Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tarsem Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 18 February, 2009
Author: Satish Kumar Mittal
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Daya Chaudhary
Crl.A. No.885-DB of 2005 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.A. No.885-DB of 2005
DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 18, 2009
Tarsem Singh and another
.....APPELLANTS
Versus
State of Punjab
....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
---
Present: Mr.Dhruv Dayal, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr.Rajesh Bhardwaj, Addl.A.G.,Punjab,
for the respondent.
..
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.
This appeal has been filed by two accused, namely, Tarsem Singh and Sadhu Singh against the judgment of their conviction under Sections 302/34, 382/34 and 201/34 IPC. Both the accused were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Sections 302/34 IPC with a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for six months; to undergo imprisonment for eight years under Sections 382/34 IPC with a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for six months; and to undergo imprisonment for three years under Sections 201/34 IPC with a fine of Rs.500/-, and in default Crl.A. No.885-DB of 2005 -2- thereof, to further undergo imprisonment for six months.
2. In this case, the three accused were charged for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for committing the murder of Bhanu Parkash Shukla (aged 26 years) with common intention on the intervening night of 2/3.11.2002; under Section 382 read with Section 34 IPC for committing the theft of property of motorcycle No.UP44B-6873 of deceased Bhanu Parkash Shukla along with Helmet, Golden Chain, Wrist watch, Purse etc.; and further for committing the offence under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC for throwing the dead body of the deceased in the field of Arhar with intention to screen away being offenders. The third accused was Parveen Sharma, who was only convicted under Section 382 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced for eight years, but has not filed the appeal against his conviction. (As per report of the Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala dated 3.2.2009, accused Parveen Sharma, after completing the sentence of eight years and paying the fine, has been released from jail)
3. In this case, the FIR (Ex.PV) was lodged on 7.11.2002 at 9.15 a.m. on receipt of secret information by PW11-Harpreet Singh, SHO, Police Station Sadar, Rajpura to the effect that deceased Bhanu Parkash Shukla resident of Ambala City, who on the intervening night of 2/3.11.2002 was going from Rajpura to Ambala on Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing No.UP44B-6873, was killed after robbing by Sadhu Singh @ Shanti, Tarsem Singh son of Saundhi Singh and Parveen Sharma @ Gurmeet after stopping his motorcycle and his dead body had been concealed and motorcycle snatched. The secret informer further pointed out that Tarsem Singh and Sadhu Singh were present near SYL Canal, Chandigarh Road and in process of going somewhere, and if a raid was conducted, they could be Crl.A. No.885-DB of 2005 -3- apprehended. On receiving the said secret information, the police party immediately reached on the SYL Canal bridge and found the aforesaid two accused standing there near a tree. Both the accused were arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.PL). During interrogation, they made disclosure statements (Ex.PN and Ex.PO). Accused Tarsem Singh in his disclosure statement (Ex.PN) disclosed that on the intervening night of 2/3.11.2002 he along with Sadhu Singh @ Shanti and Parveen Sharma @ Gurmeet after stopping and killing one Hindu gentleman riding on motorcycle, coming from Ambala-Rajpura road and after killing him concealed the dead body near the fields of Arhar, and only they know about the said place. Similar statement (Ex.PO) was made by Sadhu Singh @ Shanti. After the aforesaid disclosure statements, both the accused got recovered the dead body of Bhanu Parkash Shukla from the Arhar fields of Sham Lal, which is situated in the revenue limits of village Gandian Kheri in presence of Chhote Lal, father of the deceased, ASI Jagdish Singh and ASI Vinod Kumar. From the spot, police also recovered one pair of shoes, one pant, one piece of socks and one parna, which were lying near the dead body of the deceased vide recovery memo Ex.PG (PX).
4. After recovery of the dead body, post-mortem of the deceased was got conducted on 7.11.2002 by Dr.Ravinder Kumar Kohli (PW4 & PW7). During the post-mortem examination, ligature mark ½ cm depressed mark situated lower down in the neck below thyroid cartilage and encircling neck horizontally were found. Swelling all over the body, face suffused puffy neck, part of the face blue in colour congestiva congested were noticed. Reddish fluid was present in the mouth and nostrils. Semi-digested food articles were found in the abdomen. In the opinion of the doctor, the Crl.A. No.885-DB of 2005 -4- deceased died due to asphyxia which was sufficient to cause death in due course of nature. Except the injury mark on the neck, no other injury mark was found on the body of the deceased.
5. Thereafter on the disclosure statement (Ex.PE) made by accused Tarsem Singh to SI Gurjant Singh (PW15) on 11.11.2002, a golden chain, wrapped in the polythene bag, was got recovered by him by digging earth near back side of Bus Stand, Madanpur Chalheri vide recovery memo (Ex.PG) in presence of ASI Amrik Singh and HC Tej Singh. Similarly, on the disclosure statement (Ex.PF) made by accused Sadhu Singh @ Shanti, a watch, one purse and one photograph were got recovered by him from his residential house vide recovery memo (Ex.PH). Thereafter, on 20.11.2002, accused Parveen Sharma was arrested by ASI Jarnail Singh in presence of Devinder Singh Cheema and HC Tarlochan Singh. The arrest memo of accused Parveen Sharma is Ex.PL. The information about the said accused was given to the higher authorities. From the possession of the said accused, one motorcycle bearing No.UP44B-6873 make Hero Honda Splendor, helmet of red colour and a bag of coca cola colour were recovered vide recovery memo (Ex.PY) in presence of Devinder Singh Cheema and HC Tarlochan Singh. After the recovery, on 19.12.2002 the aforesaid articles except motorcycle were got identified by Chhote Lal Shukla, father of the deceased, who identified those articles being of his son Bhanu Parkash Shukla.
6. After investigation, the police submitted the challan and charges were framed against all the three accused under Sections 302/34, 382/34 and 201/34 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial.
Crl.A. No.885-DB of 2005 -5-
7. During trial, accused Parveen Sharma was declared proclaimed offender but was subsequently taken into custody and was joined in the trial and was again given opportunity to cross examine the witnesses.
8. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and proved certain documents. PW1-C-II Harjit Singh (who was later on examined as PW6) was examined in order to prove the delivery of Special Report to the Illaqa Magistrate, which was delivered by him at 10.00 a.m. on 7.11.2002; PW2-Malkiat Singh, Patwari was examined to prove the site- plan (Ex.PB) which was prepared at the spot on 16.1.2003; PW3-Devinder Singh, who was a Mechanic, was examined to prove his report Ex.PC where he checked motorcycle Splendor on 19.12.2002; PW5-Jaspal Singh, Naib Tehsildar, in whose presence the dead body of the deceased was got recovered by accused Tarsem Singh and Sadhu Singh on 7.11.2002; PW7- ASI Bharat Bhushan (who was posted as MHC in P.S.Sadar, Rajpura) was examined to prove his affidavit Ex.PG, which was to the effect that on 11.11.2002, SI Gurjant Singh got deposited the case property, i.e., one golden chain, one purse, one watch and one photograph. Further on 20.11.2002, ASI Karnail Singh got deposited one motorcycle bearing No.UP44B-6873 make Splendor Hero Honda, one helmet and one bag; PW10-Chhotte Lal (father of the deceased) deposed that his son Bhanu Parkash Shukla was working as Sales Representative, TTK Health Care Limited Chennai, at Ambala headquarter. In connection with his business, he used to go to Rajpura as well as Chandigarh also. He further stated that on 2.11.2002 his son had gone to Chandigarh on motorcycle but he did not return. Thereafter they started searching him for 2-3 days but could not find him. On 6.11.2002 they got recorded a DDR at Police Station Sadar, Crl.A. No.885-DB of 2005 -6- Ambala City about missing of his son. He further stated that on 7.11.2002 when they were going to Ambala Rajpura road, SHO P.S.Sadar, Rajpura Harpreet Singh along with other police officials and Executive Magistrate Jaspal Singh met them. The SHO told them about the presence of dead body in the field of Arhar and they accompanied them to that place where they identified the dead body of Bhanu Parkash Shukla (son of Chhotte Lal). This witness further stated that on 19.12.2002 he had visited Police Station Sadar, Rajpura and identified the helmet, wrist watch, golden chain, one photograph of his son Bhanu Parkash Shukla, purse and one bag. PW9- Vinod Kumar ASI is a recovery witness. PW10-Karnail Singh, ASI, Police Station Sadar, Patiala, before whom accused Parveen Sharma was produced by Devinder Singh Cheema and who got recovered one motorcycle, one helmet and one bag from him vide recovery memo Ex.PY. PW11-Baljinder Singh, ASI is the Investigating Officer, who got identified various articles belonging to the deceased, by his father. PW12-Jhalak Kumar is the co- employee of the deceased. In his statement, this witness had stated that on 2.11.2002 at 11.45 p.m. he and Bhanu Parkash Shukla started their journey from Chandigarh on a motorcycle Hero Honda bearing No.UP44B-6873, which was being driven by Bhanu Parkash Shukla. He stated that at about 1.00 a.m. on the intervening night of 2/3.11.2002 when they reached Gagan Chowk, Rajpura, he was dropped there and Bhanu Parkash Shukla went towards Ambala on his motorcycle. This witness also got identified the articles recovered from the accused as belonging to Bhanu Parkash Shukla. PW13/A-ASI Amrik Singh was the witness of the disclosure statement made by accused Tarsem Singh and Sadhu Singh as well as recovery memos, whereby one golden chain, one wrist watch, one purse and one Crl.A. No.885-DB of 2005 -7- photograph of the deceased, were recovered. PW14-Jaswinder Singh is a photographer and had taken the photographs of the deceased. PW15-SI Gurjant Singh is a witness to the disclosure statements of the accused and recovery memos and proved the alleged statements and the recoveries.
9. After the evidence of the prosecution, the statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In their statements, they claimed to be innocent and pleaded that they have been falsely implicated on suspicion. The accused also examined DW1-Mohinderpal son of Banarsi Lal, a TV mechanic, who stated that accused Parveen Sharma was working as TV mechanic. He had met with an accident with a cyclist and was taken by the police for the purpose of medical treatment, in his presence. After about 10 days, he came to know that said Parveen Sharma was involved in the present case.
10. The trial Court after considering the evidence led by the prosecution has convicted both the appellants under Sections 302/34, 382/34 and 201/34 IPC and sentenced them, as indicated above. Since only the stolen/robbed articles were recovered from accused Parveen Sharma, therefore, he was convicted only under Sections 382/34 IPC.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that in the present case no direct evidence has been led by the prosecution to prove that the appellants have committed the alleged offence. The case of the prosecution is wholly based upon circumstantial evidence. He submitted that the chain of circumstantial evidence is not complete and there is no evidence available on the record which connects the appellants with the alleged offence. Learned counsel submits that in the instant case the FIR was recorded only on the basis of secret information. The contents of the secret Crl.A. No.885-DB of 2005 -8- information reveal that in detail the information was given to PW11- Inspector Harpreet Singh, who in his statement before the Court, had stated that he could not disclose the source of secret information. Learned counsel submits that this fact goes against the prosecution. It has not been explained how and who had given the detailed information to the police about committing the offence by the appellants. Learned counsel further submits that on 7.11.2002 both the accused were arrested on the basis of the said secret information and at the same time their disclosure statements were recorded and the dead body was recovered in presence of father and brother of the deceased and the Executive Magistrate. Before the said recovery, both the accused were arrested on suspicion. There was no identification of the accused, but straight-way on their disclosure statements, the dead body of the deceased was shown to have been recovered from the field. Learned counsel states that everything had happened as a co-incident, and the same seems to be improbable. Therefore, the prosecution version that on 7.11.2002 all these things had happened, cannot be believed.
12. Learned counsel further argued that the recovery of dead body of the deceased from Arhar field at the instance of both the appellants is also doubtful. Neither the owner of the field has been examined nor it is probable that nobody would look the dead body for four days, which was lying just 100 yards away from the road. Learned counsel states that everything was planted after arrest of the accused merely on suspicion. Learned counsel further argued that the prosecution had easily procured the recovery of articles of golden chain, one purse, one wrist watch and one photograph from both the accused and the alleged recovery was subsequently planted on them. He further pointed out that the identification Crl.A. No.885-DB of 2005 -9- of these articles from father of the deceased and one co-employee of the deceased cannot be given more credence because the recovery of these articles from the accused is highly doubtful.
13. Learned counsel further pointed out that the recovery of the dead body of the deceased at the instance of both the appellants as well as recovery of few articles at their instance from different places have not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Admittedly, at the time of both the recoveries, many persons were available but no independent witness was associated or examined by the prosecution to prove those recoveries beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel further argued that the third accused, namely, Parveen Sharma, who was also charged under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC, was acquitted from the said charges under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC and was convicted and sentenced only under Section 382 read with Section 34 IPC, whereas both the appellants have been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Sections 302/34, 382/34 and 201/34 IPC, particularly when the evidence against all the accused is the same. Learned counsel submits that there are various breaks in the chain of circumstantial evidence, therefore, the conviction of the appellants on the basis of such shaky circumstantial evidence is not safe and the appellants deserve the benefit of doubt.
14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State argued that in the instant case the prosecution has fully established the charges against both the appellants by leading sufficient and cogent evidence beyond reasonable doubt. He further submitted that all the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellants have been duly considered and there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment of conviction of the appellants passed Crl.A. No.885-DB of 2005 -10- by the learned trial Court.
15. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record of the case and carefully analyzing the evidence led by the prosecution as well as the defence, we do not find any merit in the instant appeal. From the medical evidence available on the record, i.e., post-mortem report (Ex.PD/1) and the statement of Dr. Ravinder Kumar Kohli (PW4 and PW7), homicidal death of the deceased has been proved. Further as per the medical evidence, the dead body of the deceased was not de-composed and was fully identifiable, though the dead body was recovered after four days of the alleged occurrence. Further, the said body was identified as the dead body of Bhanu Parkash Shukla by his father Chhotte Lal (PW10) and his brother Vishnu Shukla. On the spot, one pair of shoes, one pant, one piece of socks and one Parna, which were lying near the dead body, were also recovered vide recovery memo Ex.PG (PX) and those articles were identified by his father Chhotte Lal, being belongings of the deceased.
16. In order to prove that the said Bhanu Parkash Shukla was murdered by the appellants, the prosecution has led certain circumstantial evidence which clearly indicate that the alleged offence was committed by them alone. As per the statement of Chhotte Lal (PW10), his son Bhanu Parkash Shukla (deceased) was working as Sales Representative in a Private Limited Company. In connection with his business, he used to go to Rajpura as well as Chandigarh. According to him on 2.11.2002 his son had gone to Chandigarh on motorcycle but he did not return. Thereafter, he was searched for about 2/3 days but he could not be traced. Therefore, on 6.11.2002 at 9.15 a.m. a DDR was got recorded by the said witness at Police Crl.A. No.885-DB of 2005 -11- Station Sadar, Ambala City about the missing of his son. As per the prosecution version, on 7.11.2002 Inspector Harpreet Singh (PW11), SHO, Police Station Sadar, Rajpura received a secret information to the effect that deceased Bhanu Parkash Sharma was killed after robbing by the appellants and their co-accused Parveen Sharma, when on the intervening night of 2/3.11.2002 he was going from Rajpura to Ambala on his Hero Honda motorcycle, and his dead body had been concealed and motorcycle snatched. The secret informer further informed that the appellants were present near SYL Canal, Chandigarh Road and in the process of going somewhere, and if a raid was conducted they could be apprehended. On that information, the case was registered and immediately the police came into action. They reached the spot and arrested both the appellants. During interrogation, both the appellants disclosed vide their disclosure statements (Ex.PN and Ex.PO) that on the intervening night of 2/3.11.2002, they stopped one Hindu gentleman riding on motorcycle coming on Rajpura- Ambala road and after killing him, concealed the dead body near the fields of Arhar and robbed the motorcycle and other articles. On the basis of their disclosure statements, both the appellants got recovered the dead body of Bhanu Parkash Sharma from the Arhar field of Sham Lal in presence of Chhotte Lal, father of the deceased, ASI Jagdish Singh and ASI Vinod Kumar.
17. In our opinion, the prosecution has proved the aforesaid disclosure statements made by the appellants and recovery of the dead body of deceased Bhanu Parkash Shukla at the instance of the appellants from the Arhar fields of one Sham Lal by examining PW9-ASI Vinod Kumar, who was the attesting witness of disclosure statements (Ex.PN and Ex.PO), Crl.A. No.885-DB of 2005 -12- Inspector Harpreet Singh (PW11), Chhotte Lal (PW10) and Jaspal Singh, Naib Tehsildar, Rajpura (PW5). All these witnesses categorically proved the recovery of the dead body of the deceased at the instance of the appellants from the Arhar field. A close scrutiny of the statements of these witnesses does not lead to any doubt in the prosecution version. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that on 7.11.2002 many things happened as a co-incident at one time, which create a doubt in the prosecution version, cannot be accepted. Another contention of the learned counsel that the body of the deceased was lying just 100 yards from the busy road, therefore, could have been easily traced by any passerby, also cannot be accepted. As per the evidence available on the record, the body of the deceased was found in the Arhar fields. At that time the plant of Arhar was near-about 3'. In our view, a thickly Arhar field, height of which was near-about 3', no passerby could have seen the dead body from the road. The recovery of the dead body from the hidden place at the instance of the appellants is a strong circumstantial evidence against them, particularly when the person was missing for the last four days. Therefore, in our opinion, the trial Court has rightly relied upon that evidence while convicting the appellants. Further, the prosecution has also proved the disclosure statements of the appellants (Ex.PE and Ex.PF) made on 11.11.2002 by examining SI Gurjant Singh (PW15) and ASI Amrik Singh (PW13/A) and in pursuance of said statements, one golden chain was recovered by appellant Tarsem Singh vide recovery memo (Ex.PG) and one watch, one purse and one photo by appellant Sadhu Singh vide recovery memo (Ex.PH). Those articles along with helmet and one bag (which were recovered on 20.11.2002 from co- accused Parveen Sharma), were duly got identified by Chhotte Lal, being Crl.A. No.885-DB of 2005 -13- belongings of his son, in presence of HC Harnek Singh and Jhalak Kumar (PW12). The recovery of these articles which belonged to the deceased, is another substantial piece of evidence against the appellants, which has been proved by the prosecution. The motorcycle of the deceased was also recovered from co-accused Parveen Sharma vide recovery memo (Ex.PJ), which has been proved by PW3-Devinder Singh, who had given the mechanical report (Ex.PC) of the motorcycle. All these evidence further prove the involvement of the appellants in the crime. From the evidence led by the prosecution, it cannot be said that the appellants were arrested and involved in the crime only on the basis of mere suspicion. The concrete and definite evidence of the crime committed by the appellants has been led by the prosecution. In our view, there is no material contradiction in the statements of various witnesses examined by the prosecution which create a slightest doubt in the prosecution version. Merely because there is no direct evidence, the evidence led by the prosecution, which connect the appellants with the commission of the alleged crime, cannot be disbelieved. In this case with a motive to rob the deceased, he was murdered by strangulation and his dead body was thrown in the fields of Arhar with an object to hide the crime. The appellants had committed the said offence with intention to rob the deceased. We have examined the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the evidence against both the appellants and co- accused Parveen Sharma was the same, but he was only convicted under Section 382 read with Section 34 IPC by the trial Court. In our opinion, the trial Court has rightly convicted Parveen Sharma for the said offence as from him only the robbed articles were recovered. The said accused has already completed his sentence. Thus, we are of the opinion that the Crl.A. No.885-DB of 2005 -14- prosecution has fully proved the guilt of the accused and the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced them.
18. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL)
JUDGE
February 18, 2009 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY )
vkg JUDGE