Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhakhtaur Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 2 March, 2012
Author: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Bench: S.S. Saron, Rameshwar Singh Malik
Criminal Appeal No. 75 DB of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision:02.03.2012
Criminal Appeal No.75 DB of 2009
Bhakhtaur Singh and another .....Appellants
Vs.
State of Punjab ....Respondent
Criminal Revision No.236 of 2009
Hardev Singh .....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others .....Respondents
.....
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SARON HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK **** Present : Mr.S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the appellants Mr. S.S. Gill, Addl.Advocate General, Punjab Mr. H.S. Gill, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vivek Goel, Advocate for the revision petitioner ....
1. Whether Reporter of the local paper may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J This appeal has been filed by Bakhtaur Singh and Harpreet Kaur against the judgement and order of conviction dated 09.12.2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga. Both the appellants have Criminal Appeal No. 75 DB of 2009 2 been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B and 302 read with Section 342 Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short).
Bakhtaur Singh Appellant No.1, has been sentenced under Section 120-B IPC to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ` 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he has been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Bakhtaur Singh appellant has been sentenced under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ` 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he has been sentenced further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. He has been sentenced under Section 342 read with Section 120-B IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of ` 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, he has been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.
Harpreet Kaur @ Preeti, Appellant No.2, has been sentenced under Section 120-B IPC to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ` 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, she has been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Harpreet Kaur- appellant no.2, has been sentenced under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ` 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, she has been sentenced further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. She has been sentenced under Section 342 read with Section 120-B IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of ` 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, she has been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. However, all the sentences awarded to both the convicts, have been ordered to run concurrently.
Both the appellants have been convicted and awarded the sentence, noted above, for causing the triple murder of deceased Criminal Appeal No. 75 DB of 2009 3 Sandeep Singh aged 22 years, Karnail Singh aged 80 years and Jagir Kaur aged 75 years. Hardev Singh-complainant has filed the Criminal Revision No.236 of 2009 impleading Bakhtaur Singh and Harpreet Kaur as respondents no.2 and 3 respectively, praying for enhancement of sentence awarded to the accused/respondents no.2 and 3. It has been further prayed that compensation amounting to ` 15.00 lacs i.e. ` 5.00 lacs in respect of each deceased be awarded to the legal representatives of the deceased persons. This Criminal Revision was admitted and ordered to be heard with the Criminal Appeal No.75-DB of 2009, vide order dated 17.3.2009. Thus, we intend to decide vide this judgement, Criminal Appeal No.75-DB of 2009 (Bakhtaur Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab) as well as Criminal Revision No.236 of 2007 (Hardev Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others).
Before proceeding further with the matter, it would be appropriate to record the pedigree table of the family of Karnail Singh (Deceased). The relevant pedigree table is as under:-
Karnail Singh (Deceased) ↓ ______________________________________________ | | | | Jagir Kaur Kanwar Pal Singh Jaspreet Singh Harbans Kaur (Wife-Deceased) (Elder Son) (Younger Son-PW9) (Daughter PW-2) ↓ ↓ _______________________ ________________________________ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ Gagandeep Singh Simarjeet Singh Harpreet Kaur Sandeep Singh Simran (son) (Son) ( 2ndWife (Son-Deceased (Daughter) (Beneficiaries of Will of -Appellant No.2) from 1st wife Harjit Kaur ) Karnail Singh) (Beneficiary of Will of Karnail Singh) The case of the prosecution, as disclosed from the First Information Report (`FIR' for short) Ex.P-45 is that Rachhpal Singh S.I.,/SHO (PW-16) alongwith ASI Bahadur Singh (PW-8), ASI Pal Singh (PW-11), HC Raj Mohammed, HC Harvinder Singh, Constable Sukhmander Singh and Constable Satpal Singh-driver with the Government Gypsy No.PB-08L-2290 was present at Dhurkot chowk, Criminal Appeal No. 75 DB of 2009 4 Barnala Road, Nihal Singh Wala, in connection with patrolling. Hardev Singh complainant son of Gurdial Singh caste Jat Sikh resident of Talwandi Road, Buttran Wala Mohalla, Bhadaur, aged 35 years, came present and stated that he was resident of Mandi Bhadaur and was doing agriculture work. About 24/25 years ago, his sister Harjit Kaur was married with Jaspreet Singh son of Karnail Singh resident of Gajiana and one son namely; Sandeep Singh was born from the womb of his sister. He (Sandeep Singh) was about 22 years old. About 4 years back, his sister Harjit Kaur had died. Just after three months of the death of his sister Harjit Kaur, his brother-in-law (Jaspreet Singh) got married with Harpreet Kaur @ Preeti daughter of Nachhattar Singh Jat resident of Rode, despite their opposition. One daughter was born from the womb of Harpreet Kaur @ Preeti. Jaspreet Singh was residing at Mandi Nihal Singh Wala, with his second wife. Kanwarpal Singh, elder brother of Jaspreet Singh was residing alongwith his family at Moga. His niece (sic.) nephew Sandeep Singh @ Soni (deceased) was residing with his grand parents Karnail Singh (deceased) and Jagir Kaur (deceased) at Village Gajiana and was looking after them. Karnail Singh became seriously ill. He executed a Will of his land in favour of Sandeep Singh and his other grandsons Gagandeep Singh and Simarjit Singh sons of Kanwarpal Singh. Some cash amount was also got deposited by him in the name of Sandeep Singh.
Because of this reason, the in-laws family of Jaspreet Singh and his brother-in-law Sukhdeep Singh took ill of such a Will being executed and deposit of money by Karnail Singh. They held a grudge towards Sandeep Singh and his grand parents. Sukhdeep Singh resident of Rode on his several visits to village Gajiana gave threats to Sandeep Singh and his grand parents that he would kill them. Sukhdeep Singh had said that if they want to live happily, they should undo the Will, but Karnail Singh and Jagir Criminal Appeal No. 75 DB of 2009 5 Kaur flatly refused to do so. During the intervening night of 21.01.2005 and 22.01.2005, the complainant's nephew Sandeep Singh, Sandeep Singh's grand father Karnail Singh, his grand mother Jagir Kaur, Bhua (father's sister) Harbans Kaur, cousin Pardeep Singh resident of Aulakh and his friend Swaran Singh were present in the house at village Gajiana. The time was about 1.30/2.00 a.m. at night. Two youngmen aged about 26/27 years having muffled faces, trimmed hair on their head, entered the house. They separated Sandeep Singh and his grand parents aside and other persons were bolted in two other rooms. They murdered Karnail Singh in the room by strangulating him with his turban. Jagir Kaur was murdered with a sharp edged weapon in the court yard of the house. Nephew of the complainant namely Sandeep Singh was also murdered with sharp edged weapon after taking him out in the agriculture field. The complainant was informed by Bhagwant Singh, Sarpanch of Village Gajiana, at 7.00 a.m. On getting the information, he alongwith Amarjit Singh, resident of Bilaspur son of his uncle and Onkar Singh son of his aunt resident of Bhadaur reached at the house of Sandeep Singh alongwith Sarpanch Bhagwant Singh. There, he saw that the dead body of Karnail Singh was lying on the bed in the room. The dead body of Jagir Kaur was lying on the floor in the court yard. He was also told by Harbans Kaur, aunt (Bhua) of Sandeep Singh, about the whole occurrence.He alongwith Amarjit Singh son of his uncle (Mama) resident of Bilaspur, Onkar Singh son of Aunt (Mami) resident of Bhadaur and Bhagwant Singh, Sarpanch were going to inform the police, who met them on the way. He suspected that Karnail Singh, Jagir Kaur and Sandeep Singh had been murdered by Sukhdeep Singh, brother-in-law of Jaspreet Singh in connivance with others, because of the execution of the Will by Karnail Singh and also to get the landed property, Hardev Singh (complainant) heard his statement (Ex.P-1) and put his signatures after Criminal Appeal No. 75 DB of 2009 6 admitting it to be correct.
Rachhpal Singh SI/SHO P.S. Nihal Singh Wala attested the statement of Hardev Singh. From the said statement, offences under Sections 302/342/34 IPC were found to be made out. The statement of Hardev Singh was sent through HC Harminder Singh for registration of a case (FIR) for the above said offence against the aforesaid accused. HC Harminder Singh was directed that after registration of the case, the case number be intimated and control room be informed. Special reports were asked to be sent. Rachhpal Singh SI/SHO, Police Station, Nihal Singh Wala, alongwith his companions and the complainant proceeded towards the place of occurrence.
FIR (Ex.P-45) was recorded by ASI Sucha Singh, on the basis of the above noted statement (Ex.P-1) of Hardev Singh-complainant. After reaching at the place of occurrence, S.I. Rachhpal Singh (PW-16) prepared the inquest reports of Karnail Singh, Jagir Kaur and Sandeep Singh, all the three deceased, vide Exs.P-27, P-17 and P-22 respectively. The dead bodies were sent to the hospital for postmortem examination through ASI Pal Singh (PW-11) and Head Constable Raj Mohammed, vide applications Exs. P-15, P-20 and P-25. Blood stained soil was lifted from the place where the dead body of Sandeep Singh was lying and a parcel thereof was prepared with seal bearing impression `RS'. The parcel was taken into police possession, vide memo Ex.P-28. He (PW-16) also prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence, where the dead body of Sandeep Singh was lying vide Ex.P-46. Similar proceedings were carried out qua Jagir Kaur and Karnail Singh (deceased) vide Exs.P-29 and P-47. Rachhpal Singh (PW-16) also recorded the statements of witnesses. After returning to the police station, he deposited the case property with the MHC. He recorded the statement of Jaspreet Singh (PW-9) on 28.1.2005 and that Criminal Appeal No. 75 DB of 2009 7 of Dalip Singh (PW-4) on 23.2.2005. During investigation, Sukhdeep Singh was found to be innocent. After completion of the investigation, the police report was prepared by S.I. Rachhpal Singh (PW-16) and was submitted to the court against both the appellants namely; Bakhtaur Singh and Harpreet Kaur.
After perusal of the police report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Moga, found that the offences under Sections 302/342/34/120-B IPC were exclusively triable by the Sessions Judge, he committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, vide his order dated 08.09.2005.
The learned trial court after hearing the parties, framed charges against the accused for causing the death of Sandeep Singh, Karnail Singh and Jagir Kaur. The charges were framed by the learned trial court, vide order dated 15.10.2005 in respect of the offences under Sections 120-B, 302/120-B and 342/120-B IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty to the same and claimed trial.
The prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses to prove its case, besides tendered documents and other evidence was brought on record.
Hardev Singh, complainant was examined as PW-1. He deposed that his sister Harjit Kaur was married with Jaspreet Singh son of Karnail Singh resident of Village Gajiana, about 25 years back. His sister was having one son namely; Sandeep Singh (deceased). Sandeep Singh was about 22 years old, when he was murdered. His sister Harjit Kaur had died about 4 years prior to the date of occurrence. After three months of the the death of his sister, his brother-in-law Jaspreet Singh (PW-9) got married with Harpreet Kaur @ Preeti (appellant no.2) daughter of Nachhatar Singh resident of Village Rode. They had objected to the second marriage of Criminal Appeal No. 75 DB of 2009 8 Jaspreet Singh (PW-9) with Harpreet Kaur (appellant no.2). After the marriage of Harpreet Kaur (appellant No.2) with Jaspreet Singh (PW-9), they used to reside at Mandi Nihal Singh Wala. Kanwar Pal Singh, brother of Jaspreet Singh (PW-9) was residing at Moga with his family. He had two sons namely; Gagandeep Singh and Simarjit Singh. Hardev Singh (PW-1) further deposed that Sandeep Singh his sister's son was residing with his grand parents Karnail Singh (deceased) and Jagir Kaur (deceased) at Village Gajiana. Karnail Singh (deceased) father-in-law of his (Hardev Singh) sister used to remain ill. Harpreet Kaur (appellant no.2) gave birth to a female child, from Jaspreet Singh (PW-9) while residing at Nihal Singh Wala. Sukhdeep Singh is the brother of Harpreet Kaur, (appellant no.2). Hardev Singh (PW-1) also deposed that Sandeep Singh his sister's son was looking after his grand parents at Village Gajiana. Grand father of Sandeep Singh (deceased) namely; Karnail Singh (deceased) had executed a registered Will in favour of Sandeep Singh (deceased) and in favour of the sons of Kanwar Pal Singh namely; Gagandeep Singh and Simarjit Singh. Karnail Singh bequeathed his estate equally in the names of Sandeep Singh (deceased) on one hand and Gagandeep Singh and Simarjit Singh sons of Kanwar Pal Singh, on the other hand. Some cash was also deposited by Karnail Singh (deceased) in the name of Sandeep Singh (deceased).
Hardev Singh PW-1 further deposed that Harpreet Kaur, (appellant no.2) and her brother Sukhdeep Singh felt ill that Karnail Singh (deceased) had not bequeathed any portion of his estate in favour of the daughter of Harpreet Kaur (appellant no.2). Sukhdeep Singh and Harpreet Kaur (appellant no.2) used to threaten Karnail Singh (deceased), his wife Jagir Kaur (deceased) and their grand son Sandeep Singh (deceased) that they would kill them, if they did not give a share from the property to be Criminal Appeal No. 75 DB of 2009 9 inherited by them to the daughter of Harpreet Kaur (appellant no.2) by undoing the Will. Karnail Singh and his wife Jagir Kaur had flatly refused to get the Will cancelled and the refusal further enraged Harpreet Kaur and her brother Sukhdeep Singh. Hardev Singh (PW-1) further deposed that the threats, mentioned above, were extended in his presence also. About nine months before his deposition in the court, he was at village Bhadaur and he received a telephone call in the morning from Bhagwant singh, Sarpanch of Village Gajiana at 6 or 7 O' clock in the morning conveying that Karnail Singh, Jagir Kaur and Sandeep Singh had been killed in the preceding night. He (Hardev Singh) alongwith Onkar Singh and Amarjit Singh went to Village Gajiana at the house of the deceased Karnail Singh and other deceased. There he saw that Karnail Singh had been strangulated on the cot by a piece of cloth. Dead body of Jagir Kaur was lying in front of the verandah, which was in front of the room of the house. Hardev Singh (PW-1) further deposed that he saw sharp edged cuts on the upper left part of the neck and also on forehead of Jagir Kaur (deceased). The dead body of Sandeep Singh was found outside the house in the fields. Hardev Singh (PW-1) saw that Sandeep Singh had received injuries by `Datar' on the dorsal portion of the hand as well as on the lower side of the lips and across the eyes. The cuts were deep. When Hardev Singh (PW-1) visited the house of the said deceased, he found Harbans Kaur, who was sister of the father of Sandeep Singh (deceased) present in the house. There he also saw Pardeep Singh son of another sister of the father of deceased Sandeep Singh. He also found Gagandeep Singh as mentioned above and Swaran Singh a friend of Pardeep Singh. After that Hardev Singh (PW-1) accompanied by Sarpanch proceeded to inform the local police. On the way, the police met them at a crossing of Dhurkot on Barnala road near Nihal Singh Wala towards Barnala. The Criminal Appeal No. 75 DB of 2009 10 motive behind the occurrence, as per PW-1 Hardev Singh, was that Sukhdeep Singh, Harpreet Kaur (appellant no.2) accompanied by some other persons might have killed the deceased under the allurement to grab the estate of Karnail Singh (deceased). Hardev Singh (PW-1) was cross- examined at considerable length by the defence counsel. He admitted it to be correct that he was not present at the spot at the time of the occurrence. He denied the suggestion that Sandeep Singh was characterless and he used to bring girls of the village to his house for undesirable activities. He also denied the suggestion that when the parents or relatives of those girls complained to Karnail Singh (deceased) and Jagir Kaur (deceased) about the said behaviour of Sandeep Singh, both Karnail Singh and Jagir Kaur used to support their grandson Sandeep Singh saying that the complaints alleged by the villagers were baseless. He denied the suggestion that he was having revengeful attitude towards the accused because of second marriage of Jaspreet Singh (PW-9) with Harpreet Kaur (appellant no.2). He further denied the suggestion that he has implicated the accused in this case and was a made up witness.
Harbans Kaur wife of Rajender Singh son of Surjit Singh resident of Village Kot Fatta, Distt. Bathinda, was examined as PW-2. She deposed that her parental house was at Village Gajiana. She had two brothers. Elder one was Kamal Bal (sic.) Kanwar Pal Singh and younger one was Jaspreet. Kanwar Pal Singh was residing at Moga and Jaspreet Singh (PW-9) was residing at Gajiana as well as at Nihal Singh Wala. Her father Karnail Singh (deceased) and mother Jagir Kaur (deceased) used to reside in Village Gajiana. Her brother Kanwar Pal Singh was having two sons namely; Gagandeep Singh and Simarandeep Singh (sic.) Simarjit Singh. Her brother Jaspreet Singh (PW-9) was having one son named Sandeep Singh (deceased), who was about 22 years of age. Earlier, Jaspreet Singh Criminal Appeal No. 75 DB of 2009 11 (PW-9) was married to Harjit Kaur resident of Village Bhadaur, Tehsil Barnala, District Sangrur. Said Harjit Kaur died three years earlier due to blood cancer. After three months of the death of said Harjit Kaur, Jaspreet Singh (PW-9) had married Harpreet Kaur (appellant no.2). They had a daughter namely; Simran. Jaspreet Singh had solemnized his second marriage at Village Gajiana with (Harpreet Kaur (appellant no.2) and after marriage, Jaspreet Singh (PW-9) and Harpreet Kaur started living at Nihal Singh Wala. At the time of occurrence, their daughter was about two years old. Harbans Kaur (PW-2) further deposed that at the time of occurrence, only her parents (Karnail Singh and Jagir Kaur) and Sandeep Singh (deceased) were residing at Village Gajiana. Sandeep Singh (deceased) was looking after her parents. Her father was not having a good health. Karnail Singh (deceased) was about 85 years and Jagir Kaur (deceased) was aged about 75/76 years. Harbans Kaur (PW-2) further deposed that Karnail Singh and Jagir Kaur had bequeathed their estate, that is, half to Sandeep Singh (deceased) and half to the sons of Kanwar Pal Singh. Jaspreet Singh ((PW-9) had sold a plot and deposited its proceeds in the name of Sandeep Singh (deceased). The daughter of Harpreet Kaur (appellant no.2) was disinherited in the Will. Harpreet Kaur (appellant no.2) used to have a grudge in this regard. On 21.01.2005, she was at Village Gajiana at her parental house, to see her parents. Her nephews Gagandeep Singh and Pardeep were also there in her parental house at the time of occurrence. Pardeep Singh was accompanied by his friend Swaran Singh resident of Village Aulakh,Tehsil and District Faridkot. They were conversing amongst themselves. Her parents were also present in the house. Harbans Kaur (PW-2) further deposed that she was having conversation with her parents and others were watching television in some other room. At about 11.00 O' Clock in the night, she alongwith her Criminal Appeal No. 75 DB of 2009 12 mother was sleeping in the gallery and her father Karnail Singh (deceased) was sleeping in the adjoining room. Gagandeep and Sandeep were sleeping in another room. Pardeep and Swaran were sleeping in a separate room. The electric light was on in the courtyard and also in the room. At about 1.30 a.m. or 2.00 a.m., two persons in their younger years came there. They were having muffled faces. One was having a pistol and the other was armed with a "Dah". They had woken up Sandeep Singh (deceased). They brought Sandeep Singh to her father. They asked that the Will be produced before them. Harbans Kaur (PW-2) further stated that she and her mother Jagir Kaur (deceased) were awake at that time. Her father Karnail Singh (deceased) and Sandeep Singh (deceased) refused to give any clue about the Will. Those two persons, who were intruders had taken off the head gear (turban) from the head of her father and strangulated him with that turban. She (PW-2) was pushed into the room, in which Pardeep and Swaran were sleeping. The hue and cry during this period woke up Pardeep and Swaran. Those intruders had bolted the door from outside after pushing Harbans Kaur (PW-2) inside that room, where Pardeep and Swaran were already there, they had been threatened for their life. She (PW-2) had seen from the window of that room that Bakhtaur Singh (appellant No.1) of Village Rode was standing outside, who was visible in the light. He (Bakhtaur Singh-appellant no.1) was standing inside the main house, but outside their room. She (PW-2) knew Bakhtaur Singh (appellant no.1), as he was on visiting terms with Harpreet Kaur (appellant no.2), who was hailing from the same village Rode. Harpreet Kaur (appellant no.2) was calling Bakhtaur Singh (appellant no.1) as her uncle ('chacha'). The intruder who was armed with pistol, had over powered Sandeep Singh (deceased). Bakhtaur Singh (appellant no.1) and the other intruder armed with "Dah" had caused injuries to her mother Jagir Kaur Criminal Appeal No. 75 DB of 2009 13 (deceased) in the courtyard. They dragged Jagir Kaur towards the bath room, where also she was given injuries. She (PW-2) further deposed that she had pointed out Bakhtaur Singh (appellant no.1) to the persons inside the room namely; Pardeep Singh and Swaran Singh. Sandeep Singh (deceased) was taken out of the house by Bakhtaur Singh (appellant no.1) and by other two intruders. She was terrified and had kept quiet.
Harbans Kaur (PW-2) further deposed that Pardeep Singh and Swaran were having mobile phone. Pardeep had flashed message to the Sarpanch of Village Gajiana, but she was not in her full senses at that time. At about 6/7 a.m. in the morning the Sarpanch came to their house and he opened the door of their room. After coming out of that room, she (Harbans Kaur-PW2) went to see her mother (Jagir Kaur-deceased), who was lying dead. She saw her father who was murdered by strangulation. When they were not able to locate Sandeep Singh (deceased) in the house, they came outside to trace him and they followed the Burj Hamira and found his dead body on that path. They saw injury of sharp edged weapon on the body of Sandeep Singh. After seeing the dead body of Sandeep Singh, (Harbans Kaur-PW-2) lost her consciousness. She expressed her ignorance as to how she was taken to her parental house. She further deposed that she gained consciousness at noon. After gaining consciousness, she searched the house so as to know what had been lost. She found that the Will and the identity card of her father (Karnail Singh-deceased) was lost, apart from some other documents. Harbans Kaur (PW-2) further deposed that Harpreet Kaur (appellant no.2) had engaged Bakhtaur Singh (appellant no.1) by hiring him, to commit this offence due to the grudge of being disinherited from the estate of Karnail Singh (deceased). In her cross- examination, she deposed that she had not told anything to Hardev Singh- complainant (PW-1), but she had seen him. She Criminal Appeal No. 75 DB of 2009 14 deposed that Village Kot Fatta of her in-laws is at a distance which is usually covered by a bus in 2 to 2 ½ hours from village Gajiana. She (PW-2) admitted that a telephone was installed at the house of her in-laws. She also admitted as correct that telephone was installed at the time of occurrence in the house of her brother Kanwar Pal Singh at Moga. She denied the suggestion that the immoral character of Sandeep Singh (deceased) had crossed all the limits and villagers started guarding the house of Sandeep Singh (deceased). She (PW-2) also denied the suggestion that Sandeep Singh (deceased) used to take the girls to the nearby tubewell rooms. She (PW-2) further denied the suggestion that it was a blind murder. She (PW-2) denied the suggestion that there was a possibility that the aggrieved parents of those girls, whom Sandeep Singh (deceased) was exploiting, had precipitated their revenge into this occurrence. She (PW-2) admitted that Harpreet Kaur @ Preeti (appellant no.2) was arrested on the same day of occurrence from the place of occurrence because she had stayed there, while others went outside for cremation of the dead bodies. However, she (PW-2) denied the suggestion that she alongwith above said persons namely; Pardeep Singh, Swaran Singh and Gagandeep Singh had been called later on, in order to make them cooked up witnesses. She (PW-2) further denied the suggestion that the case filed by Jaspreet Singh (PW-9) for getting divorce against Harpreet Kaur (appellant no.2), was filed at their instigation. She (PW-2) also denied the suggestion that since they were having revengeful attitude towards the appellant Harpreet Kaur because of the second marriage of Jaspreet Singh(PW-9), they were all out to falsely implicate the appellant Harpreet Kaur in this case. She denied the suggestion that prosecution version was the brain child of Hardev Singh (PW-1), who led them to get the present case registered.
Criminal Appeal No. 75 DB of 2009 15
Jagdev Singh, Draftsman, was examined as PW-3, whereas Dalip Singh was examined as PW-4. PW-3 was a formal witness. Dalip Singh, PW-4, deposed that deceased Karnail Singh was his friend. Mohinder Kaur daughter of Karnail Singh was married to Jasvir Singh son of Dalip Singh (PW-4). He deposed that Harpreet Kaur @ Preeti (appellant No.2), got enraged because her daughter was disinherited by Karnail Singh (deceased). Once he witnessed a quarrel between Harpreet Kaur @ Preeti (appellant No.2) and her parents-in-law over inheritance of property. Harpreet Kaur- appellant, had visited Dalip Singh (PW-4) at his village Rajeana and expressed her grudge against her father-in-law Karnail Singh (deceased). Harpreet Kaur (appellant No.2) requested him to talk to Karnail Singh (deceased), to get the Will cancelled. He (Dalip Singh PW-4) tried to persuade Karnail Singh (deceased) that something must be bequeathed to Harpreet Kaur- appellant, or her daughter. However, Karnail Singh (deceased) refused to do so, saying that he was not having good terms with Harpreet Kaur- appellant. Dalip Singh (PW-4) further deposed that whenever he had talked with Karnail Singh (deceased) regarding the property matter, Jagir Kaur (deceased) also used to be present and she was also nursing the same feeling against Harpreet Kaur (appellant No.2). He further deposed that whenever appellant Harpreet Kaur @ Preeti (appellant No.2) used to visit him, she was also accompanied by Bakhtaur Singh (appellant No.1), who was addressed by her as her 'Chacha' (paternal uncle). He also deposed that he was having cordial relations with the family of Karnail Singh (deceased), as well as Harpreet Kaur (appellant No.2). Dalip Singh (PW-4) further stated that he received information on telephone at about 9/10:00 a.m, about the triple murder, on the next day of murder, when he was at his residence at village Rajeana. He rushed to the residence of Karnail Singh (deceased) at village Gajiana and saw the Criminal Appeal No. 75 DB of 2009 16 dead bodies. After about 15 days of the murder, Harpreet Kaur and Bakhtaur Singh (appellants), visited Dalip Singh (PW-4). Harpreet Kaur (appellant No.2) confessed before Dalip Singh (PW-4) that since Karnail Singh (deceased) had not got the Will cancelled, inspite of efforts made by Dalip Singh (PW-4) on the request of Harpreet Kaur (appellant No.2), she engaged Bakhtaur Singh by paying him Rs. 50,000/- and got killed all the three persons namely, Karnail Singh, his wife Jagir Kaur and grand son Sandeep Singh. He stated that Bakhtaur Singh (appellant No.1) did not have any conversations with him (Dalip Singh PW-4). Dalip Singh (PW-4) further deposed that Harpreet Kaur (appellant No.2), requested him to take her to the police along with Bakhtaur Singh (appellant No.1). Dalip Singh (PW-4) further deposed that he enquired that the three murders could not have been committed by the single accused. There must be two other persons. Bakhtaur Singh (appellant No.1) replied that he was trying to contact them but they were not within his reach. Dalip Singh (PW-4) offered that all the accused persons must come together and only then he would be able to hand all of them to the police. In cross examination, this witness deposed that he was an ordinary citizen without any port-folio. He had never produced anybody else at any point to the police. There were many respectable persons residing in his village. He denied the suggestion that the appellants Harpreet Kaur and Bakhtaur Singh never visited him. He also denied the suggestion that no such confessional statement was made before him by Harpreet Kaur (appellant No.2). He denied that he was deposing falsely.
Ajmer Singh, Patwari Revenue Halqa Gajiana (PW 5), was a formal witness. Bhagwant Singh (PW-6) deposed that on the date of occurrence, he received a telephone call at about 5 a.m from Gopi. He heard the conversations on the telephone that some thieves had entered Criminal Appeal No. 75 DB of 2009 17 into the house of Karnail Singh (deceased). Bhagwant Singh (PW-6) further deposed that he collected about 10 persons and went to the house of Karnail Singh (deceased). Reaching there, he saw the dead bodies of Karnail Singh, his wife Jagir Kaur and Sandeep Singh. He, along with other persons, found Harbans Kaur (PW-2), Gopi and one Swaran Singh, who had been locked from outside. A window of that room was open. This witness (PW 6) further deposed that after visiting the place of occurrence, he had informed the police, but he did not inform any of the relatives of the deceased. He also deposed that the case was got registered by Hardev Singh. He was having visiting terms with the family of Karnail Singh (deceased) and he was also well known to Harpreet Kaur (appellant No.2). This witness also deposed that he knew Bakhtaur Singh (appellant No.1) since the time of engagement ceremony of Harpreet Kaur @ Preeti (appellant No.2), as he was present almost in all the ceremonies. Bhagwant Singh (PW-6) also deposed that he was an attesting witness to the Will, executed by Karnail Singh (deceased). He was called by Karnail Singh (deceased) to be the attesting witness to the Will. He also deposed that he saw Harpreet Kaur as well as Bakhtaur Singh (appellants) after about 2½ months of the incident, when both of them visited him in his house, after the murder of Karnail Singh (deceased). This witness (PW-6) used to visit the house of Karnail Singh (deceased). He further deposed that he used to meet other relatives in the house of Karnail Singh (deceased). Bhagwant Singh (PW-6) also deposed that Bakhtaur Singh (appellant No.1), had confided in him that whatsoever he has done concerning murder of Karnail Singh, his wife Jagir Kaur and grand son Sandeep Singh @ Soni, it must be brushed aside and the relations be got normalised. This witness (PW 6) also deposed that Harpreet Kaur (appellant No.2) also confided in him that murders had been committed by Criminal Appeal No. 75 DB of 2009 18 them in the moment of rage and she requested him (Bhagwant Singh PW-
6) to produce them before the police. This witness (PW-6) further deposed that when the appellants approached him at his house, he produced them before the police. Then the police arrested both the accused-appellants. Station House Officer, Bahadur Singh interrogated both the accused-appellants. Bakhtaur Singh (appellant No.1) was interrogated first in the presence of Bhagwant Singh (PW-6). Bakhtaur Singh (appellant No.1) disclosed that he had concealed the 'Dah' in the house of his co-accused Harpreet Kaur @ Preeti (appellant No.2). Bakhtaur Singh (appellant No.1) got effected the recovery of the weapon from the house of his co-accused Harpreet Kaur @ Preeti (appellant No.2). When he (PW 6) saw the 'Dah' at the time of recovery, it was blood stained. This witness(PW-6) denied the suggestion that the accused- appellants never approached him nor any confessional or disclosure statement was made by them before him. He also denied the suggestion that the 'Dah' was not recovered in his presence.
Dr. Rajesh Attri, Medical Officer Civil Hospital, Moga was examined as PW-7. He deposed that on 22.1.2005, he conducted post mortem examination of Jagir Kaur wife of Karnail Singh resident of Gajiana and found following injuries:-
1) Incised wound 8 cm x 2 cm on the upper 1/3rd of
neck anteriorly. Underlying muscles were cut and
thyroid cartilage alongwith hyoid bone injured.
Clotted blood was seen.
2) Incised wound 12 cm x 3.5.cm starting from middle of chin running on the mandible area on left side.
Underlying muscles and bone injured and fractured.
All the injuries were ante mortem in nature. He proved a copy of post Criminal Appeal No. 75 DB of 2009 19 mortem report as Ex. P-13.
Dr. Rajesh Attri, (PW-7) also conducted the post mortem examination of Sandeep Singh @ Soni son of Jaspreet and found the following injuries:-
1) Incised wound 6 cm x 2 cm on the middle of neck.
Muscles and underying cartilages were cut and injured. Clotted blood was seen.
2) Lacerated wound 2 cm x .5 cm at the base of dorsum of left index finger.
3) Lacerated wound 4 cm 1 cm on right side of forehead.
4) Multiple lacerated contusions on upper part of chest and both shoulders anteriorily.
5) Both maxilla nasal bone and other facial bone were fractured.
He found all the injuries ante mortem in nature and proved a copy of post mortem report as Ex. P-18. On the same day, at about 5:45 p.m., Dr. Rajesh Attri (PW-7) conducted the post mortem of Karnail Singh son of Dyal Singh and found the following injuries:-
Ligature mark was seen round the neck as a depression 2 cm to 2.5. cm knot seen below them iddle (sic.middle) of left mandible 3.5. cm depression. The Ligature mark was seen at the level of thyroid cartilage. The skin underlying was blue coloured. Clotted was a wrinkled in nature.
On dissection, the sub-cutaneous areolar tissue under the ligature mark was ecchymosed. Neck muscles and laiyngeal cartilage were injured. Clotted Criminal Appeal No. 75 DB of 2009 20 blood was seen in both external auditorycanals. On dissection cranium spinal cord and abdomenal organs were found healthy.
Cause of death, in this case was due to asphyxia as caused by constricting the neck by some means i.e.cloth, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were found ante mortem in nature and the post mortem report was proved as Ex. P-23.
In cross examination, PW-7 deposed that possibility of injuries No. 1 and 2 on the dead body of Jagir Kaur with one and the same weapon could not be ruled out. However, there was no possibility of the injuries on the dead body of Sandeep Singh numbering 1 to 5 having been caused with one and the same weapon. He denied the suggestion that he had given opinion in favour of the complainant.
ASI, Bahadur Singh was examined as PW-8. He stated that he was present at the Police Station on 8.4.2005 when Bhagwant Singh (PW-
6) produced Bakhtaur Singh and Harpreet Kaur (appellants) before him.
Both the accused-appellants were arrested by him. Bakhtaur Singh, (appellant No.1) was interrogated. He suffered a disclosure statement (Ex.P-8) that he had kept concealed a 'Dah' in the cattle shed of the house of Harpreet Kaur (appellant No.2), about which, only he knew and could get it recovered. He further deposed that thereafter Bakhtaur Singh (appellant No.1) led the police party to the disclosed place and got recovered the 'Dah'. ASI Bahadur Singh (PW-8) prepared a sketch of the blade of the 'Dah', which was at Ex. P-9. He converted it into a parcel, which was sealed with a seal bearing impression 'BS'. This witness (PW-8) denied the suggestion that Harpreet Kaur (appellant No.2) was arrested on the date of occurrence. He also denied the suggestion that false recovery had been shown from the appellant. He denied the suggestion that he was Criminal Appeal No. 75 DB of 2009 21 deposing falsely.
Jaspreet Singh son of Karnail Singh (deceased) was examined as (PW-9). He deposed that they were two brothers. One was he himself and other was Kanwar Pal Singh @ Bhola. Jaspreet Singh (PW-9) was married with Harjit Kaur. She died 3½ years prior to the occurrence. Out of the first marriage, Sandeep Singh @ Soni (deceased) was born. At the time of occurrence, he was 22 years old. After the death of his first wife (Harjit Kaur), he got married with Harpreet Kaur (appellant No.2). Out of second marriage, one daughter was born. At the time of occurrence, she was 2 years old. Soon after the marriage, Harpreet Kaur (appellant No.2) started quarrelling with Jaspreet Singh (PW-9) and his parents. His son (Sandeep Singh) from the first marriage was residing with his grandparents. Sandeep Singh (deceased) was looking after his grand parents. Thereafter, Jaspreet Singh (PW-9) started living separately with his wife Harpreet Kaur (appellant No.2 ) at Nihal Singh Wala. Bakhtaur Singh (appellant No.1) used to visit their house at Nihal Singh Wala. Jaspreet Singh (PW-9) further deposed that his father (Karnail Singh) scribed a Will regarding his one half property in the name of Sandeep Singh (deceased) and the remaining half share in the names of Simarjit Singh and Gagandeep Singh sons of Kanwar Pal Singh. He further deposed that he had one plot in village Bhadaur which was sold by him and the money was deposited in the name of his son Sandeep Singh. He did not give anything to his minor daughter from his second marriage. Harpreet Kaur (appellant No.2) used to quarrel with Jaspreet Singh (PW-9) that no land had been transferred in the name of her daughter. Harpreet Kaur (appellant No.2) used to say that Bakhtaur Singh (appellant No.1) was her 'Chacha' (uncle). However, Jaspreet Singh (PW-9) had a doubt that Harpreet Kaur and Bakhtaur Singh (appellants) were having undesirable Criminal Appeal No. 75 DB of 2009 22 relations with each other. This witness (PW-9) further deposed that on 22.01.2005 at about 4:30 a.m early morning, Bakhtaur Singh (appellant No.1) came to his house at Nihal Singh Wala. He had wrapped a blanket around himself. Bakhtaur Singh (appellant No.1) had talked with Harpreet Kaur (appellant No.2), separately away from Jaspreet Singh (PW-9) and he (Bakhtaur Singh) left the house at about 6 a.m. Jaspreet Singh (PW-9) further deposed that Harpreet Kaur (appellant No.2) used to insist that the Will executed by his father Karnail Singh (deceased) should be cancelled but his father (Karnail Singh) had refused to cancel the Will. Harpreet Kaur (appellant No.2) asked him (Jaspreet Singh-PW9) to visit village Gajiana. They went to village Gajiana. When they reached home, he (PW-9) saw that the dead body of his father (Karnail Singh) was lying in the room on a cot. Dead body of his mother (Jagir Kaur) was lying in the courtyard in front of the bathroom. His mother Jagir Kaur had injuries of her person with some sharp edged weapon and his father (Karnail Singh) had been strangulated. The dead body of his son (Sandeep Singh) was lying on a 'Pahi' (Katcha Path) leading to the fields. Sandeep Singh (deceased) was also having injuries on his person with sharp edged weapons. He (PW-9) further deposed that on that day, his sister Harbans Kaur had come to village Gajiana. When he (PW-9) visited his house at Gajiana, his sister (Harbans Kaur) was present in the house but she was lying unconscious. In the evening, his sister (Harbans Kaur) told him that two Hindu gentlemen with wrapped face had come inside the house at night at about 2/2:30 a.m. One of the person was having a pistol and the other one was armed with a 'Dah'. These two persons demanded papers and Will from his father and son, but they refused to give the same. These two persons had bolted his sister (Harbans Kaur) in one room and at that time, the light was on in the courtyard. Jaspreet Singh (PW-9) further deposed that his sister (Harbans Criminal Appeal No. 75 DB of 2009 23 Kaur) had seen outside from the window and in the light of bulb that Bakhtaur Singh (appellant No.1) was standing outside in the courtyard having wrapped a blanket around him. On 22.01.2005, both Harpreet Kaur and Bakhtaur Singh (appellants) had run away and two persons who had come inside had also taken away the Voter Identity Card, Army identity Card, papers and the Will. Jaspreet Singh (PW-9) also deposed that the murders had been caused by Harpeet Kaur (appellant No.2) with the help of Bakhtaur Singh (appellant No.1). However, he was not aware, as to how they organized these murders. In cross examination, this witness (PW-9) admitted it to be correct that Harpreet Kaur (appellant No.2) was earlier married in District Jalandhar. He also admitted as correct that her first husband had expired and she had sold the entire property that she got from her earlier husband for about ` 18 to 19 lacs. However, he (PW-9) denied the suggestion that he was demanding the money from Harpreet Kaur (appellant No.2) and she refused to give it. He (PW-9) further deposed that he had taken divorce from Harpreet Kaur (appellant No.2) because of this occurrence. He (PW-9) also denied the suggestion that he used to receive complaints from the villagers regarding the conduct of his son Sandeep Singh (deceased). He (PW-9) also denied the suggestion that Sandeep Singh (deceased) did not listen to him and because of that reason he (PW-9) started living at Nihal Singh Wala.
MHC Kuldeep Kumar, a formal witness was examined as PW-10. ASI Pal Singh was examined as PW-11. This witness (PW-11) deposed that he got conducted the post mortem examination of the dead bodies of Karnail Singh, Jagir Kaur and Sandeep Singh, vide applications Ex. P-5, Ex. P-15 and Ex. P-20 respectively. He (PW-11) also deposed that Harpreet Kaur (appellant No.-2), made a disclosure statement (Ex. P-39) under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, wherein it was stated that she Criminal Appeal No. 75 DB of 2009 24 had concealed the Voter Identity Card and Army Identity Card of Karnail Singh in the iron 'petti' (Box) at her residential house. The said place was known to her alone and she could get the same recovered. Her disclosure statement (Ex.P-39) was recorded. Thereafter, Harpreet Kaur (appellant No.2), was taken to her residential house at Nihal Singh Wala, where she herself got recovered the above said Identity cards, which were taken in possession vide memo Ex. P-40. In the cross examination, this witness (PW-11) denied the suggestion that he never visited the house of Harpreet Kaur (appellant No.2). He also denied the suggestion that recovery of Identity cards was false and planted on Harpreet Kaur (appellant No.2). Pal Singh (PW-11) also denied the suggestion that it was a case of blind murders and the accused-appellants were falsely implicated in this case.
Paramjit Kaur, Lady Constable (PW-12), Harmohinder Singh, Registery Clerk (PW-13), Sukhdev Singh, Registry Clerk (PW-14) and ASI Baljinder Singh (PW-15) were formal witnesses.
Sub-Inspector Rachhpal Singh was examined as PW-16. He deposed that on 22.1.2005, he was posted as Station House Officer at Police Station, Nihal Singh Wala. When he (PW-16) was present at Dhur Kot, Nihal Singh Wala, Hardev Singh (PW-1/complainant) met him. Sarbjit Singh, Onkar Singh and Bhagwant Singh (PW-6) were also present with Hardev Singh. He recorded the statement of Hardev Singh as Ex. PW-1. It was read over to the complainant who affixed his signatures on his statement. Rachhpal Singh (PW-16) made his endorsement as Ex. P-44, on the basis of which, formal FIR (Ex. P-45) was recorded by ASI Sucha Singh. Thereafter, SI, Rachhpal Singh (PW-16) reached the place of occurrence. Photographs were taken and he also prepared Inquest Reports of the deceased, Karnail Singh, Jagir Kaur and Sandeep Singh, vide Ex. P-27, Ex. P-17 and Ex. P-22 respectively. Dead bodies were sent Criminal Appeal No. 75 DB of 2009 25 for post mortem examination through ASI Pal Singh and Constable Raj Mohammad, vide applications Ex. P-15, Ex. P-20 and Ex. P-25 respectively. The place where the dead body of Sandeep Singh was lying, the blood stained soil and plain soil were lifted and the same were sealed in separate parcels with the seal bearing impression 'RS'. These parcels were taken in police possession vide memo Ex. P-28 and site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded. SI Rachhpal Singh (PW-16) further deposed that it did not come to his notice during investigation that Sandeep Singh(deceased) used to bring girls in his house and when the people of the village protested, Karnail Singh and Jagir Kaur used to quarrel with them. He (PW-16) denied the suggestion that it came to his notice that Sandeep Singh(deceased) was in the habit of calling girls in his house and people of the village used to make complaints against Sandeep Singh. He (PW-16) also denied that it came to his notice that when the people of the village used to guard the house of Karnail Singh to stop activities of Sandeep Singh, then, Sandeep Singh started to bring girls of the village in a room of the tubewell. He (PW-16) denied the suggestion that this fact came into his notice and he was deliberately denying this fact. He (PW-16) also denied the suggestion that villagers collectively told him about the illegal activities of Sandeep Singh(deceased). He (PW-16) also denied the suggestion that no one was ready to support the story of the prosecution and because of this reason no villager was cited as a witness. He (PW-16) further denied the suggestion that he failed to seek any help from the villagers in the shape of evidence and when the higher authorities compelled him to trace the murderers, he diverted his investigation from the site of the village and the accused-appellants were falsely implicated in this case in order to show figure work to the higher authorities. He (PW-16) Criminal Appeal No. 75 DB of 2009 26 further denied the suggestion that the accused-appellants have been falsely implicated in this case and he was deposing falsely.
After closing its evidence by the prosecution, statements of the accused-appellants were recorded by the learned trial court under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Bakhtaur Singh (appellant No.1) stated that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case. He further stated that he was brought from his house by the police and nothing was recovered from his possession. He was kept by the police in illegal custody for several days and later on was falsely implicated in this case by showing false arrest memos and false recoveries. He also stated that he was not having any relation with Harpreet Kaur (appellant No.2) or with her relatives. Likewise, Harpreet Kaur (appellant No.2), stated that she was innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case. She further stated that she was arrested on the day of occurrence from the house of her in laws on the asking of Hardev Singh etc. She was kept by the police in illegal custody for several days and later on falsely implicated in this case by showing false arrest memos and false recovery. She further stated that she had no relations with her co-accused.
Constable Jagtar Singh (DW-1) deposed about entry No. 7 dated 22.01.2005 in the Roznamcha (Daily Dairy) of police station Nihal Singh Wala. He produced the correct photostat copy of entry No. 7 dated 11.01.2005 from the Roznamcha as Ex.'Dx'. In cross examination, this witness deposd that he had no personal knowledge about the entry proved by him. He further deposed that the entry in the Roznamcha was not done in his presence.
After examining the evidence brought on record by the prosecution and hearing both the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga, vide judgment dated 9.12.2008 held that prosecution has Criminal Appeal No. 75 DB of 2009 27 brought home the guilt against both the accused namely Harpreet Kaur @ Preeti and Bakhtaur Singh (appellants). It was held that they hatched a conspiracy and hired services of two other persons for committing the murders of Karnail Singh, Jagir Kaur and Sandeep Singh. Both the accused-appellants were held guilty and convicted for causing murders of Karnail Singh, Jagir Kaur and Sandeep Singh. Both the convicts were sentenced vide order of sentence dated 09.12.2008, as has been noticed above.
Mr.S.P.S.Sidhu, learned counsel for the appellants raised manifold contentions. Firstly, he submits that there was an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. He submits that the alleged occurrence took place between 1:30 to 2:00 a.m. whereas the statement of complainant Hardev Singh (PW-1) was recorded on 10:00 a.m. Learned counsel further submits that mother of Bhagwant Singh (PW-6) was a niece of Jagir Kaur (deceased) and Bhagwant Singh (PW-6) deposed that he received the telephonic information about these murders at 5:00 a.m. Learned counsel for the appellants, further submits that Hardev Singh (PW-1/complainant) deposed that he received telephone call about this occurrence at 6:00 to 7:00 a.m from Bhagwant Singh (PW-6). Thus, there was inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, which creates serious doubt in the story put forth by the prosecution. It is further contended that as per first version of the prosecution, as disclosed from the FIR, it was Sukhdeep Singh, brother of Harpreet Kaur (appellant) who was the accused and the first version of the prosecution story seems to be more probable in the circumstance of the case. The learned counsel further submits that the second version of the prosecution was doubtful. He further submits that had Harbans Kaur(PW-2) been present at the time and place of occurrence, she would have reported the matter and got recorded the FIR Criminal Appeal No. 75 DB of 2009 28 herself and would have named Bakhtaur Singh (appellant No.1) whose name was missing in the FIR. He further submits that Harbans Kaur (PW-
2) was a made up witness and, in fact, it was a blind murder.
Learned counsel also submits that the police raids on 22.1.2005 and 23.1.2005 were conducted only at the house of Sukhdeep Singh and not in the adjacent house of Bakhtaur Singh (appellant No.1) in village Rode itself. It is further submitted that extra judicial confession before Dalip Singh (DW-4) and extra judicial confession by both the appellants before Bhagwant Singh (PW-6) were also a part of the made up story. Learned counsel submits that Dalip Singh (PW-4) and Bhagwant Singh ( PW-6) were related to Karnail Singh (deceased) because the daughter of Karnail Singh (deceased) was married with the son of Dalip Singh (PW-4). Likewise, the mother of Bhagwant Singh (PW-6) was the niece of Jagir Kaur (deceased). He further submits that taking Sandeep Singh (deceased) out in the fields before killing him does not appeal to reason, particularly when his grand parents were killed inside the house.
Referring to the disclosure statement of Bakhtaur Singh (appellant No.1 ) learned counsel submits that it does not appeal to reason at all that Bakhtaur Singh would carry the alleged weapon i.e. 'Dah' to a long distance from the place of occurrence at village Gajiana to the house of his co-accused Harpreet Kaur (appellant No.2) at Nihal Singh Wala with a view to conceal it there. Similarly, referring to the disclosure statement of Harpeet Kaur (appellant No.2), learned counsel submits that the Identity cards would not at all be required to be concealed at the hands of Harpreet Kaur as the same would be of no use to her.
Learned Counsel also submits that Karnail Singh was not having any huge property, which could be the motive of committing the offences in question at the hand of Harpreet Kaur (appellant No.2) for two reasons. Criminal Appeal No. 75 DB of 2009 29 Firstly, the land which would have come to the share of her daughter was not more than a few kanals. Secondly, she had enough with her. Thus, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are based on inadmissible evidence. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. He concluded by contending that the impugned judgment and order of conviction were liable to be set aside and the appeal was liable to be allowed.
To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the appellants relies upon the judgments passed by this Court in Rajesh Vs. State of Haryana, 2008(3) RCR (Criminal) 621, Charan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 781 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Surpeme Court in Swinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1992 (1) RCR (Criminal) 483.
Per contra, learned State counsel submits that there was no delay in the FIR. Hardev Singh (PW-1) after receiving information at about 6/7:00 a.m while in his village Bhadaur came to village Gajiana and then he lodged the FIR. He further submits that the motive was very strong and was only with the accused-appellants as the daughter of Harpreet Kaur (appellant No.2) had been disinherited by Karnail Singh (deceased) because of their strained relations. The learned State counsel submits that the prosecution has established its case bringing home the guilt against both the accused-appellants by leading cogent and convincing evidence. He also submits that there was no merit in the appeal and same was liable to be dismissed.
Mr. H.S.Gill, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the complainant, submits that there was no delay in lodging the FIR. In this regard, he submits that after getting the information from Gopi, Bhagwant Criminal Appeal No. 75 DB of 2009 30 Singh (PW-6) went at the site and also searched for Sandeep Singh whose dead body was not at the house like the other two deceased Karnail Singh and Jagir Kaur. The dead body of Sandeep Singh was found in the fields. This search, obviously took some time. Learned senior counsel, further submits that whatever are the minor discrepancies in the case of the prosecution, they are very natural and would rather show that the prosecution story was based on truth and inspires confidence. In support of his submissions, the learned senior counsel relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chattar Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2008 (4) RCR (Criminal) 133. He also submits that there seems to be no scope for any false implication of the accused-appellants in the present case. Finally, he submits that the prosecution has proved its case by examining natural and reliable witnesses and the chain of circumstances in the commission of the crime was complete. Motive had been established and recoveries had been made thereby connecting the accused-appellants with the crime leaving no manner of doubt about the prosecution story. The learned senior counsel submits that the appeal was bereft on any merit and same was liable to be dismissed.
We have given our thoughtful consideratoin to the rival contentions raised on behalf of both the parties and have carefully gone through the record of the case.
Having carefully examined all the aspects of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the present appeal as well as the revision are without any substance and both are liable to be dismissed.
We say so for more than one reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The first contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants is regarding the delay in registration of the FIR. There is no denying the fact that the incident took place at the dead of night at about 01:30 to 02:00 am Criminal Appeal No. 75 DB of 2009 31 during the intervening night of 21/22.01.2005. The FIR came to be lodged by PW1 Hardev Singh-complainant at 10:15 am on 22.01.2005. It has also come on record in the statement of Hardev Singh-complainant (PW 1) that he received the telephone call at 06/07:00 am from Bhagwant Singh (PW
6) to the effect that Karnail Singh, Jagir Kaur and Sandeep Singh had been murdered. After receiving this information from Bhagwant Singh (PW 6) Hardev Singh-author of the FIR, started from his village Bhadaur, District Sangrur, along with Onkar Singh and Amarjit Singh with a view to reach the residence of the deceased at village Gajiana. On his reaching at village Gajiana, he gathered the information about the occurrence form Bhagwant Singh (PW 6) and Harbans Kaur (PW 2). Thereafter, he went to the Police Station, Nihal Singh Wala, which is at a distance of about 15 Kms from village Gajiana. Thus, in the given situation, a few hours were very natural to be taken by the author of the FIR before the registration thereof. In the circumstances of the case, the delay of few hours cannot be said to be so inordinate or unexplained delay that it would in any manner affect the prosecution case. Besides, prompt lodging a FIR is not an unmistakable guarantee of its truthfulness and neither is delay always fatal. In this regard, our view is supported by the judgement of the Ho'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Jag and ors.versus The State of U.P. (1974) 4 SCC 201 and the relevant paragraph No.16 thereof, reads as under:
According to the prosecution the occurrence took place at about 4 pm and since the First Information Report was lodged at about 12;30 at night at the Tarabganj police station which is at a distance of about 4 miles from the scene of occurrence, the learned Sessions Judge held that there was undue delay in lodging the Report and that the delay was Criminal Appeal No. 75 DB of 2009 32 not satisfactorily explained. It is true that witnesses cannot be called upon to explain every hour's delay and a common sense view has to be taken in ascertaining whether the First Information Report was lodged after an undue delay so as to afford enough scope for manipulating evidence. Whether the delay is so long as to throw a cloud of suspicion on the seeds of the prosecution case must depend upon a variety of factors which would vary from case to case. Even a long delay in filing report of an occurrence can be condoned if the witnesses on whose evidence the prosecution relies have no motive for implicating the accused. On the other hand, prompt filing of the report is not an unmistakable guarantee of the truthfulness of the version of the prosecution. The next argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is in the first version, name of Sukhdeep Singh (brother-in-law of Jaspreet Singh-PW-9) was recorded in the FIR. Learned counsel submitted that police raids were conducted on 22nd January 2005 and 23rd January, 2005 only at the house of Sukhdeep Singh in village Rode and not at the adjoining house of Bakhtaur Singh (appellant No.1), who also hails from village Rode itself. In this regard, it is to be noted that Sukhdeep Singh was found innocent during investigation of the case and no challan was filed against him. Conducting of the raids at the house of Sukhdeep Singh was very natural and since the Investigating Officer did not have any incriminating material against Bakhtaur Singh (appellant No.1), at that point of time, there was no question of conducting raids at his house also. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, does not carry any weight and is rejected, accordingly.
The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is Criminal Appeal No. 75 DB of 2009 33 that the presence of Harbans Kaur-eye witness (PW 2) was doubtful. Learned counsel has submitted in this regard that had Harbans Kaur (PW
2) been present at the time and place of occurrence, she would have herself got recorded the FIR. This contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is also only to be noted to be rejected. It is not necessary that the FIR has to be recorded only by an eye witness and by none else. FIR is only an information given to the police, which sets the criminal investigation into motion and the process of collecting evidence starts. In the present case, a very plausible explanation has come on the record. The manner in which the gruesome murders of the parents and nephew of Harbans Kaur (PW 2) had been committed, as stated by her in Court and she became unconscious goes to show that she was shell-shocked to make a report.
This material fact has also been corroborated by Jaspreet Singh (PW 9). There was nothing unnatural in this regard. An old daughter, who had come from Canada to see her old age parents, would not be expecting even in her dreams, that her parents and nephew would be murdered in the manner the incident occurred and that too in her presence. Further, minor discrepancies, even if they are there, would not affect the prosecution case or prove fatal to it. In fact, such discrepancies would be natural and deserve to be appreciated in the right perspective, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
The next argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the extra judicial confession made by appellant No.2 Harpreet Kaur @ Preeti before Bhagwant Singh (PW 6) was inadmissible because Bhagwant Singh was a close relative of the deceased. It is useful to note that Bhagwant Singh (PW 6) had got no direct relationship with the family of the deceased. It has come on record that mother of Bhagwant Singh (PW
6) was the niece of deceased-Jagir Kaur. Thus, it was not a direct Criminal Appeal No. 75 DB of 2009 34 relationship between the deceased and Bhagwant Singh (PW 6). Further, since Bhagwant Singh (PW 6) was working as Sarpanch of the village and was having a responsible status, it was very natural for appellant No.2 Harpreet Kaur @ Preeti to make an extra judicial confession before him as she knew him (Bhagwant Singh-PW 6). It is a matter of common knowledge that no accused would make an extra judicial confession before a person altogether unknown. The second limb of this very argument is that the extra judicial confession made by Bakhtaur Singh-appellant No.1 before Dalip Singh (PW 4) was inadmissible on the same analogy, is also without any force. As observed above, no accused would make an extra judicial confession before a stranger. Though, it has come on record that Dalip Singh (PW 4) has relation with Karnail Singh (deceased) as the son of Dalip Singh (PW 4) and daughter of Karnail Singh (deceased) were married with each other, however, it was not such a relation that the extra judicial confession made by Bakhtaur Singh (appellant No.1) would become inadmissible in law, in the given circumstances of the present case.
Bhagwant Singh (PW-6) has stated that Karnail Singh during his life time executed a Will in favour of his grand sons i.e. son of Jaspreet Singh (PW-9) namely Soni (Sandeep Singh) and two grand sons who are sons of Kanwal Bal Singh (sic. Kanwal Pal Singh) his other son. He (PW-6) had attested the said Will. He (PW-6) knew the contents of the Will before he attested the same. It is stated that Karnail Singh had disinherited the accused Harpreet Kaur alias Preeti (appellant No.2) as well as her daughter from the Will. It is further stated that the genesis of the dispute between Harpreet Kaur alias Preeti (appellant No.2) and her husband Jaspreet Singh (PW-9) was regarding his negligent and careless attitude towards his wife. To a court question as to whether he (PW-6) knew the Criminal Appeal No. 75 DB of 2009 35 reason why Jaspreet Singh (PW-9) had shifted from village Gajiana to village Nihal Singh Wala, he (PW-6) replied that he did not know what transpired in the family which impelled Jaspreet Singh (PW-9) to separate his family from his parents. He did not know particularly as to who was not loving said Soni (Sandeep Singh) son of Jaspreet Singh (PW-9) but he was being neglected and that was the reason he (Sandeep Singh) was residing with his father (Karnail Singh). It is further stated by Bhagwant Singh (PW-
6) that he had seen Harpreet Kaur alias Preeti (appellant No.2) as well as Bakhtaur Singh (appellant No.1) after the incident after about 2½ months when both of them had approached him in his house. In the said span of 2½ months the two accused (appellants) had not met him. After Karnail Singh's family had been murdered, he (PW-6) used to visit that house. Bakhtaur Singh (appellant No.1) it is stated confided in him (PW-6) that whatsoever he had done concerning the murder of Karnail Singh, his wife Jagir Kaur and grand son Soni (Sandeep Singh), must be brushed aside and the relations normalized. Bhagwant Singh (PW-6) had not asked as to what was the reason that the accused (appellants) had committed the murder because he (PW-6) had not thought it proper to probe any further. It is stated that Harpreet Kaur alias Preeti (appellant No.2) had also confided in him that the murders had been committed by them in the moment of rage and she had also requested him (PW-6) that he (PW-6) may get them produced before the local police. When they (appellants) approached Bhagwant Singh (PW-6) in his house, he (PW-6) produced them before the Police. The police arrested both of them in the Police Station. He (PW-6) had also signed the disclosure statement (Ex.P8) of Harpreet Kaur alias Preeti (appellant No.2); besides, he (PW-6) was a party to the recovery of 'dah' from Bakhtaur Singh (appellant No.1). The deposition of Bhagwant Singh (PW-6) is quite natural. He was known to both the sides and there Criminal Appeal No. 75 DB of 2009 36 was no reason for him to falsely implicate the appellants in case they had not confided in him regarding the incident that had occurred. Even Dalip Singh (PW-4) who is a friend of Karnail Singh stated that after approximately fifteen days of the murder, he (PW-4) was present in his house at village Rajiana. Harpreet Kaur alias Preeti (appellant No.2) along with Bakhtaur Singh (appellant No.1) came to him. Harpreet Kaur alias Preeti (appellant No.2) had confided before him (PW-4) that since Karnail Singh had not got the Will cancelled in inspite of efforts made by him (PW-
4) at her request and that she (Harpreet Kaur alias Preeti- appellant No.2) engaged Bakhtaur Singh (appellant No.1) by giving him Rs.50,000/- and got all the aforementioned three persons namely Karnail Singh, his wife Jagir Kaur and grand son Soni (Sandeep Singh) killed. Harpreet Kaur alias Preeti (appellant No.2) further confessed that in the moment of rage she had got the aforementioned persons killed by hiring Bakhtaur Singh (appellant No.1) for the said purpose and they be produced before the Police. Bakhtaur Singh (appellant No.1) it is stated had not conversed anything with him (PW-4). Only Harpreet Kaur alias Preeti (appellant No.2) had confessed before him as per the version made by him. Bakhtaur Singh (appellant No.1) was present near them when Harpreet Kaur alias Preeti (appellant No.2) made the confession before him (PW-4). Bakhtaur Singh (appellant No.1) had remained silent and had not contradicted Harpreet Kaur alias Preeti (appellant No.2). Therefore, the extra judicial confessions made by both the appellants inspire confidence and nothing wrong could be found with the same. Thus, the argument raised by leaned counsel for the appellants, in this regard, is not of much significance.
Further argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that taking Sandeep Singh (deceased) out in the fields before killing him, does not appeal to reason, particularly when his grandparents were killed inside Criminal Appeal No. 75 DB of 2009 37 the house. This argument of the learned counsel for the appellants does not impress us. Once, the chain of events is complete which connects the appellants with the crime, the minor discrepancies, as pointed out here and there, would not make any difference.
Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that the recovery of alleged weapon of offence i.e.'Dah' from the house of Harpreet Kaur (appellant No.2), at the instance of appellant No.1, was very doubtful. Similarly, the recovery of Identity cards, at the instance of Harpreet Kaur (appellant No.2), does not appeal to reason. The said argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is without any merit, and is liable to be rejected. It has been duly proved on the record that both the appellants were well known to each other since long, even if the fact regarding their alleged undesirable relations is ignored. In such a situation, there would be nothing surprising that after committing the triple murder of the above noted three persons, in furtherance of their common intention, the appellants would go together to the residential house of appellant No.2 and the weapon of offence would be concealed by appellant No.1, whereas, important documents belonging to deceased Karnail Singh would be concealed by appellant No.2. It would rather show their natural conduct. Thus, this argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is also liable to be rejected.
The last contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants about the motive is also of no avail to him. It has been repeatedly deposed by all the material prosecution witnesses that the appellants were pressing hard Karnail Singh (deceased) to cancel the Will executed by him in favour of his grandsons. The daughter of appellant No.2 Harpreet Kaur had not been given any share in the property of Karnail Singh and had been disinherited. This was the reason that the appellant Criminal Appeal No. 75 DB of 2009 38 No.2-Harpreet Kuar was having strained relations with her in-laws as well as with Sandeep Singh (deceased). It was only appellant No.2, who was nursing this grudge against the deceased because Karnail Singh (deceased) had refused to cancel the Will. After close examination of this aspect of the case, we unhesitatingly hold that it was only the appellants who had strong motive for committing this triple murder. Thus, the said argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants also fails and the same is rejected.
The judgements cited by the learned counsel for the appellants are of no help to him as the same are clearly distinguishable on facts.
On the other hand, we find force in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the State and also the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant to the effect that the appellants had strong motive to commit the crime, in question. The story put forth by the appellants about the alleged undesirable activities of Sandeep Singh (deceased) does not appeal to reason. Neither any victim nor any of the aggrieved parents came forward to lodge any complaint against Sandeep Singh (deceased). None was examined by the appellants as defence witness in this regard. In this view of the matter, the plea raised by the appellants about undesirable activities of Sandeep Singh-deceased, is only an allegation without any substance therein, hence, liable to be rejected. We are of this considered opinion that the submissions raised by the learned State counsel on behalf of the State as well as learned senior counsel on behalf of the complainant has force and deserves to be accepted.
Similarly, learned State counsel as well as learned Senior counsel for the complainant submitted that extra judicial confessions made by both the appellants was very much admissible in evidence, having been Criminal Appeal No. 75 DB of 2009 39 made voluntarily by the appellants, themselves. They rely upon a judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard in the case of Chattar Singh and anr.versus State of Haryana 2008(4) RCR(Criminal)
133. The observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para No.18 of the judgement are apposite and the same read as under:
An extra judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the court. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession, like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made. The value of the evidence as to the confession depends on the reliability of the witness who gives the evidence. It is not open to any court to start with a presumption that extra-judicial confession is a weak type of evidence. It would depend on the nature of the circumstances, the time when the confession was made and the credibility of the witnesses who speak to such a confession. Such a confession can be relied upon and conviction can be founded thereon if the evidence about the confession comes from the mouth of witnesses who appear to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive of attributing any untruthful statement to the accused, the words spoken to by the witness are clear, unambiguous and unmistakably convey that the accused is the proprietor of the crime and nothing is omitted by the witness which may militate against it. After subjecting the evidence of the Criminal Appeal No. 75 DB of 2009 40 witness to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility, the extra- judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a conviction if it passes the test of credibility. No other argument was raised on behalf of either of the parties. After having examined the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence brought on the record and also the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgements noted above, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution was successful in bringing home the guilt of the accused and the appellants have been rightly convicted by the learned trial Court.
The criminal revision has been filed by Hardev Singh complainant (PW-1) seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to respondents No.2 and 3 in the revision petition i.e. Bakhtaur Singh and Harpreet Kaur alias Preeti; besides, awarding compensation amount of Rs.15,00,000/- i.e. Rs.5,00,000/- in respect of each of the deceased to the legal heirs of the deceased. The learned trial Court has sentenced Bakhtaur Singh and Harpreet Kaur alias Preeti respondents No.2 and 3 in the revision petition to imprisonment for life. The State has not filed any appeal for enhancing the sentence. In exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the sentence of imprisonment is not liable to be enhanced. Besides, there is no material on record to show the earnings and incomes of the deceased so as to make any assessment for the purposes of compensation. The amount claimed to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- for each of the deceased is not based on any material. Therefore, in the absence of material on record, it would be inexpedient to award the compensation as claimed.
In view of the observations made above, we have no hesitation to conclude that the present appeal is bereft of any merits and without any substance.Criminal Appeal No. 75 DB of 2009 41
Accordingly, the appeal, as well as criminal revision are dismissed.
(S.S.SARON) (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK)
JUDGE JUDGE
02.03.2012
GS/neenu