Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bikramjit Singh @ Vicky And Another vs State Of Punjab on 8 August, 2011
Bench: S.S.Saron, Jora Singh
Crl.Appeal No. 653-DB of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.Appeal No.653-DB of 2009
Date of decision:8.8.2011
Bikramjit Singh @ Vicky and another
... Appellants
versus
State of Punjab
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SARON.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH.
Present: Mr.S.S.Rana, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr.S.S.Gill, Addl.AG, Punjab.
...
JORA SINGH, J.
This is an appeal filed by Bikramjit Singh and Tirath Singh @ Kala, appellants, to challenge the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.5.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, in Sessions Case No. 101 of 18.1.2003, arising out of FIR No.382 dated 11.9.2002 under Sections 302/449 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC-for short), Police Station Model Town, Ludhiana.
By the said judgment, the appellants were convicted under Sections 302/449 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for six months each under Section 302 IPC and to undergo RI for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for three months each under Section 449 IPC.
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant Manjit Kaur widow of Tajinder Singh is the resident of House No.569, Model Town, Crl.Appeal No. 653-DB of 2009 2 Ludhiana. Her husband had died about 11 years ago. She has one daughter, namely, Ravneet Kaur, a student of 10+1. She is a teacher. Gurnam Kaur, aged about 85 years, was the mother-in-law of the complainant. On the back of the house, there was a room and in that room, one Ashok Kumar along with his wife Meena @ Baby and his younger brother Geecha was residing. Geecha was carrying on business in the car bazar. Wife of Ashok Kumar was doing the cleaning work in the house of the complainant. After completing the cleaning work in the house of the complainant, Meena was also working in other kothis. Ashok Kumar was a Painter. On 11.9.2002 at about 7.45 a.m., the complainant had gone to her school. Ravneet Kaur, daughter of the complainant, at about 9.45 a.m. had gone to her school. Gurnam Kaur alone was in the house. There is an iron gate on the back side towards the street. At about 1.15 p.m., Ravneet Kaur came back to her house and after parking her kinetic honda, she had knocked the door of her grand mother Gurnam Kaur but there was no response from inside. In the meantime, Ashok Kumar, servant, came then she and Ashok Kumar called Gurnam Kaur but there was no response from inside of the house. Then Ravneet Kaur became suspicious and nervous. She had gone to the school of her mother and disclosed about the story. After that, complainant along with her daughter came to their house. Door of the room of Gurnam Kaur was found locked from inside. Then they had checked the main gate. Main gate was found unlocked. After going inside the house, dead body of Gurnam Kaur was found lying in her room with injuries on her person. Doors of other two rooms were also found open. House hold articles were lying scattered. Almirahs were also open. After checking, one set of gold weighing 3 tolas, one gold ring, one diamond ring and Rs.16,000/- were Crl.Appeal No. 653-DB of 2009 3 found stolen. Ravneet Kaur was deputed to guard the dead body of Gurnam Kaur. The complainant had gone to lodge a report with the police. Near Children Park, Model Town, police party headed by SI Nishan Singh met her. Statement (Ex.PA) of Manjit Kaur, complainant, was recorded. She had signed the same in token of its correctness. After making endorsement at 3.15 p.m., statement was sent to the police station, on the basis of which, formal FIR (Ex.PA/2) was recorded by ASI Tara Chand. Special report was delivered to the Ilaqa Magistrate at 6.40 p.m. on the same day.
SI Nishan Singh along with the complainant and other police officials had gone to the spot. Dog squad and Photographer were summoned. Rough site plan (Ex.PL) was prepared with its correct marginal notes. Photographer had taken the photographs of the place of occurrence. Two pillows were taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses, after the same were made into a sealed parcel, sealed with the seal bearing impression `NS'. A pair of specs was recovered from the spot and the same was taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses, after making it into a sealed parcel, sealed with the seal bearing impression `NS'. Blood was lifted from the spot and was made into a sealed parcel. Sealed parcel was taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. One aari (small saw) was also recovered from the spot and the same was made into a sealed parcel. Sealed parcel was taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. Inquest report (Ex.PM) was prepared. Dead body of Gurnam Kaur was identified by Manjit Kaur and Ravneet Kaur. Dead body was handed over to HC Girdawar Singh and HC Nirmal Singh for postmortem examination. After postmortem examination, dead body was Crl.Appeal No. 653-DB of 2009 4 handed over to the relations of the deceased for cremation. HC Girdawar Singh had produced the clothes worn by the deceased before the IO. Salwar and shirt of the deceased were made into a sealed parcel sealed with seal bearing impression `NS'. Sealed parcel was taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. On return to the police station, case property was deposited with MHC Gurmit Singh.
On 12.9.2002, Inspector Mukhwinder Singh, CIA Staff, Ludhiana, was the Investigating Officer. He had gone to the spot. Statement of Mehar Singh was recorded. Raid was conducted to apprehend the appellants but they were not available at their houses.
On 13.9.2002 at about 11.30 a.m., Surjit singh had produced the appellants before Inspector Mukhwinder Singh. Appellants were interrogated. Tirath Singh suffered disclosure statement (Ex.PW6/C) that he was wearing a T-Shirt at the time of commission of crime and the same was kept concealed in the store of his house. Only he knew about the same and could get the same recovered. Bikramjit Singh was also interrogated and in pursuance of his disclosure statement (Ex.PW6/A), he got recovered Rs.4,000/- from the specified place. Currency notes recovered were taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. Tirath Singh had also suffered a disclosure statement (Ex.PW6/B) that he has kept concealed Rs.6,000/- underneath the bed lying in his house. He knew about the same and could get the same recovered. In pursuance of his disclosure statements, he got recovered a T-Shirt and Rs.6,000/- from the specified places. Currency notes and T-Shirt recovered were taken into police possession vide separate memos attested by the witnesses. Case property was deposited with the Incharge of Malkhana.
Crl.Appeal No. 653-DB of 2009 5
On 14.9.2002, both the appellants were produced before the Magistrate and they were remanded to the police custody. Bikramjit Singh was interrogated, who in pursuance of his disclosure statement, got recovered an iron khundi from the specified place. Iron khundi was taken into police possession vide memo (Ex.PW11/L). Tirath Singh was also interrogated and in pursuance of his disclosure statement, he got recovered a karad (knife) from the specified place. Sketch of the knife was prepared. Knife was taken into police possession vide memo (Ex.PW11/M). After completion of investigation, challan was presented in Court.
As per order dated 4.1.2003 passed by JMIC, Ludhiana, case was committed to the Court of Session for trial.
After hearing learned PP for the State, learned counsel for the appellants and from the perusal of file, learned trial Court opined that a prima facie case is made out to frame charge under Sections 302/449 IPC. Charges were accordingly framed, to which the appellants did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined number of witnesses.
PW1 Manjit Kaur, complainant, has reiterated her stand before the police as per her statement (Ex.PA) dated 11.9.2002 recorded by SI Nishan Singh.
PW2 Mehar Singh stated that on 11.9.2002, he had gone to the house of Gurnam Kaur (deceased) at about 11.00 a.m. When he was entering the house of Gurnam Kaur, then the appellants were sighted while coming out of the house. At that time, Bikramjit Singh was carrying an iron walking stick (khundi). Tirath Singh was empty handed. He enquired from Crl.Appeal No. 653-DB of 2009 6 the appellants as to whether there was anybody in the house. They replied that no one was present in the house. Clothes worn by Bikramjit Singh were found stained with blood and on enquiry, Bikramjit Singh replied that he had cooked chicken and blood stains are of the chicken. On the next day when he came to know about the murder of Gurnam Kaur, then he became sure that murder was committed by the appellants.
PW3 Surjit Singh stated that on 13.9.2002, appellants came to him and made an extra judicial confession that one lady was murdered by them and requested to produce them before the police. On the same day, both the appellants were produced before the police.
PW4 Dr.Sanjeev Hans on 11.9.2002 at 6.00 p.m. had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Gurnam Kaur and found the following injuries on her person:-
"1. A lacerated wound 2-1/4" x 2", triangular in shape, bone deep with apex pointing towards face present in right parietal area, 3" above right ear. The underlying bone was fractured.
2. A lacerated wound 2-1/2" x 2" bone deep present on right side of head, 3/4" below and behind injury No.1. The underlying bone was fractured.
3. A lacerated wound 1" x 1/2" present on back of head on the right side in the occipital region.
4. An incised wound 1-1/2" x 1/4" tendon deep present horizontally on ventral aspect of right wrist. The underlying tendons were cut.
5. An incised wound 1-1/2" x 1/4" tendon deep present Crl.Appeal No. 653-DB of 2009 7 horizontally on ventral aspect of left wrist. The underlying tendons were cut.
6. A reddish blue bruise 10" x 4" present on right side of chest starting from mid axillary line and extending backwards and downwards towards right side of back. The underlying 7th, 8th, 9th ribs were broken on right side back of thoracic cavity.
7. A reddish bruise 3-1/2" x 3" triangular in shape present on right side of forehead apex pointing towards eye.
8. a reddish abrasion 1-1/2" x 1/2" present on bridge of nose and tip of nose."
Cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage on account of injuries on the head and the chest, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Injuries were ante mortem in nature. Probable duration between injuries and death was immediate and between death and postmortem examination was about 6 hours.
PW5 ASI Jaspal Singh stated that on 11.9.2002, he was with the party of SI Nishan Singh. Near Children Park, Manjit Kaur met the party. Then her statement (Ex.PA) was recorded. After that, party had gone at the spot. Two pillows, one aari (small saw), one pair of specs were lifted from the spot and were made into separate sealed parcels. Sealed parcels were taken into police possession vide separate memos attested by him and Manjit Kaur. Blood was also lifted from the floor and was made into a sealed parcel. Sealed parcel was taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by him and Manjit Kaur. Dead body of Gurnam Kaur was sent to the hospital for postmortem examination. On 16.9.2002, he was with Crl.Appeal No. 653-DB of 2009 8 the party of Inspector Mukhwinder Singh. Bikramjit Singh was interrogated and he suffered a disclosure statement. In pursuance of his disclosure statement, he got recovered one gold ring from the specified place. Gold ring was taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by him and Rakesh Dutt. Tirath Singh also suffered a disclosure statement and in view of his disclosure statement, he got recovered ear rings from the specified place, which were made into a sealed parcel. Sealed parcel was taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by him and other witnesses.
PW6 SI Rajesh Kumar stated that on 13.9.2002, Surjit Singh produced Bikramjit Singh and Tirath Singh before Inspector Mukhwinder Singh, who were the accused in FIR No. 382 under Section 460 IPC. Bikramjit Singh suffered a disclosure statement (Ex.PW6/A) that he has kept concealed Rs.4,000/- in his house and he knew about the same and could get the same recovered. In pursuance of his disclosure statement, he got recovered Rs.4,000/- from the specified place. Currency notes were taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by him. Tirath Singh was also interrogated and in pursuance of his disclosure statements (Ex.PW6/B and Ex.PW6/C), he got recovered Rs.6,000/- and a T-Shirt, respectively, from the specified places. Recovered articles were taken into police possession vide separate memos attested by him.
PW7 Constable Ram Saran prepared scaled site plan (Ex.PW7/A).
PW8 HC Harmeet Singh tendered his affidavit (Ex.PW8/A). PW9 SI Nishan Singh is the first Investigating Officer. PW10 Satnam Singh, Photographer, stated that on 11.9.2002, Crl.Appeal No. 653-DB of 2009 9 he was summoned by the police and he had taken the photographs (Ex.P10 to Ex.P19) of the place of occurrence. Negatives are Ex.P20 to Ex.P29.
PW11 DSP Mukhwinder Singh was serving as Inspector, CIA Staff, Ludhiana, on 12.9.2002. He had also investigated the present case.
PW12 Constable Surinder Singh stated that on 7.11.2002, he had deposited the sealed parcels with the Chemical Laboratory, Chandigarh.
PW13 SI Tehal Singh on 14.9.2002 was with the party of Inspector Mukhwinder Singh and in his presence, Bikramjit Singh and Tirath Singh got recovered a khundi and a knife as per their disclosure statements.
After close of the prosecution evidence, statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.-for short) All the incriminating materials appearing against the appellants were put to them. The appellants denied all the prosecution allegations and pleaded to be innocent.
Defence version of the appellants was that to solve a blind murder, they were falsely implicated. They did not suffer any disclosure statement and no recovery was got effected. Recoveries were planted to strengthen the case.
Opportunity was given to lead defence but no defence was led. After hearing learned PP for the State, learned counsel for the appellants and from the perusal of evidence on the file, appellants were convicted and sentenced as stated aforesaid.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellants, State counsel and with their assistance have gone through the evidence on the file.
Learned counsel for the appellants argued that it is a blind Crl.Appeal No. 653-DB of 2009 10 murder. There is no eye witness. There was no motive to commit the crime. When case is based on circumstantial evidence, then motive assumes importance. Ashok Kumar with his family and brother was residing in a room at the back side of the kothi. They were not joined in the investigation. No one from the neighbourhood was examined. PW2 Mehar Singh had no relation with the complainant party. Without relation, he had no reason to visit the house of the deceased. Mehar Singh was introduced simply to strengthen the story. According to the story, appellants made an extra judicial confession before PW3 Surjit Singh but Surjit Singh was not holding any respectable post. He had no say in the Police Department. There was no reason to make an extra judicial confession before Surjit Singh. Ex.PA is the statement of Manjit Kaur, complainant. One set of gold weighing 3 tolas and two gold rings were stolen but recovery is only of two gold rings. No recovery of other stolen articles. Independent witnesses were available but no one was joined. Prosecution failed to complete the chain of circumstances. Simply to solve the blind murder, the appellants were implicated.
Learned State counsel argued that the occurrence was on 11.9.2002 between 9.40 am to 1.45 pm. Matter was reported to the police at 3.15 pm on the same day. PW2 Mehar Singh at about 11.00 am had gone to the house of the deceased. When he was going to enter the house of the deceased, then the appellants were seen while coming out of the house. Tirath Singh was empty handed, whereas Bikramjit Singh was carrying a khundi. On the next day, when Mehar Singh came to know about the murder, then he was sure that the appellants had committed the crime. Matter was brought to the notice of the police but on 12.9.2002, the Crl.Appeal No. 653-DB of 2009 11 appellants were not available in their houses. On 13.9.2002, the appellants had made an extra judicial confession before PW3 Surjit Singh. The appellants were produced before Inspector Mukhwinder Singh. In pursuance of their disclosure statements suffered by the appellants, they got recovered cash and T-shirt from the specified places. On 14.9.2002, again as per different disclosure statements suffered by the appellants, they got recovered weapons, i.e., khundi and knife. On 16.9.2002, when the appellants were remanded to the police custody, then they suffered their disclosure statements. Bikramjit Singh got recovered gold ring from the specified place. Tirath Singh also got recovered ear ring from the specified place in pursuance of his disclosure statement. Recovered articles were identified by the complainant. The complainant party was not inimical towards the appellants. Without enmity, there was no reason to implicate the appellants.
First submission of learned counsel for the appellants was that the case is based on circumstantial evidence. No eye witness. So, motive assumes importance. Appellants had no motive to commit the crime. But submission of learned counsel for the appellants seems to be not correct one. The complainant is the daughter-in-law of Gurnam Kaur, who was about 85 years' old. Complainant was the widow. Her husband had died about 11 years earlier to the occurrence. Daughter of the complainant, namely, Ravneet Kaur was a student. The complainant was a teacher. She had gone to the school at about 7.45 am. After that at 9.45 am, Ravneet Kaur had gone to attend her school. Gurnam Kaur was alone in the house. On the back side of the house of the complainant, there was one room and the same was occupied by Ashok Kumar, servant. Ashok Kumar along with Crl.Appeal No. 653-DB of 2009 12 his wife and brother Geecha was residing in that room. Ashok Kumar was a painter, whereas his brother Geecha was working in the car bazar, Ludhiana. Wife of Ashok Kumar used to clean different kothis. At the time of occurrence, Gurnam Kaur was alone in the house. When Ravneet Kaur at about 1.15 pm came back from her school, then found the house locked from inside. Room of Gurnam Kaur was knocked but there was no response. Ravneet Kaur had gone to the school of her mother Manjit Kaur. After that, Manjit Kaur along with Ravneet Kaur came back to their house. After checking, dead body of Gurnam Kaur was found lying in her room. Other rooms were also found open. House hold articles were found lying scattered. Gold ornaments and cash were found missing. So, motive was to steal the valuable articles, including gold ornaments and cash. Before the present occurrence, the complainant party was not inimical towards the appellants. So, there was no reason to implicate the appellants. In the statement (Ex.PA), the appellants were not named. Motive is always in the heart of the accused and they are to see when and how the crime is to be committed. Rooms of the house of the deceased were found open. House hold articles were found lying scattered. Valuable articles were found stolen. Cash and gold rings were got recovered from the specified places by the appellants in view of their disclosure statements. So, the appellants had the motive to commit the crime.
Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that Ashok Kumar, his wife and brother were not joined in the investigation of this case. No one from the neighbourhood was examined. Ashok Kumar was occupying one room on the back side of the house. Possibility of murder by Ashok Kumar or his brother cannot be ruled out. But after going Crl.Appeal No. 653-DB of 2009 13 through the evidence on the file, we are not in a position to agree with the submission of learned counsel for the appellants. Admittedly, Ashok Kumar along with his wife and brother was occupying one room on the back side of the house of the deceased. Ashok Kumar was a painter and his brother was carrying on business in the car bazar. Wife of Ashok Kumar used to clean different kothis, including the kothi of the complainant. But no evidence on the file that Ashok Kumar, his brother and other family members were not joined in the investigation of this case. Learned counsel for the appellants should have cross-examined SI Nishan Singh or Inspector Mukhwinder Singh as to whether they have joined Ashok Kumar, his wife, his brother or any of the neighbourer in the investigation of this case or not. On 11.9.2002, investigation of this case was with SI Nishan Singh. SI Nishan Singh in his cross-examination stated that he had recorded the statements of the relatives of the deceased but did not record the statement of the neighbours. Ashok Kumar or his family members were not interrogated but after 11.9.2002, investigation of this case was with Inspector Mukhwinder Singh. No question was put to Inspector Mukhwinder Singh as to whether he had interrogated Ashok Kumar, his brother or any other member of his family; and whether he had joined the neighbours in the investigation of this case or not. If Inspector Mukhwinder Singh would have stated that Ashok Kumar, Geecha or Meena, including any of the neighbours, were not joined in the investigation of this case, then something could be said that possibility of the hand of Ashok Kumar, his brother or wife in the commission of the crime cannot be ruled out but when Inspector Mukhwinder Singh was not cross-examined as to whether Ashok Kumar or his family members and any of the neighbours were joined in the investigation of this case or not, then Crl.Appeal No. 653-DB of 2009 14 the prosecution story is not to be ignored that the appellants were implicated simply to solve the blind murder.
Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that PW2 Mehar Singh is not related to the complainant party. Therefore, he had no business to visit the house of the complainant party. Mehar Singh was introduced simply to strengthen the prosecution story but submission of learned counsel for the appellants is without any force. Mehar Singh while appearing as PW2 stated that on 11.9.2002, he had gone to the house of his aunt Gurnam Kaur. When he was entering the house of Gurnam Kaur, then the appellants were noticed while coming out of the house of Gurnam Kaur. Clothes worn by Bikramjit Singh were found to be stained with blood. He was carrying an iron walking stick (khundi). Tirath Singh was empty handed. He had enquired from the appellants as to whether any one was inside the house. Then the appellants replied that no one was in the house. He had enquired from the appellants as to why blood stains on the clothes worn by Bikramjit Singh, then Bikramjit Singh replied that he had cooked chicken and blood stains of chicken were on his clothes. Mehar Singh was not cross-examined as to how he is related to the deceased. Learned defence counsel could easily enquire from Mehar Singh as to whether Gurnam Kaur was related to him or not. Whether Gurnam Kaur was from his neighbourhood. Suppose, Mehar Singh was not related to the deceased, even then there was no bar to visit the house of the deceased. Mehar Singh should have been cross-examined as to for what purpose, he had gone to the house of the deceased. Mehar Singh had no enmity with the appellants. In cross-examination, Mehar Singh stated that the appellants used to meet him in the house of Gurnam Kaur whenever he visited her house. They Crl.Appeal No. 653-DB of 2009 15 were known to him earlier. Therefore, statement of Mehar Singh inspires confidence and there is nothing to presume that he was introduced simply to strengthen the prosecution story.
Next submission of learned counsel for the appellants was that the story regarding extra judicial confession made by the appellants before PW3 Surjit Singh is not probable because Surjit Singh was not holding any respectable post. He had no say in the police department. But submission of learned counsel for the appellants carries little weight. PW3 Surjit Singh was owning a medical store situated in Model Town, Ludhiana. He stated that the appellants were known to him because they used to work with Bhatia Cable and also used to visit his shop to purchase medicines. The appellants made an extra judicial confession that one lady, who was residing in Model Town, has died at their hands. Gold ornaments and cash were stolen from the house. They hit an iron rod on the head of that old lady. The appellants were produced before the police. A suggestion was given to the witness that he is a stock witness but there is no evidence on the file that Surjit Singh had earlier appeared as a prosecution witness in any case. He was owning a medical store. The appellants used to visit his shop for purchase of the medicines. Police officials were also expected to visit the medical store of Surjit Singh. A suggestion was given to Surjit Singh that he was having acquaintance with the police. When the appellants had the knowledge that Surjit Singh had acquaintance with the police, then they approached him and made an extra judicial confession. On the same day, Surjit Singh had produced the appellants before the police. No suggestion was put to the IO that Surjit Singh had not produced the appellants before the police. Surjit Singh was not inimical towards the appellants. He was Crl.Appeal No. 653-DB of 2009 16 not related to the complainant party. So, there was no reason to introduce Surjit Singh with the allegation that the appellants made an extra judicial confession before him. If Surjit Singh was to be introduced to strengthen the prosecution story, then he should have stated that firstly, Bikramjit Singh made an extra judicial confession that he along with Tirath Singh had murdered Gurnam Kaur, resident of House No. 569, Model Town, Ludhiana, and after that, Tirath Singh made an extra judicial confession that he along with Bikramjit Singh had murdered Gurnam Kaur, resident of House No. 569, Model Town, Ludhiana. Instead of saying so, Surjit Singh stated that the appellants made an extra judicial confession that one old lady resident of Model Town has died at their hands. Number of the house was not told by them, where the old lady was residing. As discussed earlier, occurrence was on 11.9.2002. Immediately after the occurrence, the appellants were seen while coming out of the house of Gurnam Kaur by PW2 Mehar Singh. On 12.9.2002, as per the statement of Mehar Singh, police came to know about the names of the appellants. Police was after the appellants. Then to avoid torture at the hands of the police, the appellants approached PW3 Surjit Singh and made an extra judicial confession. Immediately after the extra judicial confession, both the appellants were produced before Inspector Mukhwinder Singh. Statement of Surjit Singh shows that the prosecution story is genuine one.
Next submission of learned counsel for the appellants was that the independent witnesses were available but no one was joined. Recovery is in the presence of police officials. But after going through the evidence on the file, we are of the opinion that submission of learned counsel for the appellants carries little weight. Inspector Mukhwinder Singh, IO (PW11) in Crl.Appeal No. 653-DB of 2009 17 his cross-examination stated that an effort was made to join independent witness but no body was willing to join the party. On 13.9.2002, both the appellants were interrogated. Appellant Bikramjit Singh as per his disclosure statement (Ex.PW6/A) got recovered Rs.4,000/- from the specified place. Recovered currency notes were taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. Appellant Tirath Singh also suffered disclosure statements (Ex.PW6/B and Ex.PW6/C) and in pursuance of his disclosure statements, he got recovered Rs.6,000/- and a T-Shirt, found to be stained with blood, from the specified places. Recovered currency notes and T-Shirt were taken into police possession vide separate memos attested by the witnesses, after the same were made into separate sealed parcels.
On 14.9.2002, Bikramjit Singh as per his disclosure statement got recovered a khundi stained with blood from the specified place. Sketch of the khundi was prepared. Khundi was taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. Tirath Singh got recovered a knife stained with blood from the specified place as per his disclosure statement. Knife was made into a sealed parcel. Sealed parcel was taken into police possession. PW6 SI Rajesh Kumar is the recovery witness.
The appellants were produced in the Court. They were remanded to the police custody. Appellant Bikramjit Singh in pursuance of his disclosure statement (Ex.PG) got recovered one gold ring from the specified place in the presence of Rakesh Dutt, PW, and PW5 ASI Jaspal Singh. The recovered gold ring was taken into police possession vide memo (Ex.PJ) after the same was made into a sealed parcel. Appellant Tirath Singh in pursuance of his disclosure statement (Ex.PH) got recovered Crl.Appeal No. 653-DB of 2009 18 ear ring. The recovered ear ring was taken into police possession vide memo (Ex.PK) after the same was made into a sealed parcel. `Dhira Singh and Sons Jewellers' and `Pindi Jewellers' was written on the purse containing ear ring.
Recovered articles were mixed with the articles of similar nature. Then complainant Manjit Kaur in the presence of Dharambir Singh had identified the articles of gold. The complainant while appearing as PW1 then in her examination-in-chief stated that on checking, one set of gold weighing 3 tolas, one diamond ring, one gold ring and a pair of ear ring along with Rs.16,000/- were found missing. On the set of gold weighing 3 tolas, `Dhira Singh and Sons' was engraved. She has not stated that on the rings word `MK' was engraved or not. She has specifically stated that gold ring (Ex.P7), ear ring (Ex.P9) and purse (Ex.P8) are the same, which were stolen from her house at the time of commission of the crime. PW5 ASI Jaspal Singh, who is one of the recovery witnesses, in his cross- examination stated that word `MK' was not engraved on the rings recovered as per the disclosure statements. Complainant Manjit Kaur in her cross- examination stated that she has not produced any bill or document regarding the ownership of the articles stolen from her house because the same were given to her by her parents. No suggestion was given to her that she is not the owner of the rings (Ex.P7 and Ex.P9). PW9 SI Nishan Singh had effected the recovery of the rings but no question was put to him that the independent witnesses were available and without any reason, no one was joined. In case, independent witnesses were available and no one was joined, then on this short ground, the prosecution story is not to be ignored.
On 11.9.2002, two pillows and one aari (small saw) were lifted Crl.Appeal No. 653-DB of 2009 19 from the spot and were taken into police possession after the same were made into separate sealed parcels. Appellant Tirath Singh got recovered a T-Shirt from the specified place in pursuance of his disclosure statement. T-Shirt was made into a sealed parcel and then taken into police possession vide separate memo. Sealed parcels were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Ex.PT is the report of the laboratory. As per report (Ex.PT), pillows, aari, T-Shirt, khundi and chhuri were found to be stained with human blood. As discussed earlier, when the appellants were found coming out of the house of the deceased, then PW2 Mehar Singh had noticed stains of blood on the clothes worn by Bikramjit Singh. He has not stated a word that Tirath Singh was wearing T-Shirt at that time and there was no stain of blood on the T-Shirt. As per reply of the appellants, blood stains were of chicken but according to the report (Ex.PT), human blood was noticed on the T-Shirt and Khundi. Therefore, report (Ex.PT) of the laboratory shows that the statement of PW2 Mehar Singh, who had seen the appellants while coming out of the house of the deceased, is correct one.
Last submission of learned counsel for the appellants was that at the time of commission of the crime, appellant Bikramjit Singh was a juvenile but after going through the evidence on the file, we are of the view that submission of learned counsel for the appellants is without any force. On 13.9.2002, Bikramjit Singh was arrested. At the time of arrest, no objection that he (Bikramjit Singh) is a juvenile. During trial, an application was moved that appellant Bikramjit Singh and Tirath Singh @ Kala are juvenile. Date of birth of Bikramjit Singh is 13.11.1986. He was less than 16 years of age. Tirath Singh, is also a juvenile. Along with the application, photocopy of the certificate of 5th standard of Birkramjit Singh Crl.Appeal No. 653-DB of 2009 20 was attached. According to the certificate, date of birth of Bikramjit Singh is 13.11.1986. After recording the evidence of both the sides in support of the application, ultimately, application was dismissed vide order dated 19.8.2008. Against the order dated 19.8.2008, passed by the trial Court, there is no appeal or revision. Order attained finality.
During the pendency of the appeal CRM No. 3529 of 2010, was moved by Bikramjit Singh @ Vicky, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 391 Cr.P.C. with a request to allow him to produce the date of birth certificate as well as school certificate, Annexure A-1 and A-2 but in the photocopy of the certificate issued by Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, Annexure A-1 name of the appellant was not written. Certificate simply shows that date of birth of one son of Joginder Singh and Kuldip Kaur is 13.11.1986. Second certificate is of middle standard examination of Bikramjit Singh but in the certificate address of Bikramjit Singh was not mentioned. First of all birth certificate of Bikramjit Singh is not on the file. At the time of arrest, Bikramjit Singh, told the police that he is the resident of H.No. 2318/2B, Indira Colony, Abdulpur Basti, Ludhiana but in both the certificates i.e. Annexure A-1 and A-2, complete address of Bikramjit Singh is not given. At the time of framing of charge Bikramjit Singh, told that he is 23 years old. At the time of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he told that he is 27 years old. In the absence of birth certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation or chowkidar when complete address is not mentioned then we are of the view that submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that Bikramjit Singh was juvenile at the time of commission of offence is without any force.
For the reasons recorded above, we are of the view that Crl.Appeal No. 653-DB of 2009 21 evidence on the file was rightly scrutinized by the learned trial Court. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and the same is upheld.
Appeal without merit is dismissed.
( JORA SINGH )
JUDGE
8.8.2011 ( S.S.SARON )
pk JUDGE