Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gian Kaur And Others vs State Of Punjab on 13 August, 2008
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Appeal No.735 SB of 1996
Date of decision: 13.8.2008
Gian Kaur and others
......Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab
.......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: None for the appellants.
Mr.T.S.Salana, DAG, Punjab.
****
JUDGMENT
SABINA, J.
The instant appeal has arisen out of judgment dated 3.10.1996 passed by Sessions Judge, Amritsar, whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 201 IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six years and fine of Rs.1,000/- each. The Accused were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Section 302 IPC.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 3.3.1995 ASI Jatinderjit Singh was present near the turning of Sarhali Mandan along with other police officials. He received an information that Gian Kaur along with her two sons, son-in-law and another person, had murdered Partap Singh and buried his dead body in the land. Gian Kaur, mother of deceased Partap Singh, was having illicit relations with her son-in-law Harjinder Singh. Partap Singh objected to the same and due to this reason he had given injuries to his brothers few Criminal Appeal No.735 SB of 1996 { 2 } days earlier. All of them were going to dispose of the dead body of Partap Singh. On the basis of the said information, the police officials reached the spot and saw one tractor coming from the un- metalled path. ASI Jatinderjit Singh signaled the tractor to stop. One person ran away from the spot and the other persons disclosed their names as Balwinder Singh, Ranjit Singh sons of Kabal Singh, Lakhwinder Singh @ Kaku son of Randhir Singh and Gian Kaur, wife of late Kabal Singh. From a gunny bag lying on the tractor a dead body of a young person was recovered with marks of blunt edged weapon injury. The dead body along with tractor were taken into police possession.
On interrogation by ASI Jatinderjit Singh, Lakhwinder Singh @ Kaku disclosed that on 23.2.1995 he along with sons of Gian Kaur had gone to Behak for sowing sugarcane crop. The son- in-law of Gian Kaur was also present there. After taking meals they slept on their respective cots in a room. At about 11.00 p.m. he woke up and saw that Harjinder Singh was pressing head of Partap Singh, whereas, Ranjit Singh was pressing his legs. Harjinder Singh asked Balwinder Singh to kill Partap Singh as he was having a cutter (Toka for cutting sugarcane). Balwinde Singh gave a blow with the cutter on the mouth of Partap Singh. In the meantime, Gian Kaur also woke up and told the others that they had done well. Partap Singh succumbed to his injuries. He (Lakhwinder Singh) tried to slip away from the spot but was threatened by Harjinder Singh. Then they all Criminal Appeal No.735 SB of 1996 { 3 } wrapped the dead body of Partap Singh in a quilt and burried it in the field. The same was dug out by him, Ranjit Singh, Balwinder Singh, Harjinder Singh and Gian Kaur and they all were going to throw the same in the river Harike. A formal FIR No.44 dated 3.3.1995 was registered at Police Station Patti.
After completion of investigation and necessary formalities challan was presented against the accused. Charge against them was framed under Section 302/201/34 IPC on 8.6.1995.. Accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
At the trial, prosecution examined PW-1 Dr.Kashmir Singh, PW-2 Harbans Singh, PW-3 Pritam Singh, PW-4 Davinder Singh and PW-5 ASI Jatinderjit Singh. After the close of prosecution evidence accused when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., prayed that they were innocent and have been falsely involved in this case.
Learned trial Judge vide impugned judgment acquitted all the accused of the charge framed against them under Section 302 IPC. Accused Harjinder Singh was also acquitted of the charge framed under Section 201 IPC. However, remaining four accused namely Gian Kaur, Balwinder Singh, Ranjit Singh and Lakhwinder Singh were convicted and sentenced under Section 201 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, they have filed the present appeal.
Nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the appellants. I have gone through the evidence available on record Criminal Appeal No.735 SB of 1996 { 4 } with the able assistance of learned State counsel.
Appellants have been acquitted of the charge framed against them under Section 302 IPC. However they have been convicted for the commission of offence under Section 201 IPC. Section 201 IPC is reproduced herein below:-
"Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender- Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false;
if a capital offence- shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;
If punishable with imprisonment for life- and if the offence is punishable with (imprisonment for life), or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine;
Criminal Appeal No.735 SB of 1996 { 5 } If punishable with less than ten years' imprisonment- and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both."
Thus, reading of the Section shows that there should be committal of an offence and the person charged with offence under Section 201 IPC must have the knowledge or reason to believe that the main offence has been committed and the person charged with the offence under Section 201 IPC should have caused disappearance of evidence or should have given false information regarding the main offence and the act should have been done with the intention of screening offender from legal punishment. However, in the present case, learned trial Court found that the offence under Section 302 IPC had not been committed by the accused. As such the conviction of the accused under Section 201 IPC could not be held as there was no basis for conviction under this Section.
It would not be out of place to reappraise the evidence led by the prosecution with regard to offence under Section 302 IPC. The star witness of the prosecution was Pritam Singh (PW-3) before whom accused Harjinder Singh had allegedly suffered an extra judicial confession regarding murder of Partap Singh. The said Criminal Appeal No.735 SB of 1996 { 6 } witness, while appearing in the witness box, only deposed to the effect that Harjinder Singh had come to his house and had told him that he had murdered the son of Kabal Singh and that he should help his surrender before the police. The said witness was then declared hostile. Pritam Singh (PW-3) could not give the details of the extra judicial confession suffered by Harjinder Singh before him and in these circumstances learned trial Judge rightly rejected the statement of this witness as it would have been un-safe to base the conviction of the accused on the basis of his statement.
The recovery of Toka from accused Balwinder Singh, on the basis of his disclosure statement, also cannot be relied upon as no independent witness has been examined in whose presence the alleged disclosure statement was suffered by the accused. Moreover, mere recovery of a weapon is not sufficient to base conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Since all the accused had been acquitted of offence under Section 302 IPC, then no conviction could be based under Section 201 IPC.
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the trial Court is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge framed against them.
(SABINA) JUDGE August 13, 2008 anita