARAT PARASHAR) ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI 49 FIR NO.294/03 PS PASCHIM VIHAR U/S 302 IPC.
20-2-2008 Present Chief PP for the State.
Convict is present in JC with ld. Counsel Sh. Mukesh Kumar. Arguments heard on Point of Sentence.
Vide my separate detailed Order, Order on Sentence has been announced.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on 20-2-2008.
(BHARAT PARASHAR) ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE FAST TRACK COURT:ROHINI:DELHI