Punjab-Haryana High Court
***** vs State Of Haryana on 9 February, 2010
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Jora Singh
Crl. Appeal No. 718-DB of 2005
Crl. Appeal No. 776-DB of 2005
Crl. Revision No. 1454 of 2006 :1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
*****
Crl. Appeal No. 718-DB of 2005
Date of decision : February 9, 2010
*****
Anuj Bajaj
............appellant
Versus
State of Haryana
...........respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 776-DB of 2005
*****
Ravinder Pal
............appellant
Versus
State of Haryana
...........respondent
Crl. Revision No. 1454 of 2006
Date of decision : February 9, 2010
*****
Jodh Singh
............appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...........respondents
*****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH
Crl. Appeal No. 718-DB of 2005
Crl. Appeal No. 776-DB of 2005
Crl. Revision No. 1454 of 2006 :2:
*****
Present: Mr. Vijay Kumar Jindal, Advocate for the appellant.
(In Crl. Appeal No.718-DB of 2005)
Mr. N.K Sanghi, Advocate for the appellant.
(In Crl. Appeal No. 776-DB of 2005)
Mr. I.S Brar, Advocate for the petitioner.
(In Crl. Revision No. 1454 of 2006)
Mr. S.S Randhawa, Additional Advocate General,
Haryana.
*****
JORA SINGH, J.
Crl. Appeal No. 718-DB of 2005 was preferred by Anuj Bajaj son of Ved Parkash, Crl. Appeal No.776-DB of 2005 was preferred by Ravinder Pal alias Bittu son of Inder Singh to challenge the Judgment dated 6.9.2005 rendered by Sessions Judge, Sirsa in Sessions Case No.56 of 2003 arising out of FIR No.693 dated 4.9.2003 registered under Sections 302/376/201 IPC at Police Station City Sirsa. By this Judgment, they were convicted under Sections 376(2) (g), 302/34 and 201 IPC and were sentenced as under:
" i) to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- each for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 IPC. In default of payment of fine, each accused shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years.
ii) To undergo rigoruos imprisonment for a period of Crl. Appeal No. 718-DB of 2005 Crl. Appeal No. 776-DB of 2005 Crl. Revision No. 1454 of 2006 :3: ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) IPC and in default of payment of fine, shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years.
iii) To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC."
All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Accused Kailash Sharma was acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Against acquittal of Kailash Sharma, no appeal has been filed by the State.
Crl. Revision No. 1454 of 2006 was preferred by Jodh Singh son of Pala Singh to modify the impugned Judgment and punish Anuj Bajaj and Ravinder Pal with death penalty.
In brief, case of the prosecution, is that on 4.9.2003, at about 1.15 p.m, Balwinder Singh, complainant on a motorcycle had gone towards his land situated in the revenue estate of Shamshabad Patti, Sirsa. When he was near the cotton field then he sighted a bundle duly tied by the side of road in the cotton crop fields. After stopping his motorcycle, he checked the bundle. Dead body of a lady with injuries on her person was noticed in the bundle. Her feet and hands were found tied with a black chunni. Dead body was tied with a chadar (bed sheet). An effort was made to identify the dead body by sending message to the nearby colonies. A pair of chappals Crl. Appeal No. 718-DB of 2005 Crl. Appeal No. 776-DB of 2005 Crl. Revision No. 1454 of 2006 :4: of black colour was also lying near the dead body. Balwinder Singh had gone to lodge report with the police. On the bridge of canal near Lord Shiva College, police party headed by ASI, Pyare Lal had met the complainant. Statement of Balwinder Singh Ex.PF was recorded by Pyare Lal, ASI. Statement was read over and explained to Balwinder Singh, who had signed the same in token of its correctness. After making endorsement at 2:20 p.m, statement was sent to the police station on the basis of which, formal FIR was recorded.
ASI, Pyare Lal along with the complainant had gone to the spot. Blood stained earth was lifted and the same was made into a sealed parcel. Chunni of black colour, a pair of chappals and one bed sheet stained with blood were made into separate sealed parcels. Sealed parcels were taken into police possession vide recovery memo attested by the witnesses. Rough site plan with correct marginal notes was prepared. Inquest Report Ex. PK was prepared. Dead body of unknown female was shifted to General Hospital, Sirsa for post mortem examination. Hari Chand and Surjit Singh had identified the dead body in the hospital as of Sunita alias Seetu. Supplementary request for post mortem examination Ex.PL/1 was made. Doctors of General Hospital, Sirsa after examining the dead body of Sunita alias Seetu referred the same to PGIMS, Rohtak for post mortem examination. From General Hospital, Sirsa, dead body was shifted to PGIMS, Rohtak for post mortem examination. After post mortem examination, doctor had handed over sealed parcels along with the police papers to ASI, Pyare Lal. Dead body Crl. Appeal No. 718-DB of 2005 Crl. Appeal No. 776-DB of 2005 Crl. Revision No. 1454 of 2006 :5: was handed over to the relations of the deceased for cremation. On return to the police station near bus stand Sirsa, sealed parcels along with the police papers were produced before SI, Panjab Singh.
On 4.9.2003, investigation of the case was with SI, Panjab Singh. Sealed parcels were deposited by SI, Panjab Singh with the incharge of malkhana.
On 12.9.2003, SI Panjab Singh had recorded the statements of Mohit Rattan, PW-7 and Avinash, PW-8. An effort was made to arrest the accused and on 12.9.2003, Anuj Bajaj, Kailash Sharma and Ravinder Pal were arrested in this case. Accused were interrogated and after interrogation of the accused, SI, Panjab Singh had gone to the place of occurrence i.e a room situated in Additional Mandi Sirsa. After inspecting the room, a piece of tarpaulin stained with blood was lifted. Same was made into a sealed parcel and the parcel was taken into police possession vide separate memo Ex. PZ attested by the witnesses.
On 13.9.2003, accused were interrogated. Ravinder Pal suffered disclosure statement Ex.PV and in pursuance of the disclosure statement got recovered motorcycle, bed sheet and string from the specified place. Bed sheet and string were sealed separately. Sealed parcels and motorcycle were taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. Anuj Bajaj was also interrogated and in pursuance of the disclosure statement suffered by him, he got recovered bicycle of the deceased from the specified place and the same was taken into police possession vide separate memo Ex. PU attested by the witnesses. Crl. Appeal No. 718-DB of 2005 Crl. Appeal No. 776-DB of 2005 Crl. Revision No. 1454 of 2006 :6: On 18.9.2003, accused were produced before Medical Officer at General Hospital, Sirsa with a request Ex.PB to take the blood samples of the accused for DNA test. A Board was constituted and blood samples of the accused were taken. Sealed parcels of the blood samples were deposited with the in charge of the laboratory. On 20.9.2003, three sealed parcels, one sealed parcel containing a blood stained bed sheet, second sealed parcel containing blood samples of all the accused persons prepared by the Board for DNA test and the third sealed parcel containing slides and vaginal swabs of the deceased taken at the time of post mortem examination were deposited in the Laboratory at Hyderabad.
After the completion of investigation, accused were challaned. Accused were charged under Sections 376(2)(g), 302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to prove its case, prosecution examined nineteen witnesses.
PW-1, Dr. V.K Mahipal stated that on 17.9.2003, as per police request, Ex.PA, Ravinder Pal, Anuj Bajaj and Kailash Sharma were medico-legally examined and they were found fully fit to perform sexual intercourse.
PW-2, Dr. Viresh Bhushan, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Sirsa stated that on 18.9.2003, accused in custody were produced with a request to take their blood samples for DNA test. Board of doctors was constituted. Blood samples were taken separately and the samples were sealed. Sealed parcels were Crl. Appeal No. 718-DB of 2005 Crl. Appeal No. 776-DB of 2005 Crl. Revision No. 1454 of 2006 :7: handed over to the police.
PW-3, SI, Kulwant Singh, on receipt of ruqa Ex.PF had recorded the formal FIR and had sent Special Report to the Ilaqa Magistrate.
PW-4, Jagdev Singh had prepared scaled site plan Ex.PG.
PW-5, Constable Kuldip Kumar stated that he had gone to the spot, where dead body was lying. Photographs of the dead body were taken. Same are Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and negatives are Ex.P5 to Ex.P8.
PW-6, Head Constable, Somvir Singh tendered his affidavit Ex.PH.
PW-7, Mohit Rattan stated that in the month of September 2003, he was a student of Agriculture Engineering Diplma, IIIrd Semester in Govt. Polytechnic College Sirsa. He along with Pardeep, Ved Parkash and Vikram Gujjar had taken two rooms on rent situated at Anaj Mandi, Sirsa. In the morning at 8:30 a.m, they used to go to the college and return at around 8:00/8:30 P.M. They used to take their breakfast, lunch and dinner in the mess of Polytechnic college. They had no cots and used to sleep on the carpets after spreading the same on the floor. On 3.9.2003 at about 8:30 a.m, when he was taking breakfast in the mess of Polytechnic College, Anuj Bajaj came and requested him to deliver the keys of his room as he has to entertain his friends. He handed over the keys of the room to Anuj Bajaj. At noon time, Anuj Bajaj again came on a Crl. Appeal No. 718-DB of 2005 Crl. Appeal No. 776-DB of 2005 Crl. Revision No. 1454 of 2006 :8: motorcycle with Ravinder Pal. Both requested him not to visit the room during the day time along with his colleagues and return late in the night. He requested Anuj Bajaj to bring his bag containing wearing clothes. After sometime, Anuj Bajaj came with bag and money and after handing over the same had left the college premises. After dinner in the college mess, he along with Puneet went to Ambar Guest House, Sirsa, whereas Vikram, Ved Parkash and Pardeep went to the rented room late at night. Thereafter he along with Puneet also went to their room. At that time, Pardeep, Vikram and Ved Parkash were sleeping on the roof of the room. Carpet was found wet and his both bed sheets were found missing. On the next day, he had enquired from Anuj Bajaj about missing bed sheets. Anuj Bajaj replied that Ravinder Pal had taken away the bed sheets as he had liked them. An amount of Rs.150/- was given to him as the price of the bed sheets with a request to pay the remaining price later on. After that he had gone to his house at Kurukshetra. Ex.P-9 is the bed sheet which was found missing from the room.
PW-8, Avinash stated that on 3.9.2003 at 8:30/8:45 a.m, Ravinder Pal alias Bittu and Seetu daughter of Jodh Singh resident of village Nejadela Kalan were seen while present near Arorwansh chowk. Anuj Bajaj was also present there on a motorcycle. Ravinder Pal alias Bittu and Anuj Bajaj had gone towards Janta Bhawan, Sirsa on a motorcycle and Seetu followed them on a bicycle.
PW-9, Balwinder Singh is the complainant.
Crl. Appeal No. 718-DB of 2005 Crl. Appeal No. 776-DB of 2005 Crl. Revision No. 1454 of 2006 :9: PW-10, Hanuman Singh had prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PG.
PW-11, Om Parkash, Inspector stated that after the completion of the investigation, accused were challaned. Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C was presented in the Court.
PW-12, ASI, Pyare Lal had initially investigated the case. PW-13, Dr. Vijay P. Khanagwal stated that on 5.9.2003 at about 10;30 a.m, had conducted post mortem examination on the body of Sunita alias Seetu. Body was identified by Hari Chand and Surjit Singh and observed as under:
"The length of the body 170 cms. The body was found to be wrapped in a transparent polythene sheet and a white sheet of cloth. It was wearing (1) one half sleeved black printed kameez with pink, red bluish and yellow flowery design. (2) one white coloured smeez underneath the kameez (3) one white brassier with the hooks intact and closed in situ (4) one black printed salwar of similar cloth as that of kameez with the nada tied in sity. (5) one white metallic kara around right wrist (6) one white metallic and one brownish metallic kara around left wrist. (7) one metallic ear ring in the louble of each ear. (8) one yellow metallic nosepin left ala of nose (9) one brownish yellow metallic ring in the left ring finger with SHITU inscribed over it. (10) one black sacred thread around neck with one Crl. Appeal No. 718-DB of 2005 Crl. Appeal No. 776-DB of 2005 Crl. Revision No. 1454 of 2006 :10: white metallic symbolic kirpan, a white metallic sexbonal desinged religious mark and a creamy small comb."
All the injuries were found to be ante mortem in nature. Cause of death was smothering. Probable time that elapsed between death and post mortem was within 36 to 48 hours PW-14, Constable Ram Kumar tendered his affidavit Ex.PS. PW-15, Jodh Singh is the father of the deceased and stated that his daughter Sunita @ Seetu aged about 19 years was a student of first year in ITI Sirsa. On 3.9.2003, she had gone on a bicycle to attend the class but failed to return. On the next day, he came to know that an unclaimed dead body was brought to Civil Hospital, Sirsa. He along with his relatives had gone to Civil Hospital, Sirsa and the dead body of Sunita was found lying in the mortuary at Civil Hospital, Sirsa. Hari Chand and Surjit Singh had also identified the dead body.
PW-16, Sohan Singh stated that on 13.9.2003, Ravinder Pal, Anuj Bajaj and Kailash were interrogated in his presence. In pursuance of the disclosure statement, Ravinder Pal got recovered blood stained bed sheet and a string of Pyjama. Same were made into separate sealed parcels. Parcels were taken into police possession vide separate memos attested by the witnesses.
PW-17, Inspector Panjab Singh had investigated the case in hand from 4.9.2003 onwards.
Crl. Appeal No. 718-DB of 2005 Crl. Appeal No. 776-DB of 2005 Crl. Revision No. 1454 of 2006 :11: PW-18, Dr. Hans Raj Basir stated that on 4.9.2003, a board of doctors was constituted for conducting post mortem examination on the dead body of Sunita. Body was identified by Hari Chand and Surjit Singh. Dead body was examined at 5:30 p.m on 4.9.2003 and was observed as under:
"............it was a dead body of a young female wearing black printed salwar, kameej and white undershirt and bra, golden colour ear rings in both ear lobules, a white metallic kara in both the forearms, a black thread around the neck with a small comb and two metallic sheets symbolizing some religious customs, a metallic silver coloured ring in left ring finger bearing name `Situ' in English. It was decomposed swollen dead body with blackening of face and neck with multiple blisters on both upper limbs and upper part of the body.
Tongue was protruding out. To the best of our opinion the cause of death in this case could not be ascertained and concluded at this level. Hence the body of deceased with all its belongings and police papers numbering 1 to 14 were sent to PGIMS, Rothak for necessary action........."
PW-19, Dr. D.S Negi, Technical Examiner, CDFD, Hyderabad submitted DNA report Ex.PDD.
After close of the prosecution evidence, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused denied Crl. Appeal No. 718-DB of 2005 Crl. Appeal No. 776-DB of 2005 Crl. Revision No. 1454 of 2006 :12: all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent.
Defence version of Ravinder Pal is that he did not commit any crime. He was falsely implicated in this case at the instance of the complainant who was inimical towards him.
Defence version of Anuj Bajaj is that he was falsely implicated in this case due to political pressure and connections of the culprits with the high ups of the party in power in Haryana.
Opportunity was given to lead defence. But no defence was led.
After hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State, learned counsel for the accused and from the perusal of the evidence on file, trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants vide the impugned judgment.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellants, revisionist and State counsel and have gone through the evidence on the file.
Learned counsel for Anuj Bajaj argued that case is based on circumstantial evidence. There is no eye witness. First circumstance to connect the appellants with the crime is the statement of Avinash qua last seen. But statement of Avinash inspires no confidence because he did not name Anuj Bajaj. He was not known to the appellants. Appellants are not from the village of Avinash. Appellant being a student had not gone to his shop to take food. So for the first time in Court, Avinash stated that deceased was seen last time in the company of the appellants. On 11.9.2003, a news was published in the newspaper regarding recovery of dead Crl. Appeal No. 718-DB of 2005 Crl. Appeal No. 776-DB of 2005 Crl. Revision No. 1454 of 2006 :13: body and a bicycle. Whereas evidence is to the effect that bicycle was recovered in pursuance of the disclosure statement suffered by Anuj Bajaj on 16.9.2003. DNA report on the file is silent qua Anuj Bajaj. Statement of Mohit Rattan, PW-7 is concocted and unnatural. In fact Mohit Rattan is the main accused. Crime was committed in the room of Mohit Rattan. Parents of Mohit were politically sound. They were supporter of the party in power in Haryana. According to the story, room was taken on rent with the help of Ravinder Pal. Three other students namely, Pardeep, Vikram and Ved Parkash were found sleeping in the room on the day of occurrence. But they were not joined in the investigation of the case. Blood samples of the above said students were also not taken for DNA test. Two bed sheets were found missing from the room. One was recovered along with the dead body but that bed sheet was not shown to Mohit Rattan as to whether the same was missing from his room. To save Mohit Rattan, story was concocted that key of his room was taken by the appellants and in that room, crime was committed.
Learned counsel for Ravinder Pal argued that DNA report alone is not sufficient for implicating the appellants. Evidence is missing as to who is the owner of bed sheet Ex.P-10. If Ex.P-10 was found missing from the room of Mohit then bed sheet should have been shown to Mohit when he appeared in the Court. No evidence that deceased was raped because swabs were taken but no semen was noticed. As per story, deceased had relations with Ravinder Pal, appellant. If Ravinder Pal had relations with the deceased then in that case Ravinder Pal was not expected to rape the deceased and Crl. Appeal No. 718-DB of 2005 Crl. Appeal No. 776-DB of 2005 Crl. Revision No. 1454 of 2006 :14: allow his friends to rape her forcibly. Prosecution failed to establish that the dead body recovered was of Seetu daughter of Jodh Singh. Body was identified by Hari Chand and Surjit Singh but they were not examined. According to the PW-13,Dr. Vijay P. khanagwal, length of dead body was 170 cm meaning thereby length of body was 5'-8". According to the inquest report length of the dead body was 5'-3". Prosecution was not in a position to explain how the length of dead body had increased from 5-3" to 5-8". As per disclosure statement string (nada) was recovered. But death was due to smothering. There was no need to affect recovery of nada. On 3.9.2003, deceased had gone to attend class but failed to return and on the next date, dead body was recovered. At the time of recovery, dead body was found to be decomposed. Within two days, dead body cannot be decomposed. Evidence was led that sedative was given when the deceased was raped but as per report of the chemical examiner, sedative was not detected. A piece of tarpaulin was also taken into police possession from the room of Mohit Rattan but no explanation why the same was not sent to the laboratory and why only two bed sheets were sent for DNA Test. In fact, father of the deceased was inimical towards Ravinder Pal. To save the real culprits who had connection with the political party in power, appellants were implicated by introducing one witness of last seen and another witness for providing a room to commit the crime.
State counsel argued that deceased Seetu daughter of Jodh Singh is the resident of Village Nejadela Kalan. Ravinder Pal one of the appellants is also from the same village. Anuj Bajaj is Crl. Appeal No. 718-DB of 2005 Crl. Appeal No. 776-DB of 2005 Crl. Revision No. 1454 of 2006 :15: from Karnal. Deceased was the student of ITI, Sirsa. Ravinder Pal, Anuj Bajaj and Mohit Rattan were also the students of Polytechnic College, Sirsa. Ravinder Pal had relation with the deceased. Appellants arranged a room to commit the crime. On 3.9.2003 at about 8:30/8:45 p.m, Avinash owner of chicken corner had noticed the appellants with the deceased. Both the appellants were on a motorcycle. Deceased was following them on a bicycle. Avinash also belonged to Nejadela Kalan. On the next day i.e 4.9.2003, dead body of the deceased was noticed by Balwinder Singh. Intimation was given to the police. While preparing inquest report Ex.PK, a pair of chappals, chadar and chunni of black colour were also recovered along with the dead body. Recovered articles were made into sealed parcels. Body was shifted to Civil Hospital, Sirsa where the body was identified by Hari Chand and Surjit Singh. Father of the deceased had also identified the dead body in Civil Hospital, Sirsa. Appellants were arrested on 12.9.2003. In pursuance of the disclosure statement suffered by Anuj Bajaj, bicycle of the deceased was recovered. Bicycle was identified by Jodh Singh. Ravinder Pal got recovered his motorcycle string and chadar. Blood samples of the appellants were taken for DNA test. As per report, DNA profile of the blood present on the bed sheet recovered on the dead body was found matching with the DNA profile of Ravinder Pal. Mohit Rattan is the resident of Kurukshetra. He had no enmity with the appellants. So statement of Avinash qua last seen, statement of Mohit Rattan, DNA report Ex.PDD and recovery of bicycle shows that circumstantial evidence leads to this conclusion that the appellants Crl. Appeal No. 718-DB of 2005 Crl. Appeal No. 776-DB of 2005 Crl. Revision No. 1454 of 2006 :16: are the only accused who had committed the crime.
Admittedly, present case was a blind murder. There was no eye witness who had seen the appellants while committing the crime. Case is based on circumstantial evidence. Evidence is to be seen with great care and caution as to whether prosecution has led cogent and convincing evidence for completing the chain of circumstantial evidence to connect the appellants with the crime.
First circumstance to connect the appellants with the crime is the statement of Avinash proprietor of a chicken corner appearing as PW-8. Avinash is the resident of village Nejadela Kalan. Basically he was from Punjab. Few years before the present occurrence he had shifted to village Nejadela Kalan. Seetu (deceased) and accused Ravinder Pal alias Bittu were the residents of the same village. Avinash stated that on 3.9.2003 at about 8:30/8:45 a.m, both the appellants were seen on a motorcycle with the deceased on a bicycle. Deceased was last time seen in the company of the appellants. On the next day, he came to Punjab and when he went back on 11.9.2003 then he came to know about the occurrence. Avinash is not related to Jodh Singh. He was not inimical towards the appellants. No doubt, Anuj Bajaj is from Karnal and he had not taken food at the shop of Avinash but Anuj Bajaj was seen with Ravinder Pal resident of Village Nejadela Kalan with the deceased. Avinash did not report to the police or the complainant because up to 11.9.2003, he had no knowledge that the crime was committed by the appellants. After seeing the appellants with the deceased in the morning on 3.9.2003, Avinash came to Punjab and Crl. Appeal No. 718-DB of 2005 Crl. Appeal No. 776-DB of 2005 Crl. Revision No. 1454 of 2006 :17: went back to Sirsa on 11.9.2003 and then he came to know about the occurrence after that his statement was recorded by the police. But he is not inimical towards the appellants then no reason to disbelieve him simply on the allegation that he did not report the matter to the police or the complainant. Something could be said if from 3.9.2003 till his statement, he was in Sirsa.
Second circumstance to connect the appellants with the crime is the statement of Mohit Rattan, PW-7. Mohit Rattan was the student of Polytechnic College, Sirsa. He along with Pardeep, Ved Parkash and Vikram had taken two rooms on rent. On the day of occurrence, he was in the college at about 8:00/8:30 a.m, when Anuj Bajaj contacted him with a request to supply the key of his room. Mohit Rattan had supplied the key of his room to Anuj Bajaj. He was also requested not to return to his room till late night. After dinner, firstly he along with Puneet had gone to Amber Guest house, after that he had gone to his room. Pardeep, Ved Parkash and Vikram were found sleeping on the roof of the room. Two bed sheets from the room were found missing. He came to know about the occurrence on 9.9.2003. Mohit Rattan admitted that he was interrogated by the police on 12.9.2003 in the office of the Principal of the College. Statement of Mohit Rattan seems to be reasonable one because he was also student of Polytechnic College along with the appellants. After the death of Sunita, student of ITI, there was a strike in all the colleges of Sirsa. Two bed sheets were found missing from his room. One bed sheet Ex.P-10 was recovered along with dead body from the fields of Balwinder Singh, complainant. Crl. Appeal No. 718-DB of 2005 Crl. Appeal No. 776-DB of 2005 Crl. Revision No. 1454 of 2006 :18: Second bed sheet was recovered on 16.9.2003 in pursuance of the disclosure statement suffered by Ravinder Pal. No doubt prosecution has not examined, Pardeep, Ved Parkash and Vikram but due to non-examination of the above said students, statements of both the witnesses are not to be ignored. When no suggestion was given to Mohit Rattan that appellant-party was not known to him. Question is why Mohit Rattan deposed against his colleagues. Mohit Rattan had no litigation with the appellants. No suggestion that there was party faction in the college. Statement of Mohit Rattan inspires confidence and was rightly accepted.
Dead body was recovered on 4.9.2003 from the fields of Balwinder Singh, complainant. Along with the dead body, bed sheet was also recovered. Appellants were arrested on 12.9.2003. Ravinder Pal as per disclosure statement got recovered his motorcycle, which was used in the commission of the crime. A chadar and a string were also got recovered. Articles recovered in pursuance of the disclosure statement, were taken into police possession. Anuj Bajaj, as per prosecution story, in pursuance of the disclosure statement, got recovered bicycle of the deceased Ex.P13 on 16.9.2003 which was also taken into police possession vide separate memo. Jodh Singh father of the deceased was present at the time of recovery of bicycle and stated that same is of the deceased which she used to ply to visit ITI.
After arrest of the appellants, blood samples were taken for DNA tests. Ex.PDD is the report of the laboratory. As per report DNA profile of the fluid present on the bed sheet Ex.P10 was found Crl. Appeal No. 718-DB of 2005 Crl. Appeal No. 776-DB of 2005 Crl. Revision No. 1454 of 2006 :19: matching with the DNA profile of Ravinder Pal. No doubt bed sheet Ex.P10 was not shown to Mohit Rattan but bed sheet was recovered along with the dead body. DNA report alone is not sufficient for conviction of the appellants but report corroborates the case of the prosecution. Bicycle Ex.P-13 was recovered on 16.9.2003 as per disclosure statement suffered by Anuj Bajaj. No explanation from the side of the appellants as to how bicycle of the deceased came into their possession.
Next contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that no evidence on the file that dead body recovered on 4.9.2003 from the fields of Balwinder Singh was of the daughter of Jodh Singh because as per inquest report, length of the body was 5'-3" and according to the post mortem report, length of the body was 5'-8". Dead body was identified by Hari Chand and Surjit Singh, who were not examined. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants carries no weight because dead body of unidentified female was recovered from the fields of Balwinder Singh on 4.9.2003. Information was given to ASI, Pyare Lal, PW-12 who had gone to the spot and prepared inquest report . Ruqa was sent at 2:20 P.M. Dead body was shifted to General Hospital, Sirsa by ASI, Pyare Lal and other police officials. In the hospital, dead body was identified by Hari Chand and Surjit Singh. Post mortem examination was conducted at 5:30 p.m. To know the cause of death, body was sent to PGIMS, Rohtak. Jodh Singh was also present in the General Hospital, Sirsa where he had identified the dead body as of his daughter. In the inquest report, length of the dead body was written Crl. Appeal No. 718-DB of 2005 Crl. Appeal No. 776-DB of 2005 Crl. Revision No. 1454 of 2006 :20: as 5-3" whereas as per post mortem report, length of the body was written as 5-8" inches but while examining the dead body length is approximately given by the doctor. Due to mistake, doctor might have noticed the length of dead body as 5-8" instead of 5-3". Chuni and a pair of chappal were also recovered from the dead body. Doctors did not state that body was not identifiable. Although the body was decomposed but it was very easy to identify the dead body from clothes i.e chunni, chappal by the father. Something could be said if doctors would have stated that the body was not identifiable. So no question of any dispute regarding the identification of the dead body.
Next submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that if deceased had relation with Ravinder Pal then Ravinder Pal had no reason to rape her and allow his friends to rape by administering sedative. Swabs were also sent to the laboratory. But report is silent as to whether spermatozoa was noticed. There is no report to the effect that any sedative was also administered. Absence of spermatozoa or sedative shows that story qua rape is doubtful. But submission of the learned counsel for the appellants carries little weight. Ravinder Pal when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C then did not state that he had relation with the deceased. If no report of the laboratory regarding presence of spermatozoa or sedative then question is why the deceased was murdered and her body was thrown in the fields of Balwinder Singh. Dr. Vijay P. Khanagwal stated that in this case cause of death was due to smothering. Injuries on the mouth were noticed. The absence of Crl. Appeal No. 718-DB of 2005 Crl. Appeal No. 776-DB of 2005 Crl. Revision No. 1454 of 2006 :21: hymen suggested performance of sexual intercourse with the deceased. In cross-examination, doctor admitted that due to repeated sexual intercourse by 3-4 persons, there would be tearing of hymen as well as injuries to vaginal canal, if before sexual intercourse, hymen of the lady was intact. Initially three accused were challaned. Kailash Sharma was acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Keys of the room of Mohit Rattan were procured by Anuj Bajaj. Bed sheets from the room of Mohit Rattan was found missing. DNA report and bed sheet Ex.P-10 shows the involvement of Ravinder Pal. There was no idea to arrange a room if they had not the ill motive of raping the deceased. Evidence shows that room of Mohit Rattan was arranged to rape daughter of Jodh Singh. Deceased had relation with Ravinder Pal but when the second appellant raped the deceased after administering sedative in the juice then she protested then, she was murdered that is why injuries were noted on the face. Death was due to smothering. Smothering is difficult by one accused when the accused and the victim are of the same age group. Recovery of string as per disclosure statement of Ravinder Pal also suggests that firstly Seetu was raped by the appellants. After murder dead body was thrown. In case crime was not committed in the room of Mohit Rattan then anyone from Pardeep, Ved Parkash and Vikram could be produced in defence. Defence version of the appellants is that they were implicated at the instance of the complainant due to enmity but no suggestion to the complainant that earlier to the present occurrence, he was inimical towards the appellants.
Crl. Appeal No. 718-DB of 2005 Crl. Appeal No. 776-DB of 2005 Crl. Revision No. 1454 of 2006 :22: For the reasons recorded above, we are of the opinion that the evidence on the file was rightly scrutinized. No reason to disagree with the finding of the trial Court and upset the impugned judgment.
In the present case, there is no direct evidence. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. Three accused were challaned but one accused namely, Kailash Sharma was acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the present case is not one of the rarest of the rare case to award capital punishment. Keeping in view the circumstantial evidence on the file, the appellants were rightly directed to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC.
Thus Crl. Appeal No. 718-DB of 2005, Crl. Appeal No.776-DB of 2003 and Crl. Revision No. 1454 of 2006 without merit are hereby dismissed.
( JORA SINGH )
JUDGE
February 9, 2010 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
ritu JUDGE