Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parminder Kaur @ Suman vs Gurdeep Kaur And Another on 16 August, 2011
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta
Crl. Appeal No.616-DB of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision : 16.08.2011
Crl. Appeal No.616-DB of 2008
Parminder Kaur @ Suman ...Appellant
Versus
Gurdeep Kaur and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present : Mr. H.R.Nohria, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. P.S.Brar, Advocate, for respondent No.1-complainant.
Mr. D.S.Brar, Addl. AG, Punjab, for respondent No.2-State.
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar on 07.08.2008, whereby the present appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The appellant was also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence punishable under Section 27 (1) of the Arms Act, 1959 and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. Crl. Appeal No.616-DB of 2008 2
Gurdeep Kaur daughter of Mal Singh filed a complaint under Sections 302/120-B IPC as well as under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 on 24.02.2003 against the present appellant Parminder Kaur @ Suman, Kuldeep Singh, SI Gurmel Singh, HC Karamjit Singh and Lady Constable Amarjit Kaur @ Bholi. In the said complaint, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gidderbaha summoned the present appellant for the offences under Sections 302 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 vide order dated 31.10.2003. On 28.11.2003, the case was committed for trial before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar.
In the complaint (Ex.PA), it was alleged by the complainant Gurdeep Kaur that Gurmeet Singh-deceased was her brother and was working as SPO in the Punjab Police. He married Parminder Kaur-accused No.1 on 21.1.2001. Kuldip Singh-accused No.2 is brother of Parminder Kaur-accused No.1. SI Gurmel Singh, HC Karamjit Singh and Lady Constable Amarjit Kaur @ Bholi were working for Punjab Police. It is alleged that accused Nos.3 to 5 namely SI Gurmel Singh, HC Karamjit Singh and Lady Constable Amarjit Kaur @ Bholi were sympathetic towards the appellant being wife of their colleague Gurmeet Singh and they were on visiting terms. It is pleaded that her parents had delivered six sons and three daughters. On the night of 19.07.2002 at about 12 o'clock, her brother Gurmeet Singh along with her nephew Shamsher Singh came to their house in village Gurusar in a car from Muktsar. They all are residing together. There is one chaubara in their house and accused No.1-Parminder Kaur and her brother Gurmeet Singh were residing in the aforesaid chaubara, but their kitchen was common. Her brother has a .12 bore double barrel licensed gun, which was kept for the protection of the family. Accused No.1-Parminder Kaur i.e. the present appellant after making an excuse, took her brother Gurmeet Singh and her nephew Shamsher Singh Crl. Appeal No.616-DB of 2008 3 outside in their car and returned at about 3.00 am in the morning. She woke up and opened door. Then her brother and sister-in-law (bhabhi) went to the first floor to sleep, whereas Shamsher Singh slept with them on the ground floor. At that time, the licensed gun of his brother was lying with them at ground floor. At about 4.45 am, when she was about to prepare tea, they heard the noise of gun shot. She woke up her father Mal Singh, mother Jagir Kaur and nephew Shamsher Singh. Her another nephew Rajbinder Singh and brother Gurcharan Singh also came there from the adjoining house. When she and her father Mal Singh were in the stair-case to go on the first floor (chaubara), then Parminder Kaur having .12 bore double barrel gun in her hands was coming down-stairs in the perplexed condition and struck against her father. Her brother Gurmeet Singh was shouting that his wife has fired shot and killed him. When she and her father went up, they noticed that Gurmeet Singh was smeared with blood. Thereafter, they removed Gurmeet Singh to Civil Hospital, Gidderbaha, where he died. The post-mortem examination on the dead body of Gurmeet Singh was conducted at Civil Hospital, Gidderbaha and as per the post-mortem report, her brother died due to gun shot injury. Subsequently, Shamsher Singh told them that when they all three went to village Lundewala at night and when the car was turned towards village Ghagha by Gurmeet Singh, then accused No.1-Parminder Kaur told him to go to the side of canal, but her brother Gurmeet Singh refused. Gurmeet Singh and accused No.1-Parminder Kaur quarreled with each other on this account. It is also pleaded that deceased Gurmeet Singh had dispute with accused Nos.3 and 4 i.e. SI Gurmel Singh and HC Karamjit Singh, as her brother has lodged an FIR on 05.03.1998 with CBI, against SI Gurmel Singh-accused No.3 and HC Karamjit Singh-accused No.4. The proceedings in the said case are pending in the court at Patiala and the case was fixed for evidence. To save Crl. Appeal No.616-DB of 2008 4 themselves in the said case and to take revenge, they wanted to kill her brother. SI Gurmel Singh and HC Karamjit Singh through Lady Constable Amarjit Kaur had illicit relations with her sister-in-law (bhabhi). It was also pleaded that accused No.2-Kuldeep Singh has conspired with accused No.1 because her brother used to stop accused No.1-Parminder Kaur to meet them. In the complaint, it was also averred that she recorded the telephonic conversation with accused Bholi (Amarjit Kaur) and as per the said conversation, the entire conspiracy was admitted by her. It was pleaded that as per the conspiracy, accused No.1 has killed her brother by picking gun from their house. They were in perplexed condition at that time. Accused No.1 told this matter to the remaining accused and accused No.3 SI Gurmel Singh used his influence with the police, distorted their statements and obtained their signatures/thumb impressions on blank papers and after conducting fake enquiry, prepared a report under Section 174 Cr.P.C. that Gurmeet Singh has died on account of accidental fire shot. It is pleaded that when the gun was lying on the ground floor, whereas her brother was sleeping on the first floor, therefore, her brother cannot die on account of accidental gun fire. It is alleged that accused No.1- Parminder Kaur picked up the gun from their house and killed her brother after firing shot.
It may be noticed that prior to the filing of the said complaint, Gurmeet Kaur has filed Civil Writ Petition No.17131 of 2002 before this Court. The said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 25.10.2002 in view of the fact that the petitioner has remedy to file complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
To prove its case, complainant-Gurdeep Kaur appeared in the witness-box as PW-1 and broadly supported the version given by her in the complaint Ex.PA. She stated that Amarjit Kaur was on visiting terms to their Crl. Appeal No.616-DB of 2008 5 house. She has not said about the relations of the accused with SI Gurmel Singh or HC Karamjit Singh or any illicit relations of any of them with the accused. In her cross-examination, PW-1 Gurdeep Kaur stated that statements of Mal Singh, her father; Jagir Kaur, her mother; Jit Singh, Manjit Singh & Gurcharan Singh, her brothers; Sita Singh, Ex-Sarpanch and Balwant Singh, Sarpanch were not recorded by the police. However, their thumb impressions/signatures were obtained by the Police on blank papers. She further stated that there is a party faction with Sita Singh, Ex-Sarpanch and Balwant Singh on the one side and her family on the other. The dead body was handed over to her father Mal Singh and funeral was done by them. She admits that the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police is at Gidderbaha. She stated that she does not know that Jarnail Singh, DSP, Kishore Chand, SP, Muktsar and Gurdev Singh SP(D), Muktsar have conducted enquiry in this case or not. She further stated that her sister Malkit Kaur is residing at Muktsar and in the days of occurrence she used to come back daily from Muktsar to her village. She stated that Gurcharan Singh, her brother was not having cordial relations with his wife and their marriage was dissolved by mutual consent. She denied the suggestion that they wanted to get accused Parminder Kaur married with Gurcharan Singh, her brother after the death of Gurmeet Singh and that accused (Parminder Kaur) was not willing to live with her brother Gurcharan Singh or that she was demanding her dowry articles. She further stated that Shamsher Singh was a student of 6th or 7th standard during those days.
Mal Singh, father of the complainant and the deceased, appeared as PW-2 and also supported the prosecution case. He has also not said a word about illicit relations of the accused with any of the police officials named originally in the complaint. In fact, he has not deposed about any acquaintance of the accused with any of them. In his cross-examination, Mal Singh stated Crl. Appeal No.616-DB of 2008 6 that he does not know if the police recorded his statement and the statements of Jagir Kaur, Jit Singh, Manjit Singh, Sita Singh, Gurcharan Singh and Balwant Singh, Sarpanch on the day of occurrence. He denied the suggestion that the said statements were read over to them or that they put their signatures accepting their correctness. He stated that his sons Jit Singh and Gurcharan Singh have gone to the police station on the day of occurrence. He denied the suggestion that they wanted to re-marry Parminder Kaur with his son Gurcharan Singh and that they have refused to return the dowry articles of the accused and for this reason, the accused has been falsely implicated.
Shamsher Singh, aged about 17 years in the year 2007, has appeared as PW-5 and deposed that after coming back to home with the accused and the deceased, he went to sleep on a cot of his grand-father Mal Singh. He further deposed that he had not slept, but he noticed that Parminder Kaur, his aunt was roaming on chaubara and after some time she came down. On seeing her, he closed his eyes. She picked up .12 bore gun from the living room (baithak) and went upstairs to Chaubara. At about 4.45 am, he heard the noise of fire arm shot. He further deposed that Parminder Kaur left the house after leaving the gun in the house. In his cross-examination, Shamsher Singh stated that the Civil Hospital, Gidderbaha is at a distance of 10/12 kms from village Gurusar and that he had not gone to the Civil Hospital. He further stated that the police has not recorded his statement, but obtained the thumb impressions of his grand-father and grand-mother on blank papers after threatening them. He stated that large number of villagers came to their house after the occurrence. He stated that Balwant Singh, Sarpanch also reached their house, but he did not know if police recorded his statement. He does not know if police lifted blood from the chaubara or not. He stated that he did not tell his grand-father or any other family member that Parminder Kaur had taken gun Crl. Appeal No.616-DB of 2008 7 from the living room (baithak) to Chaubara and that he is the one, who reached at the chaubara first of all after the occurrence. He denied the suggestion that Gurmeet Singh always used to keep gun with him and that it was not lying in the living room (baithak), as stated by him. He stated that he does not know if Parminder Kaur or her other family members from parental side were present at the time of cremation of Gurmeet Singh.
PW-4 is Kanwaljit Sethi, Addl. Ahlmed in the Court of Shri Kuldep Singh, Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala. He proved the charge-sheet filed by the CBI as Ex.PW4/A, arising out of FIR dated 05.03.1998 under Sections 120-B/342/343/346/365 and 211 IPC. The said case was stated to be fixed for 25.09.206 for recording the statements of the accused.
Apart from examining the said witnesses and other formal witnesses, the prosecution has examined PW-3 Dr. H.N.Singh, who has conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Gurmeet Singh on 20.07.2002 at about 1.25 pm and found the following injuries:
"There was present lacerated wound measuring 5 x 4 cms on the interior abdominal wall left side above the umbilicus, it was 4 cms from the midline and 3 cms above the umbilicus. The margins of the wound were inverted and a braided. Collar of abrasion and scorching was seen. On dissection, abdominal cavity was full of blood of reddish. Intestines were having multiple lacerated wounds, liver and spleen heavy. Multiple lacerated wound .14 metallic pieces/pellets and one red rubber was found in the abdominal cavity."
In his opinion, the death was due to injury to the abdomen, which was ante mortem in nature and was due to fire arm. He also stated that time elapsed between death and post-mortem examination was within 24 hours, whereas between injury and death may be few minutes.
The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that she married deceased-Gurmeet Singh six months prior to his death and was leaving happy married life. Her husband was working at Faridkot for Crl. Appeal No.616-DB of 2008 8 repairs of scooters and used to come to Gurusar after 2/3 days. On the night intervening 19/20.07.2002, they both slept on the roof of their house. Her husband keeps his rifle loaded with him as usual at the time of sleep. At about 5.00 am, her husband woke her and asked her to bring Vicks ointment. She came downstairs to bring the same, then all of a sudden, she heard a noise of fire. She went upstairs and saw her husband crying with fire arm injury. He suffered fire arm injury accidentally. The police also made enquiries at the spot and recorded his statement and statements of Jit Singh, Jagir Kaur, Mal Singh, Manjit Singh, Baldev Singh etc. and found the cause of death of Gurmit Singh due to sudden pressing of trigger by the deceased accidentally. The senior officers also verified and found the death to be accidental. After his death, her father-in-law wanted her to marry with the brother of the deceased, who had already obtained divorce from his previous wife, but she refused. She also demanded her dowry articles and due to this grudge, false complaint was lodged against her.
In defence, the accused examined DW-1 Balwant Singh, who deposed about the cordial relations of the deceased with the appellant and that Mal Singh, father of the deceased, sought to perform kareva of Parminder Kaur with the elder brother of the deceased. DW-2 is SI Gurdip Singh, who prepared inquest report Ex.DW2/A. He also proved the statements of Parminder Kaur, Mal Singh, father of the deceased and Jagir Kaur as Exs.DW2/B, DW2/C and DW2/D respectively.
After going through the evidence on record, the learned trial Court returned a finding that the police was inimical towards Gurmeet Singh and his family members as many as 7 police officials were charge-sheeted and for this reason, DW-2 SI Gurdip Singh, the then SHO, conducted shoddy investigation to determine the facts leading to the death of deceased Gurmeet Singh. The Crl. Appeal No.616-DB of 2008 9 learned trial Court found that the family of the complainant was knocking the door of the police authorities, therefore, delay in lodging the complaint is not material. The learned trial Court found that Gurmeet Singh was not examined by CBI Court at Patiala, whereas a perusal of Ex.PX i.e. judgment passed by the Special Court, Patiala leading to conviction of the police officials, reveals that Gurmeet Singh was the star witness. Lastly, the learned trial Court concluded that the prosecution has fully proved that it is the appellant, who has caused death of her husband.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case with their assistance, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that it is the appellant alone, who has taken the life of the deceased.
In the complaint (Ex.PA) or in the statements made on oath by PW-1 Gurdeep Kaur-complainant, PW-2 Mal Singh, father of the deceased and PW-5 Shamsher Singh, there is no evidence that there was any discord between the husband and wife i.e. the deceased and the appellant, in their six months of marriage. The only evidence is of PW-1 Gurdeep Kaur-complainant and PW-5 Shamsher Singh that the appellant wanted her husband to go to the side of canal and on his refusal, there was dispute at about 3.00 am in the morning. Even if, the said part of the prosecution story is believed, the dispute of this nature would not lead to taking life by a wife of a husband, when the marriage was only six months old. Such disputes are not unexceptional in a matrimonial life. The complainant had allegation of illicit relation of the accused in complaint Ex.PA, but on oath, there is no statement to this effect.
The prosecution has tried to prove that the accused came downstairs, picked up the .12 bore double barrel licensed gun of the deceased, went on the first floor and killed the deceased. It is PW-5 Shamsher Singh, Crl. Appeal No.616-DB of 2008 10 who has said to have noticed the accused picking the .12 bore double barrel gun of his uncle. It is unbelievable that the licensed gun of his uncle was being taken up by the appellant during middle of night and this young boy will keep his eyes close and let her go. It is unnatural human conduct. Still further, the allegation that the accused had coaxed the deceased to go for drive in the middle of night with Shamsher Singh is wholly unbelievable. One can understand that newly wedded couple wanted to go for drive, but then why Shamsher Singh should accompany them. His name has been introduced only to produce him as a witness.
The entire prosecution case is based upon the enmity of the deceased with the police officials, which led to their conviction vide judgment dated 28.11.2007 (Ex.PX). From the judgment (Ex.PX), it transpires that Gurmeet Singh was not examined as a witness, whereas the basis of initiation of proceedings by CBI was a petition filed by Gurmeet Singh, the present complainant Gurdeep Kaur and another brother Gurcharan Singh. The incident in question is said to have taken place in the year 1994. The order passed by this Court to order investigations by CBI is dated 16.08.1996. As per the prosecution case, the deceased was to appear as a witness in the said trial and to prevent the appearance of the deceased as a witness, a conspiracy was hatched to take life of the deceased. The motive to cause death of Gurmeet Singh was that of SI Gurmel Singh and HC Karamjit Singh with the aid of Lady Constable Amarjit Kaur @ Bholi, but all the three alleged accused were not summoned to stand trial along with the present appellant nor any word was said by any of the prosecution witnesses.
From the statement of DW-2 SI Gurdip Singh, who prepared the inquest report and recorded the statements Parminder Kaur (the present appellant), Mal Singh, father of the deceased and Jagir Kaur, it transpires that Crl. Appeal No.616-DB of 2008 11 he has not been suggested that he has conducted the investigations so as to help SI Gurmel Singh and HC Karamjit Singh. The only suggestion is that he did not record the statements of the witnesses correctly. Even if, the inquest proceedings have not been conducted properly, the fact remains that the prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-1 Gurdeep Kaur-complainant, PW-2 Mal Singh, father of the deceased and PW-5 Shamsher Singh were aware of the active role of the accused in the commission of crime on the date of death itself, but the first step taken for initiation of prosecution against the appellant is filing of a writ petition before this Court in the month of October, 2002. Therefore, for more than three months, the complainant has not taken any effective steps to launch prosecution against the appellant. It is impossible to imagine that the parents of the deceased and as many as 8 other siblings would not take any step to book the present appellant for causing death of Gurmeet Singh soon after the occurrence. Such large members of the family would not let things die, if they suspected appellant for the commission of crime. She was present at the time of cremation of body of her husband. There is no unnatural conduct of the appellant soon after the incident noticed by any person so as to create any suspicion in causing death of her husband. The prosecution has tried to complete the chain by leading evidence of oral dying declaration of the deceased; the circumstances of picking up of .12 bore gun from the ground floor; hearing of the gun shot; and the conduct of the appellant soon after the occurrence. Had such events taken place in the manner deposed by the prosecution witnesses, there is no reason not to have taken any active step for setting the law enforcement machinery in motion.
The fact that the deceased and the appellant were the two persons sleeping on the first floor i.e. chaubara, is of course an incriminating circumstance against the appellant, but the said circumstance by itself is not Crl. Appeal No.616-DB of 2008 12 sufficient to claim the completion of sequence of circumstances to return a categorical finding that it is the appellant, who has taken the life of the deceased-Gurmeet Singh, who is none else, but her husband.
As per the post-mortem report Ex.PW3/A, the probable time between injury and death is few minutes. It seems highly improbable that kind of injury suffered by the deceased Gurmeet Singh, would render the deceased in a position to shout at the top of his voice that it is his wife, who has fired on him. It is said that the witnesses may lie but the circumstances do not. All the three witnesses are the near relations of the deceased. During the course of inquest proceedings statements of many relations, ex-sarpanch and panch were recorded, but not that of Gurdeep Kaur-complainant. It is a relevant factor to infer that she might not be present at the time of occurrence. Delay in initiating of proceedings vide complaint dated 24.02.2003 i.e. after 7 months of the occurrence and 3 months of the order passed by the writ Court, is unexplained. Deceased-Gurmeet Singh was not working for the Punjab Police at the time of his death. The complaint against the police officials relates to an incident of the year 1994. As per the evidence on record, deceased-Gurmeet Singh was to appear as a witness in the said case. There is nothing on record to show that the accused has any relation much less illicit relations with SI Gurmel Singh and HC Karamjit Singh. There is not even bald statement to this effect. Simply for the reason that criminal proceedings have been initiated on the basis of statement of Gurmeet Singh against the few police officials in respect of incident of the year 1994, will not mean that it is his wife, who has joined hands with the police officials to take life of her husband within 6 months of marriage, when there is nothing on record in respect of discord between the deceased and the appellant. More so, when such police officials have not been made to stand trial alongwith the present appellant.
Crl. Appeal No.616-DB of 2008 13
In view of the above, we find that the evidence of PW-1 Gurdeep Singh-complainant, PW-2 Mal Singh and PW-5 Shamsher Singh are not of a reliable and trustworthy witness, whose statements can be relied upon for conviction of the appellant. There is no other evidence to support the prosecution case that it is the appellant, who has taken life of her husband Gurmeet Singh. We find that the prosecution has miserable failed to prove the complete chain of circumstances to link the appellant.
In view of the above, by granting benefit of doubt, we acquit the present appellant of the charges framed against her. She shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
16.08.2011 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK)
Vimal JUDGE