Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surjit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 23 July, 2009
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Mehtab S. Gill, Jitendra Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Crl.Appeal No.623-DB of 2000
Date of Decision: July 23, 2009
Surjit Singh .......Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab .......Respondent
and
Crl.Appeal No.207-DB of 2001
Mangal Singh .......Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab ........Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHTAB S. GILL
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr.Dhruv Dayal, Advocate for the appellant
in Crl.A.No.623-DB of 2000.
Mr.Sanjiv Arora, Advocate for the appellant
in Crl.A.No.207-DB of 2001.
Mr.Satinder Singh Gill, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
---
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.
1. This judgment shall dispose of two criminal appeals No.623- DB of 2000 and 207-DB of 2001 as both have arisen out of the common judgment/order, dated 22.8.2000, of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib.
2. In the evening of 16.7.1996 Jarnail Kaur, the deceased, a Crl.Appeal No.623-DB of 2000 2 young woman, was killed by her own brothers, who were duty bound to shield and protect her person and honour. Five accused were summoned to face trial under Sections 302/120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Court acquitted three accused Rani Kaur wife of Manjit Singh, Avtar Singh son of Karnail Singh and Manjit Singh son of Sucha Singh.
3. Motive was stated to be the quarrel between Rani Kaur wife of Manjit Singh and Jarnail Kaur in the early hours of the day of occurrence. Pritam Singh, brother of the deceased and appellant Manjit Singh made a statement before the police at 8.30 p.m. on 6.12.1996 at Police Station Mulepur, Fatehgarh Sahib. The statement was recorded by Inspector Darshan Singh, Police Station Mulepur on 16.7.1996 on the basis of which formal FIR dated 16.7.1996 under Sections 302/109/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered by MHC Harprit Singh, Police Station Mulepur. The special report was delivered to the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehgarh Sahib at 11.25 p.m. The substance of the FIR is re-produced in para 2 of the order of the learned trial Court. The relevant part is re- produced as below:
"Victim of this murder case is Jarnail Kaur and unmarried sister of Surjit Singh and Manjit Singh. The quarrel between Rani Kaur wife of Manjit Singh with Jarnail Kaur on the early hours of the day resulted into her murder. Pritam Singh complainant had three brothers and four sisters namely Darshan Singh, (Surjit Singh, Manjit Singh accused), Kuldip Kaur, Darshan Kaur, Bholi and Jarnail Kaur (deceased) All the four brothers are married whereas out of the sisters Kuldip Crl.Appeal No.623-DB of 2000 3 Kaur and Jarnail Kaur are unmarried and have been living with complainant and their parents. The remaining brothers are also living separate. Manjit Singh and Surjit Singh have one idology. Manjit Singh was married to Rani Kaur daughter of Dial Singh, resident of village Akkar. There is some vacant space in front of the houses of Surjit Singh and Manjit Singh accused which had come to the share of the parents of the complainant. However, Surjit Singh and Manjit Singh were in possession of the said land. They did not allow the complainant and his family members to pass through the said land. A feud had taken place between Jarnail Kaur and Rani Kaur in the morning hours on 16.7.96 over the said matter in which Jarnail Kaur had beaten Rani Kaur, as a result of which Rani Kaur had left the house.
On the same day i.e. 16.7.96, in the evening at 6.30 p.m., when Pritam Singh complainant along with his brother Darshan Singh, their mother Gurdev Kaur and his son Harbhajan Singh were present in their house, then Mangal Singh accused brother of Rani Kaur along with one Avtar Singh son of Karnail Singh, resident of village Akkar, came on a light sky coloured scooter at the house of Surjit Singh. Mangal Singh was armed with khanda at that time. They entered the house of Surjit Singh. In the meantime, when Jarnail Kaur came out of the house in the courtyard then Surjit Singh armed with daat, Mangal Singh armed with khanda, Avtar Singh armed with sua also came out Crl.Appeal No.623-DB of 2000 4 of the house. Mangal Singh raised Lalkara that Jarnail Kaur should not be spared and she should be taught a lesson for beating Rani Kaur and they followed her. Jarnail Kaur started running towards village Dharamshala to save herself. However, they caught her near the Dharamshala then Surjit Singh, Avtar Singh and Mangal Singh accused gave injuries to Jarnail Kaur on her shoulders and hands. Thereafter, she fell down. They also caused more injuries on her shoulders while she was falling down. Complainant, his brother Darshan Singh, his son Harbhajan Singh and their mother Gurdev Kaur raised hue and cry 'Na Maro Na Maro' and came forward at her rescue then all the accused raised Lalkara that if any of them came forward then they will also be killed. At this, the complainant and the witnesses felt afraid and the accused ran away on the said scooter with their respective weapons towards Rurki. Then the complainant and the witnesses went near Jarnail Kaur and noticed that she had succumbed to her injuries. Her left hand had been amputated from the wrist. They had also caused injuries on her right wrist, scapular bones on both the sides and left waist. It was further stated by the complainant that the accused Mangal Singh, Avtar Singh and Surjit Singh had committed murder of Jarnail Kaur by causing injuries at the instigation of Manjit Singh."
4. The inquest report on the dead body was prepared by Inspector Darshan Singh, PW6. The post mortem was carried out by Crl.Appeal No.623-DB of 2000 5 Dr.Bhupinder Singh, Medical Officer, CHC Sahnewal, PW1, on 17.7.1996 and the following injuries were noticed:
"The scalp, skull and vertebra and brain were healthy.
1. Incised wound present on left side of neck, starting from cheek upto middle of the left shoulder. The size length as described x 2" upto vertebra and bones. All major vessels were cut along with other structures. Clotted blood was present.
2. Incised wound was present 1-1/2" below the injury No.1 extending from the lower lip from the middle of the lower mendible on the same side. The size was 6" x2"x2-1/2".
The clotted blood was present. All structures underlying were cut.
3. Incised wound was present on the right side of neck extending from the tragus of right ear upto the tip of coracoid process (right). Size length as above x 2-1/2"x2-1/2". Clotted blood was present. All underlying structures were cut.
4. Incised wound was present . 1-1/2" above the injury No.3. The size was 4"x2"x2-1/2". The clotted blood was present. The wound was encircling the neck on right side of neck in the middle.
5. Bruises diffusely placed on left iliac crest.
6. Left hand separated totally at level of wrist.
7. Incised wound present on ulnar side of right wrist extending Crl.Appeal No.623-DB of 2000 6 from wrist joint and upto mid force-arm with ulna bone cut. Clotted blood was present. The breath was 2cms.
5. The spot inspection was conducted by SHO Darshan Singh. Inquest report, Exhibit P2, was prepared. Blood stained earth from the spot was lifted. Rough site plan, Exhibit P7, of the place of occurrence was prepared by ASI Pritam Singh. Accused Rani Kaur was arrested on 23.7.1996 and accused Mangal Singh, Avtar Singh and Surjit Singh were arrested on 24.7.1996.
6. On search of accused Mangal Singh, blood stained khanda (a double edged sword) was recovered from him. From the search of accused Surjit Singh, daat, Exhibit MO-10 was recovered. Both the weapons were sent for chemical examination to Government of Punjab, Patiala and Assistant Serologist and Chemical Examiner to Government of India.
7. Upon completion of investigation, accused Mangal Singh, Avtar Singh and Surjit Singh were charge sheeted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused Manjit Singh and Rani Kaur were charge sheeted under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. To prove its case, the prosecution examined Dr.Bhupinder Singh, Medical Officer, CHC Sahnewal as PW1, Pritam Singh as PW2, Darshan Singh as PW3, Sadhu Singh, Draftsman as PW4, Ravinder Kumar, Clerk of SDM Rajpura as PW5, Inspector Darshan Singh as PW6, Head Constable Harprit Singh as PW7, Constable Parampal Singh as PW8.
9. Pritam Singh, PW2 supported the version rendered in FIR. He stated that in the evening at about 6.30 p.m. Pritam Singh, his brother Crl.Appeal No.623-DB of 2000 7 Darshan Singh and their mother Gurdev Kaur and his son Harbhajan Singh were present in their house. Accused were present in the house of Surjit Singh. Mangal Singh armed with khanda, Surjit Singh armed with daat and Avtar Singh armed with sua, who were in the house of Surjit Singh pounced upon Jarnail Kaur, the moment she stepped out of the house. Mangal Singh gave khanda blow on the right wrist joint of Jarnail Kaur, as a result her right hand was amputated. Mangal Singh gave another blow on the neck of Jarnail Kaur. Surjit Singh and Avtar Singh also caused injuries. PW3 Darshan Singh corroborated the version narrated by Pritam Singh PW2. Inspector Darshan Singh, PW6, Investigating Officer in the present case, further corroborated the facts regarding the recording of statement, preparing inquest report and inspecting the site plan and the spot inspection, during the course of investigation.
10. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. All the incriminating circumstances appearing against them were put to them. Recording of the statement of Manjit Singh under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was dispensed with as no evidence was found to connect him with the crime. He was acquitted on 13.6.2000 by the learned trial Court.
11. Accused Mangal Singh made a statement that Jarnail Kaur was found lying injured in the fields near the village from where she was taken to the hospital, but she died. He pleaded false implication by the police after fabricating false report. The FIR was stated to be ante-timed. Avtar Singh denied to have any motive to commit the crime. Accused Rani Kaur Crl.Appeal No.623-DB of 2000 8 submitted that she had been falsely roped in the present FIR on the basis of suspicion.
12. Jarnail Singh, father of accused Avtar Singh appeared as DW1. He stated that on 16.6.1996, Avtar Singh had gone to his sister's village Mukandpur near Dera Bassi. He returned at about 8.00/9.00 p.m. Nardev Singh, DW2 son of Mohinder Singh and DW3 Garibu Ram son of Raonki Ram made statement to project that Avtar Singh was not present at the place of occurrence on 16.7.1996. Parampal Singh, DW4 made a statement that on the date of occurrence Surjit Singh had come to him for some domestic work. He was followed by Pritam Singh who told him that his sister Jarnail Kaur had been killed by someone in the fields near Dharamshala. In response to that, he went to the spot and shifted Jarnail Kaur in his tractor to Civil Hospital, Fatehgarh Sahib at 7.00/8.00 p.m. on 16.7.1996 itself.
13. On conclusion of the examination of the above named witnesses, the defence closed its evidence. The learned trial Court formulated the following points for determination in the present case:
1. Whether the accused Rani Kaur and Manjit Singh had entered into conspiracy with Surjit Singh, Avtar Singh and Mangal Singh to commit murder of Jarnail Kaur?
2. Whether Mangal Singh, Avtar Singh and Surjit Singh in furtherance of their common intention attacked Jarnail Kaur and caused injuries to her?
3. What is the value of the interested witnesses?
4. What is the value of the statement of Pritam Singh?
14. Before the learned trial Court, on behalf of the prosecution, it Crl.Appeal No.623-DB of 2000 9 was submitted that the root cause for the occurrence in the evening could be traced to the quarrel that took place in the morning. The motive for killing Jarnail Kaur was the plot which was in the possession of Surjit Singh and Manjit Singh. Rani Kaur claimed her right over the said plot and prevented Jarnail Kaur to pass through the said plot. Rani Kaur had stolen ornaments of Jarnail Kaur. Jarnail Kaur had given beating to Rani Kaur in the morning on the day of occurrence. On that she left the village.
15. In the evening, accused Mangal Singh, brother of Rani Kaur came to the village along with his friend Avtar Singh. The three accused Mangal Singh, Avtar Singh and Surjit Singh were present in the house of Surjit Singh, when Jarnail Kaur came out of the house, accused persons immediately attacked her. The deceased tried to run towards Dharamshala, she was overtaken and killed. Further submission was that the murder was committed in furtherance of their common intention with weapons like khanda, daat and sua etc. by killing Jarnail Kaur at the spot. Darshan Singh, PW2 and Pritam Singh, PW3 have fully corroborated the version rendered in the FIR. FIR was promptly lodged. The accused are real brothers and relations of the deceased and complainant, therefore, the witnesses had no reason to substitute them in place of real culprits. As per reports of Chemical Examiner to Punjab Government, Patiala and the Assistant Serologist and Chemical Examiner to Government of India, Exhibits P21 and P22, the weapons recovered from the accused were stained with human blood.
16. Learned defence counsel submitted that motive in the instant case was not fully proved. There was inconsistency between the statements Crl.Appeal No.623-DB of 2000 10 of two eye witnesses Pritam Singh, PW2 and Darshan Singh, PW3 regarding the existence of motive. It was further denied that Rani Kaur had stolen ornaments of Jarnail Kaur which led to the quarrel between them.
17. The learned trial Court after appreciation of the evidence on record reached to the conclusion that certainly there existed some problem in respect of the plot. The motive was held to be fully established. It was further noticed by the learned trial Court that in view of the direct evidence, the motive is not very material in the instant case.
18. On the question of delay, the learned trial Court recorded that the occurrence took place at 6.30 p.m. on 16.7.1996 in the area of Police Station Mulepur which is at a distance of 9 kms. from the place of occurrence i.e. Village Chanarthal Kalan. After Pritam Singh came out of the shop, he left Darshan Singh and Harbhajan Singh near the dead body and proceeded towards Police Station for lodging the FIR. The statement was recorded at Bus Stand Rurki at 8.15 p.m. The FIR was recorded at 8.30 p.m. and the same was closed at 9.15 p.m. on the same day vide Exhibit P3/2. It was clear from Exhibit P3/2 that special report was delivered to Illaqa Magistrate on the same day at 11.25 p.m. Therefore, the learned trial Court concluded that the FIR in the present case was prompt and there was no delay in lodging the FIR. No concoction and fabrication was noticed by the learned trial Court.
19. The inconsistency in the statement of Pritam Singh, PW2, as regards the place of making the statement to the police was not found to be sufficient to discard the remaining part of the statement. He was witness to the inquest report which was prepared by the Investigating Officer and Crl.Appeal No.623-DB of 2000 11 thumb marked by Pritam Singh, PW2 and Darshan Singh, PW3. Therefore, it was held that the FIR was not the outcome of investigations, deliberations and consultations, rather the FIR was recorded as a result of the statement made by the eye witness.
20. As regards the inconsistency pertaining to the attribution of weapons to the accused, the learned trial Court held that it was not possible on the part of Pritam Singh to explain as to which injury was caused by the accused individually to deceased Jarnail Kaur due to the mental shock and agony suffered by him. The argument that PW2 and PW3 were interested witnesses, was also not accepted by the learned trial Court as the accused were not strangers. Their testimonies were held to be natural. Moreover, the complainant did not have any animosity to implicate and substitute the accused in place of real culprits. As regards non-joining of independent witness, the learned trial Court held that the occurrence was proved on the basis of the cross-examination of Parampal Singh, Sarpanch, DW4.
21. In the absence of any evidence, Rani Kaur was acquitted of the charge under Section 120-B read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The participation of accused Avtar Singh was found to be doubtful by the learned trial Court. Therefore, Avtar Singh was also acquitted of the charge framed against him by extending him the benefit of doubt.
22. On behalf of accused-appellant Mangal Singh, it was argued that he had no motive to kill his own younger sister. The accused had been falsely implicated as a part of the conspiracy by the complainant in order to grab the plot. There was un-explained delay in lodging the FIR.
23. The further argument raised by the learned counsel is that there Crl.Appeal No.623-DB of 2000 12 was contradiction in the statement of PW2 and PW3 as regards the place of occurrence. As per the statement of Pritam Singh, PW2, the accused were taken into custody on the spot, whereas as per the statement of SHO Darshan Singh, PW6, accused Rani Kaur was arrested on 23.7.1996 and the other accused were arrested on 24.7.1996, i.e., after seven days of occurrence. Dispute regarding the property, i.e., the vacant plot, existed in the family.
24. In this background, it was submitted that as the deceased was not going to be the beneficiary, on that account there could be no occasion for the accused-appellants to have any grievance or ill-will against the deceased. As per the statement of Parampal Singh, DW4, the body of deceased was found lying in the fields. The present case was a case of blind murder. No independent witness was joined by the Investigating Officer. The two other eye witnesses Harbhajan Singh and Gurdip Kaur were not examined. Only the interested persons were examined. There were improvements in the statements of PW2 and PW3.
25. On behalf of appellant Surjit Singh, it was contended that the FIR had flown from the investigation and not that the FIR was registered after investigation, therefore, the investigation was tainted. The manner of arrest also indicates that the investigation was not fair. In the end, it was argued that it was a blind murder case and the accused-appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case. There was no motive to murder their sister.
26. Learned counsel for the State has argued that the eye witnesses' account is without any contradiction. Pritam Singh, PW2 was present at the Crl.Appeal No.623-DB of 2000 13 time of preparing the inquest report. From the fact, it is established that the dispute took place in the morning between the deceased and Rani Kaur. On earlier occasion, Rani Kaur had stolen ornaments of the deceased. In view of the site plan, there was no dispute regarding the place of occurrence. The FIR was lodged without any undue delay. The occurrence took place at 6.30 p.m. and the special report was received by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class at 11.25 on the same day.
27. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
28. As per the site plan, occurrence took place about 25 feet away from the residence. It is made out from the evidence that the moment deceased Jarnail Kaur stepped out of the house, the accused pounced upon her and caused fatal injuries in a most brutal and ghastly manner. The hand of the deceased was chopped off and other severe injuries with sharp edged weapon were given to the deceased.
29. It is also noticed from the fact that Rani Kaur had stolen jewellery of Jarnail Kaur. Rani Kaur had also objected to the crossing of plot in question by the deceased. On that account, Jarnail Kaur had given beatings to Rani Kaur on the day of occurrence. Immediately thereafter, Rani Kaur left the house. Her brother Mangal Singh came in the evening to avenge the beatings given by the accused to her sister Rani Kaur wife of Manjit Singh.
30. These facts sufficiently convince us that the accused-appellants had a motive to eliminate Jarnail Kaur, the deceased.
31. There is no doubt that the inconsistencies referred to above Crl.Appeal No.623-DB of 2000 14 have emerged from the record. But in the face of direct, cogent and reliable evidence of the eye witness, we ignore them as these do not go to the root of the matter. The presence of the appellant Surjit Singh at the time of occurrence also stands established from the record.
32. Human blood was found present on the weapons recovered from the accused-appellants. As per the reports, Exhibits P21 and P22 of the Chemical Examiner to Government of Punjab and Assistant Serologist and Chemical Examiner to Government of India. Even if an inference is drawn that the Investigating Officer has not properly investigated the matter and inadvertently or deliberately left some lacuna in the investigation, still no benefit can be given to the accused-appellants solely on that account.
33. From the evidence, nothing has surfaced which indicates that the accused-appellants were falsely implicated and the real culprits have not been named in the FIR.
34. The motive to eliminate the deceased in the instant case stands established. The manner in which the death of a young woman, who happened to be the real younger sister, has been caused, itself speaks the volumes about the cruel nature of the appellants. The deceased was unarmed and defenceless. The death at the hands of the persons who were duty bound to protect her is a strong pointer towards the social values having been overtaken by the lust for material possession.
35. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Satbir v. Surat Singh, 1997(3) Recent Criminal Reports 306 has observed in para 14 as under:
"The High Court lastly observed that the prosecution Crl.Appeal No.623-DB of 2000 15 failed to prove the motive it alleged for the crimes and for that purpose the High Court referred to the claim of the respective parties regarding the land. Since the evidence of the three eye- witnesses along with the FIR and the medical evidence proves the rioting and murders the question of motive pales into insignificance. We need not, therefore, dilate on the question whether the finding of the High Court in this regard is proper or not. For the self same reasons we need not discuss the other circumstantial evidence led by the prosecution in support of its case."
36. In the face of the statements of the eye witnesses which are fully corroborated, the story of false implication collapses.
37. In view of the above, the present appeals are dismissed. The judgment and order, dated 22.8.2000, passed by the learned trial Court is hereby maintained.
( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) JUDGE ( MEHTAB S. GILL ) JUDGE July 23, 2009 SRM Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No