Punjab-Haryana High Court
Purshotam And Others vs State Of Haryana on 14 July, 2011
Author: S.S. Saron
Bench: S.S. Saron, Jora Singh
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
(1) Criminal Appeal No.D-8-DB of 2008
.....
Date of decision:14.7.2011
Purshotam and others
...Appellants
v.
State of Haryana
...Respondent
.....
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.S. Saron
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jora Singh
......
Present: Dr. Surat Singh, Advocate and Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. H.S. Sran, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for
the respondent-State.
Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate for the complainant.
.....
(2) Criminal Revision No.2079 of 2008
.....
Parhlad Singh
...Petitioner
v.
Purshotam and others
...Respondent
......
Present: Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Dr. Surat Singh, Advocate and Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate
for respondents No.1 to 3.
Mr. R.D. Yadav, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5.
Mr. H.S. Sran, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for
Cr. Appeal No.D-8-DB of 2008
& Cr. Revision No.2079 of 2008
[2]
respondent No.6-State.
.....
S.S. Saron, J.
This order will dispose of Criminal Appeal No.D-8-DB of 2008 and Criminal Revision No.2079 of 2008 as they arise out of the same judgment dated 6.12.2007 and order dated 10.12.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari. In terms of the said judgment dated 6.12.2007 Purshotam, Brij Lal and Uday Singh sons of Munshi Ram (appellants in Criminal Appeal No.D-8-DB of 2008) have been held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 34 Indian Penal Code (`I.P.C.' - for short) and vide order dated 10.12.2007 they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life; besides, pay a fine of `5,000/- for the offence under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years; besides, pay a fine of `1,000/- for the offence under Section 201/34 I.P.C. In default of payment of fine they have been ordered to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for six months. The sentences of imprisonment have, however, been ordered to run concurrently. By the same judgment and order Santra Devi wife of Brij Lal and Dilraj son of Brij Lal have been acquitted.
Criminal Revision No.2079 of 2008 has been filed by Parhlad Singh-complainant (PW-5) who is the father of Renu (deceased) and maternal grand-father of Arun Kumar (deceased) seeking enhancement of sentence awarded to Purshotam, Brij Lal and Uday Singh sons of Munshi Ram (respondents No.1 to 3 in the Criminal Revision) and for convicting Cr. Appeal No.D-8-DB of 2008 & Cr. Revision No.2079 of 2008 [3] Santra Devi and Dilraj wife and son respectively of Brij Lal (respondents No.4 and 5 in the criminal revision petition). Besides, for imposition of adequate fine as well as payment of compensation by Purshotam, Brij Lal and Uday Singh (respondents No.1 to 3 in the criminal revision petition) to Pavan and Rahul the surviving sons of deceased Renu Bala and the appellant Purshotam. The facts of the case are taken from the criminal appeal.
FIR (Ex.PW-14/B) was recorded on the application of Parhlad Singh Verma (PW-5). It is alleged by the complainant that he had performed the marriage of his daughter Renu Bala (deceased) with Purshotam (appellant) on 14.4.1988. He had spent ` 1,50,000/- in the marriage which was more than his capacity and at that time was sufficient. It is alleged that Purshotam Verma (appellant) and his elder brother Brij Lal Verma (appellant) and Smt. Sarbati Devi (mother-in-law) (who died during the trial on 4.8.2006), Santra Devi (since acquitted) husbands' elder brother's wife ('jethani') of Renu Bala used to from the beginning demand dowry from Renu Bala and they used to beat her when she failed to fulfill their demands. Dilraj (since acquitted), who is the son of Brij Lal (elder brother of Purshotam Verma-appellant) and Uday Singh (appellant) who is the younger brother of Purshotam Verma (appellant) used to beat the daughter of the complainant and her children. Renu Bala had written a letter to the complainant Parhlad Singh (PW-5) on which he tried to make her in-laws understand by writing a letter. The letter was written by the complainant Parhlad Singh to the father of Purshotam (appellant) stating Cr. Appeal No.D-8-DB of 2008 & Cr. Revision No.2079 of 2008 [4] about the ill treatment being meted out to his daughter Renu Bala but no solution was found and the letter did not bring any result. The daughter of the complainant at first had a son, namely, Pawan (PW-4) who was born on 14.3.1990. The second son, namely, Rahul was born in the year 1992 and the third son, namely, Arun Kumar (deceased) was born in the year 1998. The complainant (PW5) had spent enough money in `Shushak' (customary gifts) at the time of birth of the aforesaid three sons. However, thereafter the accused kept on demanding more money and articles from the complainant and his daughter. On 20.7.1989, the complainant wrote a letter to the Sarpanch of Village Bharawas requesting him to make the in laws of Renu Bala (deceased) understand but the said letter also did not bring any result. Thereafter, Brij Lal (appellant) elder brother of Renu's husband wrote a letter (Ex.PW-5/A) to the complainant in which, he threatened to kill the complainant and his family members. Initially, Purshotam (appellant) had demanded `10,000/- and the complainant gave him ` 5,000/- in cash and also an almirah and clothes to his family members. Then from the year 1989 to 1999 the accused were demanding dowry. Lastly, on 23.9.1999, the daughter of the complainant made a complaint in the Mahila Dowry Cell, Faridabad against her husband Purshotam, her husband's elder brother (Jeth) Brij Lal, Munshi Ram father-in-law of Renu, Dilraj son of Brij Lal, Sarbati Devi mother-in-law, Santra Devi wife of Brij Lal and Uday Pal Singh brother of the husband of Renu Bala. That matter was compromised between both the parties on 14.10.1999. Thereafter, husband of Renu Bala brought her from Faridabad to Rewari. During this period Cr. Appeal No.D-8-DB of 2008 & Cr. Revision No.2079 of 2008 [5] Renu Bala had also filed a case for a maintenance allowance in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad. After about four-five months of the filing of the case Purshotam (appellant) had stated that they had compromised the matter and he would maintain Renu Bala and her children properly. Thereafter, Renu Bala daughter of the complainant was living with her in-laws. In November 2001, the daughter of the complainant and her husband Purshotam separated from the brothers of Purshotam. Then Renu told the complainant that her husband was demanding ` 1,50,000/- for constructing a house. Renu Bala and her husband also asked the elder daughter of the complainant, namely, Neelam Verma on her phone stating that she needed ` 1,50,000/-. Neelam had asked as to who was asking for the amount and Renu Bala replied that her husband Purshotam was pressing her to bring ` 1,50,000/- from her (Neelam Verma). It is alleged that the mother-in-law of Renu Bala, her husband's elder brother (Jeth), her husband's elder brother's wife (Jethani), namely, Santra Devi and Dilraj son of husband's elder brother had made the life of Renu Bala hell and they used to quarrel with her and also used to beat her. The complainant further alleged that he was a heart patient and he suffered a heart attack on four occasions. His financial position had also become weak. About 15 days earlier to the lodging of the FIR, which was lodged on 25.4.2002, Renu Bala on telephone informed her mother that any mishap could happen and that her in-laws were demanding ` 1,50,000/- from her. If the money was not paid, they would finish her life. It is alleged that Purshotam and Brij Lal were openly saying that either ` 1,50,000/- be brought by Renu Bala from Cr. Appeal No.D-8-DB of 2008 & Cr. Revision No.2079 of 2008 [6] her father or that she should leave the house and finish her life after consuming poison. Lastly, it is alleged by the complainant that on 19.4.2002, his daughter Renu Bala with her son made a telephone call at about 7.00 p.m. from the STD Booth situated near their house at Bharawas Railway Phatak. The phone call was made at the house of the neighbour of the complainant-Parhlad Singh. Renu Bala told her mother (i.e. the wife of the complainant) while weeping that her husband Purshotam and her husband's elder brother Brij Lal were demanding money and they had not mended their ways and they were beating her since morning. It was also informed that the son (Dilraj) of her husband's elder brother and 'devar' Uday Singh had beaten her with `dandas'. She was not being given meals and she was ill-treated by the wife of her husband's elder brother and her mother-in-law who had confined her in the house and that she was weeping badly. The complainant on 20.4.2002 at about 6.00 a.m. came to know from his relative that Renu Bala and her younger son Arun Kumar had ended their life by being run over by coming in front of a train. When the complainant reached Rewari with his family he came to know that both the dead bodies were lying in an undressed condition and this news was also published in the newspaper `Dainik Jagran'. On seeing the dead bodies, many members of the family of the complainant had become unconscious. The complainant had also lost his sense. One Madan Lal Soni, Policeman, GRP told him that if he (complainant) wanted to take action it could be done later on. Now they had to send both the dead bodies for conducting post- mortem examination and he obtained the signatures of the complainant on Cr. Appeal No.D-8-DB of 2008 & Cr. Revision No.2079 of 2008 [7] some blank papers and said that he could come on 21.4.2002 at 10.00 a.m. Both the dead bodies would be handed over to him. That on 21.4.2002, when the complainant reached in the morning he was told that both the dead bodies had already been cremated. The Police officials had also not given them the post-mortem report. In view of the said facts it was requested that action be taken against all the accused persons i.e. Purshotam-husband of Renu Bala, Brij Lal (Renu Bala's husband's elder brother), Sarbati Devi mother-in-law of Renu Bala, Santra Devi (husband's elder brother's wife of Renu Bala), Dilraj son of Brij Lal and Uday Singh younger brother of Renu Bala's husband for beating Renu Bala again and again; besides, demanding dowry and threatening her as a result of which his daughter Renu Bala had ended her life. It is also alleged that the complainant had not found out clearly that Renu Bala had committed suicide or these persons had murdered her. It was requested that action be taken against the accused under different sections and life and property of the complainant be saved as the culprits were running freely, whereas there was imminent danger to the life and property of the complainant, his family and relatives.
A memo regarding report No.53 was received at the Police Station on 20.4.2002 from the Assistant Station Master, Western Cabin, Rewari (Northern Railways). It was reported by Gateman that unknown persons were run over by a train at KM 1/8-9 between Rewari and Bharawas. Necessary action was asked to be taken. On this Virender Singh, SI/SHO (PW-14) reached the spot and conducted proceedings in terms of 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C.' - for short) regarding the Cr. Appeal No.D-8-DB of 2008 & Cr. Revision No.2079 of 2008 [8] dead bodies of deceased Renu Bala wife of Purshotam resident of Bharawas, Police Station Rampura, District Rewari and Arun Kumar son of Purshotam aged 4-5 years. Thereafter, Virender Singh, SI/SHO (PW-14) recorded statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and inquest report (Ex.PW- 14/A) in respect of the dead body of Renu Bala was prepared. The dead bodies were sent for autopsy. On 25.4.2002, Parhlad Singh-complainant moved an application (Ex.PW-5/C) on the basis of which formal FIR (Ex.PW-14/B) was registered. Virender Singh, SI/SHO (PW-14) inspected the spot and site plan (Ex.PW-14/D) was prepared. On 29.4.2002, Parhlad Singh-complainant produced certain documents which were taken in possession vide memo (Ex.PW-5/E). On 1.5.2002, statements of other witnesses were recorded. On 13.5.2002, accused Purshotam (appellant) was arrested. Thereafter, Uday Singh accused (appellant) was arrested on 27.5.2002 and Brij Lal accused was arrested on 20.5.2002.
The post-mortem examination of the dead bodies Renu Bala and Arun Kumar were conducted by Dr. Sharda Dabas (PW-10). The bodies of Renu Bala and Arun Kumar were cut into parts at the level of Umbilicus; besides, there were other injuries. It was opined that injury No.1 on the person of Renu Bala was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature; besides, all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and could be sustained in a railway accident. In respect of Arun Kumar (deceased) also it was opined that death was due to shock as a result of injury No.1 which alone was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and was ante-mortem in nature and could be caused in a railway accident. The Cr. Appeal No.D-8-DB of 2008 & Cr. Revision No.2079 of 2008 [9] Police after completing its investigation filed a police-report (challan) in terms of Section 173 Cr.P.C. in the Court of the Illaqa Magistrate who in view of the offences that had been alleged committed the case to the Court of Session.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge on 27.5.2004 charge- sheeted the accused Purshotam, Brij Lal, Uday Singh, Santra Devi, Sarbati Devi and Dilraj for having committed the offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 I.P.C. on the allegations that on 20.4.2002 in the area of Rewari Bawal Railway Track near Village Bharawas, they all in futherance of their common intention abetted Smt. Renu Bala to commit suicide and in pursuance of such abetement, Smt. Renu Bala committed suicide by jumping before a running train and thereby they had committed an offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 I.P.C. of which cognizance was taken by the said Court. An alternative charge was framed to the effect on 20.4.2002 that in the area of Rewari Bawal Railway Track near Village Bharawas all the accused in furtherance of their common intention committed the murder of Renu Bala and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Secondly, on the said date, time and place all the accused in furtherance of their common intention caused the evidence of offence to disappear with intent to screen themselves from punishment and thereby committed an offence under Section 201 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Thereafter, on 5.7.2005, the learned Additional Sessions Judge charged the accused that on 20.4.2002 in the area of Rewari Bawal Railway Track near Village Bharawas all the Cr. Appeal No.D-8-DB of 2008 & Cr. Revision No.2079 of 2008 [10] accused in furtherance of their common intention abetted Smt. Renu Bala to commit suicide and in pursuance of such abetement Smt. Renu Bala and Arun Kumar committed suicide and thereby the accused had committed offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 I.P.C.. On the same day i.e. 5.7.2005, an alternative charge was framed to the effect that on 20.4.2002 in the area of Rewari Bawal Railway Track near Village Bharawas all the accused in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of Renu Bala and Arun Kumar and thus committed the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Secondly, on the said date, time and place the accused in furtherance of their common intention caused the evidence of offence to disappear with intent to screen themselves from punishment and thereby committed an offence under Section 201 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 15 witnesses; besides, tendered documents in evidence. The statements of the accused were recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the substance of the evidence appearing against the accused was put to them. Purshotam (appellant) in his defence took the stand that he was innocent; besides, he was residing separately at Village Bharawas at Rewari since 1999 in a rented accommodation. Lastly, since 2001 till the death of Renu Bala he resided in a rented accommodation at Hans Nagar, Rewari in the house of Smt. Sharma Devi. His children were studying at Rewari and he had a separate ration card. He was separate in mess and income from the other family members. It is stated that Smt. Renu Bala was in the habit of Cr. Appeal No.D-8-DB of 2008 & Cr. Revision No.2079 of 2008 [11] leaving her matrimonial home without any information. She was of an obstinate habit. A deed of partition, it has been stated, was prepared on 28.5.2001 in the presence of the complainant and others. He had given information regarding the death of Renu Bala and Arun Kumar to his in- laws. Thereafter, the complainant and his family members came to his house and after post-mortem examination of the dead bodies, cremation was performed in the presence of the complainant and his family members and no complaint of any kind was made by them. The complaint was made after great delay with mala fide intention. The complainant Parhlad Singh, it is stated, had business dealings with his (Purshotam's) father and his brother Brij Lal. Brij Lal in his defence took a similar stand stating that Purshotam (appellant) along with his wife (Renu Bala) and children was residing in a rented accommodation at Hans Nagar, Rewari in the house of Sharma Devi since 2001 and till the death of Renu Bala, Brij Lal was separate in mess and income from rest of the family members since 1997. Uday Singh (appellant) has also taken the same stand as that of Purshotam and Brij Lal. In defence, six witnesses were examined. The learned trial Court after considering the evidence and material on record convicted Purshotam, Brij Lal and Uday Singh sons of Munshi Ram for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. as also for the offence under Section 201 read with Section 34 I.P.C. They have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C.; besides, they have been ordered to pay fine of `5,000/- and `1,000/- for both of the offences and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous Cr. Appeal No.D-8-DB of 2008 & Cr. Revision No.2079 of 2008 [12] imprisonment for six months. The accused Sarbati Devi, mother-in-law of Renu Bala had died during the trial. The accused Santra Devi wife of Brij Lal and Dilraj son of Brij Lal were acquitted of the charges levelled against them. The appellants Purshotam, Brij Lal and Uday Singh aggrieved against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge have filed the present appeal while Parhlad Singh-complainant has filed the criminal revision petition.
Dr. Surat Singh, Advocate appearing for the appellants Purshotam Singh, Brij Lal and Uday Singh has contended that the learned trial Court has convicted the appellants on mere conjectures and surmises. It is submitted that the reasons recorded by the learned trial Court that it is a case of murder as was evident from the evidence of Ravinder Kumar, photographer (PW1) who stated that no blood was lying near the bodies and that the dead bodies of Renu Bala and Arun Kumar were lying on the railway track in a disrobed condition has not been borne out from the record. The said reasoning, it is submitted, is clearly false as in the inquest report (Ex.PW-14/A) it has been mentioned that a lot of liquid blood was found lying on the pebbles of the railway track. Besides, it is submitted that a perusal of the special inquest report also shows that the clothes were worn by the deceased and, therefore, the dead bodies were not in an undressed completely belies the conclusions arrived at by the learned trial Court that the accused had committed the murder of Renu Bala and Arun Kumar and had laid their dead bodies on the railway track to screen themselves from punishment. It is submitted that undue weightage has been given to Pawan Cr. Appeal No.D-8-DB of 2008 & Cr. Revision No.2079 of 2008 [13] (PW-4) who is the son of Renu Bala and Purshotam (appellant). It is submitted that the appellants Brij Lal and Uday Singh, in any case, were separate in mess and income from the other family members and there was no occasion for them to cause any harassment to Renu Bala. In the alternative, it is submitted that at the most an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. is made out against Purshotam (appellant) and he has already undergone a period of more than 8 years of imprisonment since the date of occurrence on 20.4.2002. Therefore, he is liable to be released from custody by sentencing him to the period of imprisonment already undergone.
In response, Shri H.S. Sran, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the State and Shri Aditya Sanghi, Advocate for the complainant have submitted that the case against the appellants is fully proved and established; besides, the learned trial Court has passed a well reasoned and considered judgment and order convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offences under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 read with Section 34 I.P.C.. It is submitted that no blood was found near the dead body of Renu Bala and Arun Kumar. A reference has been made to the investigations carried out by Ajmer Singh, Inspector, GRP Ambala (PW-13) wherein on 10.10.2003 he recorded the supplementary statement of Ravinder Kumar, Photographer (PW1). Ravinder Kumar Photographer (PW.1) in his statement (Ex.DA) stated that both the bodies cut into two were lying on the railway line and outside the railway line; besides blood was not lying there. A reference has been made to the Cr. Appeal No.D-8-DB of 2008 & Cr. Revision No.2079 of 2008 [14] deposition of Pawan (PW-4), who is the son of Purshotam (appellant) and Renu Bala (deceased). It is stated that Pawan (PW-4) has stated the manner in which the accused had beaten Renu Bala and his brother Arun Kumar and they became still which means that they had died on account of the beating. Therefore, it is submitted that the order of conviction as passed and sentence as awarded by the learned trial Court is liable to be maintained and upheld.
Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate, appearing for the complainant has further submitted that the sentence awarded to the appellants is liable to be enhanced; besides, Santra Devi wife and Dilraj son of Brij Lal (respondents No.4 and 5 in criminal revision respectively) are also liable to be convicted and sentenced for the offence for which they were charged. Besides, compensation is liable to be awarded against respondents No.1 to 5 in the criminal revision petition.
Mr. R.D. Yadav, Advocate appearing for Santra Devi and Dilraj (respondents No.4 and 5 in the criminal revision petition) has submitted that the said respondents have been rightly acquitted by the learned trial Court and there is nothing on record which in any manner can be said to dislodge the reasoning of the learned trial Court in acquitting Santra Devi and Dilraj. It is submitted that even if two views are possible the one which favours the accused is to be adopted. Besides, it is submitted by Dr. Surat Singh, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3 in the criminal revision petition and Mr. R.D. Yadav, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5 in the criminal revision petition have submitted that no compensation is liable to be awarded against respondents No.1 to 5 in the criminal revision petition.
Cr. Appeal No.D-8-DB of 2008 & Cr. Revision No.2079 of 2008 [15] We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and with their assistance gone through the records of the case. The FIR (Ex.PW.14/B) has been registered on the basis of application (Ex.PW.5/C) submitted by the complainant Parhlad Singh (PW-5) who in his deposition in Court has reiterated the stand as taken by him in his application (Ex.PW.5/C). It is primarily alleged by him that his daughter Renu Bala was married with Purshotam (appellant) on 14.4.1988. They had three children from the marriage. The first was son, namely, Pawan (PW-4) was born on 14.3.1990. The second son, namely, Rahul was born on 1.1.1992 and the third son Arun Kumar (deceased) was born in the year 1998. The complainant had given `Shushak' (customary gifts) at the time of the birth of the said three sons. Despite meeting the demands of the in-laws of his daughter Renu, she was harassed from time to time. The complainant (PW-5) had also written a letter to the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Village Bharawas but the same did not result in any respite to Renu Bala (deceased). On 20.4.2002 at about 6.00 p.m. the complainant came to know that his daughter Renu Bala along with her son Arun Kumar had been run over by a train and both had died. However, it is alleged that HC Madan Lal Soni, Police Station, GRP, Rewari on 20.4.2002 i.e. the date of incident had asked the complainant to contact him on the next day and he also obtained the signatures of the complainant on six-seven blank papers. The complainant again went to the Police Station, G.R.P., Rewari on 21.4.2002 at 11.00 a.m. and by that time his daughter Renu Bala had also been cremated and no post mortem report was Cr. Appeal No.D-8-DB of 2008 & Cr. Revision No.2079 of 2008 [16] recorded. He had sent telegram to higher authorities and returned back to Faridabad. On 24.4.2002, the complainant (PW-5) had written a complaint to the higher authorities. On 25.4.2002, the complainant (PW-5) came to the Police Station, GRP, Rewari at 9.00 a.m. and handed over his complaint (Ex.PW-5/C). Thereafter, the Police from GRP, Rewari along with the complainant and Sanjay went to the railway crossing, Bharawas. They reached the house of Brij Lal and they called out the names of Pawan (PW-4) and Rahul and they responded from inside the house by saying that they were locked inside a room in the house. The complainant and the Police broke open the door of the house and brought out both Pawan (PW4) and Rahul and they were brought to Faridabad. After about 15-20 days of reaching Faridabad both Pawan and Rahul were got admitted in the Save our Soul (`SOS'-for short) Bawana Institute, which was an orphanage. The complainant was not satisfied with the investigations carried out by GRP and he made complaints to DGP Haryana, the Prime Minister of India and to the Human Rights Commission, Delhi. Thereafter, the DGP, Haryana deputed Inspector Ajmer Singh (PW-13) to carry out the investigations in the case. Inspector Ajmer Singh (PW-13) came to the complainant and also went to SOS Bawana Institute to record the statements of Pawan and Rahul. Permission of the Illaqa Magistrate, Rewari was obtained by Inspector Ajmer Singh. The complainant Parhlad Singh (PW-5) identified the photographs (Exs. P.1 to P.5) on the Court file and also the dead bodies of his daughter Renu Bala and her son Arun Kumar. Ajmer Singh, Inspector (PW-13), who was deputed to reinvestigate the case, filed a supplementary Cr. Appeal No.D-8-DB of 2008 & Cr. Revision No.2079 of 2008 [17] challan alleging the commission of offence under Section 302 I.P.C. against the accused.
The learned trial Court, as has already been noticed, has convicted and sentenced the appellants primarily taking into consideration that Renu Bala was harassed by her -in-laws and that Pawan (PW-4) being the son of Purshotam (appellant) gave an eye-witness account of the incident. It was observed that no son would falsely implicate his father. Therefore, his testimony could not be put over board as he was the son and brother of Renu Bala and Arun Kumar respectively who had died in the incident. It was observed that his testimony inspired confidence. Besides, it was observed that the victims were not run over by the train and the story of suicide initially put forward by the Investigating Agencies was not liable to be accepted and that they were murdered by Purshotam, Brij Lal and Uday Singh. It was observed that Purshotam, Brij Lal and Uday Singh in connivance of their intention committed the murder of Smt. Renu Bala and her small son Arun Kumar and thereafter caused the evidence of the offence to disappear with intent to screen themselves from legal punishment by putting the dead bodies on the railway track. It was also observed that type of injuries sustained by the deceased were suggestive of a case of homicide only and not suicide. It was further observed that no blood was found on the spot, which showed that firstly the mother and son were murdered and then the dead bodies were put before the train.
It may be noticed that Pawan (PW-4) who is the son of Purshotam (appellant) and deceased Renu Bala was left at the Orphanage Cr. Appeal No.D-8-DB of 2008 & Cr. Revision No.2079 of 2008 [18] SOS Bawana Institute after about 15 days of the occurrence when he was brought from his house by his father. Pawan (PW-4) in his deposition in Court, which was recorded on 1.6.2006 when he was 16 years of age, states that Purshotam accused is his father and Brij Lal is the elder brother of his father. Dilraj is son of Brij Lal, Santra Devi is wife of Brij Lal and Sarbati Devi is his grand-mother and Uday Singh is his uncle. He was studying and residing at SOS Bawana Institute a non-government organization at Bawana. Prior to the month of April 2002 he had been residing with his father Purshotam accused and the other accused in Village Bharawas. It is stated that on the intervening night of 19/20.4.2002 at about 7/7.30 p.m. his mother Renu Bala along with his younger brother Arun Kumar aged about five years went to make a call from the STD booth to his maternal uncle (Sanjay) at Faridabad. As soon as his mother (Renu Bala) and his younger brother (Arun Kumar) came back, his father Purshotam, uncle Brij Lal and uncle Uday Singh pulled his mother from her hair and she fell down and they started beating her. Pawan (PW-4), his brother Rahul and his brother Arun (deceased) started weeping. Dilraj accused stopped them. Arun fell on his mother in order to save her from the beating. His father and uncle Brij Lal shut the mouth of his brother Arun with their hand and he was also given a beating. His brother Arun became still. Both Pawan (PW-4) and Rahul were shut inside the adjoining room. They continued to see the happening outside through the gap in between the shutter of the door of the room. All the accused present in Court, it is stated, continued to beat his mother and younger brother. Both his mother and younger brother stopped Cr. Appeal No.D-8-DB of 2008 & Cr. Revision No.2079 of 2008 [19] crying and became still and senseless. After three-four days of the occurrence, they both were taken by their maternal uncle Sanjay and maternal grand-father (Parhlad Singh). After that night both the brothers did not see their mother and younger brother again. Parhlad Singh and Sanjay told them that their mother and younger brother Arun had been placed on the railway track and they had died. In the month of October 2003 a Police Officer (Ajmer Singh PW-13) had come to their SOS Bawana Institute and recorded their statements. Pawan (PW-4) was subjected to lengthy cross-examination. Keeping in view the deposition of Pawan (PW-
4) that while his mother Renu and his brother Arun were being beaten, they had become still and senseless and that they had died, it was held by the learned trial Court that they were in fact murdered and then their dead bodies were put on the railway track. It may be noticed that Dr. Sharda Dabas (PW-10) then posted as Medical Officer; Government Hospital Rewari conducted the post-mortem examination of Smt. Renu wife of Purshotam resident of Bharwas and Arun Kumar on 21.4.2002. On the person of Renu, the following injuries were found:-
1. Body was divided into two parts at the level of umbilicus, corresponding intra abdominal organs were badly crushed and lying outside the body.
2. Left upper limbs was (Sic.-were) amputated at elbow joint.
3. Multiple abrasions were present on face, lips forehead and left side of scalp with clotted blood present.
4. Multiple abrasions were present on whole of back.
Cr. Appeal No.D-8-DB of 2008 & Cr. Revision No.2079 of 2008 [20]
5. Multiple abrasions on both knees.
In the opinion of the doctor (PW-10) death was due to shock as a result of injury No.1, which alone was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and could be sustained by railway accident. The time that elapsed between injury and death was immediate and time elapsed between death and post- mortem examination was 12-36 hours. The post mortem report was Ex.PW- 10/A. The following injures were found on the person of Arun Kumar aged 4-5 years:-
1. The dead body was in two parts at the level of umbilicus intra abdominal organs corresponding to the injury were badly crushed the body was smeared with black coloured greasy substance mixed with diesel.
2. Left upper limb was amputated at elbow joint.
3. Multiple abrasions on face, forehead left side of scalp.
4. Multiple abrasions on whole of back.
In the opinion of the doctor (PW-10) the death was due to shock as a result of injury No.1 which alone was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were ante mortem in nature and could be caused in a railway accident. The time that elapsed between the injury and death, it was stated, was immediate whereas the time between death and post-mortem was 12 to 36 hours. It may be noticed that the doctor (PW-10) had found all the injuries on the person of Renu and Arun Kumar to be ante-mortem in nature; besides, injury No.1 on the person of Renu which relates to the body Cr. Appeal No.D-8-DB of 2008 & Cr. Revision No.2079 of 2008 [21] being cut into two parts at the level of umbilicus and injury No.1 on the body of Arun Kumar relating to his body being cut in two parts at the level of umbilicus, it was observed, were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Besides, it is mentioned that all the injuries were ante- mortem in nature.
Pawan Kumar (PW-4) has, however, stated that all the appellants had beaten Renu and Arun Kumar and on account of the beating they became still and senseless, it appears, is an inflation of the actual incident. Pawan Kumar (PW-4) is a young boy and the possibility of his being tutored by others particularly by his maternal grand-father cannot be entirely ruled out. It may be noticed that Dr. Sharda Dabas (PW-10) has not stated that there was any other injury, abrasion etc. of any kind and that all the injuries which were found on the dead bodies of both the deceased could be sustained by a railway accident. Besides, these injuries were ante- mortem in nature. As such, the version of Pawan Kumar (PW-4) as regards the beating given to Renu Bala and Arun Kumar may not be correct as no injuries of them being beaten were found in their respective post mortem reports. However, the statement of Pawan (PW-4) does show that his mother Renu was being ill-treated by his father Purshotam (appellant).
Another aspect which requires consideration that soon after the occurrence on 20.4.2002 a compromise (Ex.DY) was reached at in terms of which Parhlad Singh-complainant (PW-5) stated that his daughter had committed suicide by jumping before the train. Parhlad Singh-complainant (PW-5) had decided in the Panchayat in the presence of the respectables i.e. Cr. Appeal No.D-8-DB of 2008 & Cr. Revision No.2079 of 2008 [22] Nihal Singh son of Mohar Singh, Deen Dayal son of Ram Lal, B.D. Verma son of Sheo Chand, Sat Narayan son of Chander Bhan, Laxmi Narayan son of Chander Mal, Raj Singh son of Umrao Singh, Ram Niwas son of Hira Lal, Gora Singh son of Hira Lal, Suresh Kumar son of Roshan Lal that he would take both the boys i.e. Pawan (PW-4) aged 12 years and Rahul aged 10 years to his home. Besides, Purshotam and Brij Lal would deposit ` 1.00 Lac in favour of each child in a fixed deposit scheme upto 20.9.2002, otherwise the compromise (Ex.DY) would not be effective. It is stated that for the present, he did not want to initiate any proceedings against these persons and he would bring both the children. The fixed deposits of the children would remain in the custody of Parhlad (PW-5) until they became major. Nobody would encash the fixed deposit. The compromise did not materialize and an amount of `1.00 Lac was not deposited in the accounts of Pawan (PW-4) and Rahul by 20.9.2002. Thereafter, Parhlad Singh- complainant (PW-5) made a complaint to the DGP and further investigations were carried out by Ajmer Singh, Inspector (PW-13). Ajmer Singh, Inspector (PW-13) recorded supplementary statements of Parhlad and Kulshreshth on 10.10.2003. He recorded the statements of Pawan (PW-4) and Rahul sons of Purshotam at SOS Bawana Institute. He also recorded the statement of Ravinder Kumar photographer on 10.10.2003. On the basis of the supplementary statements, Police report (challan) was filed for the commission of offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C.; besides, under Section 201 read with Section 34 I.P.C. for which the charges were re-framed on 5.7.2005.
Cr. Appeal No.D-8-DB of 2008 & Cr. Revision No.2079 of 2008 [23] Ajmer Singh, Inspector (PW-13) in his deposition has stated that he came to Rewari on 3.10.2003 for investigation in the case. He obtained permission to carry out further investigation. On 8.10.2003, he recorded supplementary statements of Parhlad Singh and Kulshreshth. On 10.10.2003, he recorded the statements of Pawan and Rahul sons of Purshotam and also that of Ravinder Kumar, photographer. After investigation he added the offence under Section 302 I.P.C.
Virender Singh, Inspector (PW-14) was posted as SHO, GRP, Rewari on 20.4.2002. He had conducted the initial investigations in the case. He conducted proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. regarding the dead body of a woman and thereafter he recorded statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He prepared inquest report (Ex.PW-14/A). Thereafter, the dead bodies were sent for autopsy. On 25.4.2002, Parhlad Singh-complainant (PW-5) moved an application (Ex.PW-5/C) on the basis of which formal FIR (Ex.PW-14/B) was registered. The site was inspected and site plan (Ex.PW-14/D) was prepared. On 29.4.2002, Parhlad Singh-complainant (PW-5) produced certain documents which were taken in possession. On 13.5.2002, the accused Purshotam was arrested and on 27.5.2002 the accused Uday Singh was arrested. Ravinder Kumar, photographer (PW-1) in his supplementary statement recorded on 10.10.2003 by Ajmer Singh, Inspector (PW-13) has stated that there was no blood at the spot. However, Ravinder Kumar, photographer (PW-1) while appearing in the Court in his cross-examination has accepted that he had not stated before the Police that the dead bodies were lying in an undressed state and the distance between Cr. Appeal No.D-8-DB of 2008 & Cr. Revision No.2079 of 2008 [24] the dead bodies was 75 paces and there was no blood lying near the bodies. He was confronted with his statement (Ex.DA) where the said facts were mentioned. It is also accepted as correct that the clothes were lying near the dead bodies and he had taken photographs of those clothes which was Ex.P.5. Besides, in the inquest proceedings (Ex.PW-14/A) it is stated in column No.7 that yellow colour petticoat in waist in torn condition, green red colour 'butedar' sari in torn condition, white colour 'butedar' blouse and nothing worn on the foot were there on the person of Renu. Besides, lot of liquid blood was on the pebbles, which means the pebbles on the railway track. Therefore, there were indeed clothes on the dead body of Renu Bala which is there in the photograph (Ex.P.5) as deposed by Ravinder Kumar, photographer (PW-1). Besides, there was blood also near the dead body which is evident from the deposition of Ravinder Kumar, photographer (PW-1) and the inquest report (Ex.PW-14/A). Therefore, the contentions of the learned counsel for the State and the complainant that blood was not there near the dead bodies and they were in a disrobed state is clearly not borne out from the record. As such, it cannot be said that Renu Bala and Arun Kumar had been murdered and thereafter their dead bodies were placed on the railway track. This is more so for the reason that Dr. Sharda Dabas (PW-10) has stated that the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and could be caused in a railway accident.
The complainant-Parhlad Singh (PW-5) submitted an application (Ex.PW-5/C) for registration of a case under Sections 306, 406, 498-A, 323, 506 and 34 I.P.C. The application was submitted on 25.4.2002 Cr. Appeal No.D-8-DB of 2008 & Cr. Revision No.2079 of 2008 [25] i.e. almost five days after the incident and in the said application he states that his daughter Renu Bala was harassed and, therefore, Renu Bala and her younger son Arun Kumar had ended their lives by coming in front of the train. It is, therefore, alleged by him that they committed suicide; besides, in application (Ex.PW-5/C) Parhlad Singh-complainant (PW-5) stated that his son-in-law Purshotam (appellant) had separated from his other brothers in November 2001.
The defence has also examined Gopi Chand (DW-2) who has stated that the deceased (Renu Bala) along with her family members were his tenants for about three years before the incident i.e. from 13.10.1999 to 13.1.2000 and she was never subjected to cruelty or maltreatment during the period of tenancy. Renu Bala (deceased), it is stated, was hot tempered and obstinate. Deen Dayal (DW-3) has produced the compromise (Ex.DY) which was recorded on 20.4.2002 i.e. soon after the incident. Kuldeep Kumar (DW-4) stated that he was Sarpanch of Village Bharawas since 1994 to December 1999 and no letter or correspondence was ever received by him from Parhlad Singh in connection with Purshotam. More so, no letter dated 20.7.1999 was received by him from Parhlad Singh. Purshotam (appellant) it is stated was separate in mess and income from his brothers and he had separated from his other brothers Brij Lal and Uday Singh (appellants). It is, however, quite evident that Purshotam (appellant) had been raising a demand of ` 1,50,000/- which the complainant Parhlad Singh was unable to fulfill. Therefore, Renu Bala along with her son Arun Kumar committed suicide by lying on the railway track. It has come on record that Cr. Appeal No.D-8-DB of 2008 & Cr. Revision No.2079 of 2008 [26] in the application (Ex.PW-5/C) on the basis of which FIR (Ex.PW-14/B) was registered that Renu Bala on 19.4.2002 had made a telephone call from the STD booth situated near her house in which she told her mother i.e. wife of the complainant that her husband Purshotam and his elder brother Brij Lal were demanding money. It was quite unlikely that Brij Lal being separate in mess and business would demand money from Renu Bala. It is, however, evident that Purshotam had been demanding money and, therefore, Renu Bala committed suicide. The fact of commission of suicide is the stand of the complainant himself in his initial application (Ex.PW-5/C) which is five days after the incident. It is also the case of the appellant- Purshotam in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he was separate in mess and residence from his other brothers.
In the circumstances, it is borne out from the record and from the discussion above that Purshotam-appellant had abetted the commission of suicide by Renu Bala and Arun Kumar and that Brij Lal and Uday Singh- appellants were separate from him and they had no role in the incident.
The contentions of Shri Aditya Sanghi, Advocate for the petitioner in the criminal revision is that Sarbati and Dilraj were also liable for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. is clearly not sustainable. The appellant Purshotam at one stage vide compromise (Ex.DY) had agreed to give ` 1.00 Lac to his two sons Pawan and Rahul. The said amount was not given and they were staying in an orphanage and are not in the maternal side even. Therefore, it would be just and expedient if Purshotam (appellant) is ordered to pay a compensation of ` 10.00 Lacs i.e. ` 5.00 Lacs each to both Cr. Appeal No.D-8-DB of 2008 & Cr. Revision No.2079 of 2008 [27] his sons Pawan and Rahul in terms of Section 357 Cr.P.C. The compensation that has been awarded is only to re-assure Pawan and Rahul that they have not been forgotten in the criminal justice system. Besides, Purshotam (appellant) has undergone imprisonment for about 8 years and it would be just and expedient that instead of convicting him for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. he is convicted for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. and ordered to pay compensation of ` 5.00 Lacs each to both his sons. Learned counsel for the appellant-Purshotam has agreed that a sum of ` 4.00 Lacs i.e. ` 2.00 Lacs each shall be deposited in a nationalized bank in the accounts of the children, namely, Pawan and Rahul within a period of one month from today and a balance of ` 6.00 Lacs i.e. ` 3.00 Lacs each shall be deposited in a nationalized bank in the accounts of Pawan and Rahul by 15.7.2012. The amount which is deposited in the names of Pawan and Rahul shall be kept in bank deposit for a period of three years and they shall be entitled to use its interest for the said period of three years and thereafter they can use the same in any manner they like.
Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No.D-8-DB of 2008 is partly allowed to the extent that the conviction of the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.D-8-DB of 2008 for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. is set aside, however, appellant No.1-Purshotam son of Munshi Ram is convicted for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. instead of Section 302 I.P.C. and the other appellants in Criminal Appeal No.D-8-DB of 2008, namely, Brij Lal son of Munshi Ram-appellant No.2 and Uday Singh son of Munshi Ram- appellant No.3 are acquitted of the charges for which they were charged.
Cr. Appeal No.D-8-DB of 2008 & Cr. Revision No.2079 of 2008 [28] Appellant No.1-Purshotam has undergone imprisonment for about 8 years and he is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him besides appellant No.1-Purshotam shall pay a sum of `10.00 lacs (Ten lacs) as costs to his children, namely, Pawan and Rahul i.e. `5.00 lacs each. A sum of `4.00 lacs i.e. `2.00 lacs each shall be deposited in a nationalized bank in the accounts of the children within a period of one month from today and the balance sum of `6.00 lacs i.e. `3.00 lacs each shall be deposited in the nationalized bank in the accounts of the children by appellant No.1-Purshotam by 15.7.2012. The amount which shall be deposited in the names of Pawan and Rahul shall be kept in a fixed deposit for a period of 3 years and they shall be entitled to use the interest for the said period of 3 years and thereafter they can use the same in any manner they like.
If appellant No.1-Purshotam is not wanted in any other case then he be released from the jail forthwith.
The Criminal Revision No.2079 of 2008 is dismissed.
(S.S. Saron) Judge July 14, 2011. (Jora Singh) Judge *hsp* NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes/No