Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mahavir Singh vs The State Of Haryana on 20 January, 2010
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Jaswant Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision : January 20, 2010
Crl. Appeal No.499-DB of 2001
Mahavir Singh ...Appellant
Versus
The State of Haryana ...Respondent
Present : Mr. P.S.Chauhan, Advocate, for
Mr. Harish Nain, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Sandeep Vermani, Addl. AG, Haryana,
for the respondent.
Crl. Appeal No.520-DB of 2001
Jagbir Singh ...Appellant
Versus
The State of Haryana ...Respondent
Present : Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Sandeep Vermani, Addl. AG, Haryana,
for the respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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?
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
This order shall dispose of aforesaid criminal appeals, arising out of judgment and order dated 4.9.2001/7.9.2001 convicting the accused- appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC and sentenced for imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each Crl. Appeal No.499-DB of 2001 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. They were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.
The appellants alongwith one Sudesh Rani faced trial for an offence punishable under Sections 302, 120-B and 201 IPC on the allegations that on 21.6.1995 in the area of Village Kavi, they committed criminal conspiracy by mutually agreeing to commit murder of Suraj Mal. In pursuance of such criminal conspiracy, the appellants did commit murder by intentionally causing the death of Suraj Mal and thereafter, voluntarily caused disappearance of evidence i.e. threw the dead body of Suraj Mal in the canal and also burnt their blood stained clothes as well as those of Suraj Mal, with a view to screen themselves from legal punishment.
Ram Chander, brother of deceased Suraj Mal, on 27.6.1995 in his statement Ex.PJ, has stated that on 21.6.1995 his younger brother Suraj Mal has gone to his fields for irrigation and did not return home. Bharto Devi, his mother has lodged a report of missing of Suraj Mal on 25.6.1995 at Police Station Mathlauda. He further stated that yesterday i.e. 26.6.1995, he and Balbir Singh S/o Hari Kishan R/o Kavi had gone in search of Suraj Mal on motor-cycle. On reaching canal bridge of Kavi, near village Kavi, they saw one chappal, one saw, two pieces of blade, some blood and two pieces of meat lying on the path. The chappal was identified to be of his brother Suraj Mal. They also saw dead body lying on the surface of the river's water, when they reached on Rohtak-Jind, G.T.Road along the path Crl. Appeal No.499-DB of 2001 3 near the bridge of Gattoli. He and Balbir Singh could not identify the dead body. Leaving Balbir Singh near the dead body, he came back to village. Accompanied with uncle Hoshiara S/o Rama, Dhanpat, Sarpanch and Satpal, Advocate, he reached near the dead body around 12.00 noon. Balbir Singh was sitting close to dead body. We saw the dead body carefully and identified the same as that of my brother Suraj Mal. He went to the Police Station, after leaving other people near the dead body. He has disclosed old enmity with Dhoop Singh S/o Shishu and suspected his conspiracy in the murder of his brother Suraj Mal.
During investigation, it was found that accused Jagbir Singh was having illicit relations with Sudesh Rani and that she asked Jagbir Singh to remove Suraj Mal from the way. Mahavir Singh accused had also a grudge on account of marriage of Sudesh Rani with Suraj Mal, as Sudesh Rani was from his village. On the night intervening 21.6.1995 and 22.6.1995, Jagbir Singh and Mahavir Singh at the instance of Sudesh Rani had killed Suraj Mal with a saw and had thrown his dead body in the canal. The accused-appellants were arrested on 3.7.1995. During interrogation, accused Jagbir made a disclosure statement in the presence of Yash Pal and ASI Dharam Pal, that he had thrown the dead body of Suraj Mal and the small saw in the Western Yamuna Canal and that he concealed his own clothes and that of deceased in burnt condition, in the fields of Mange Ram, Brahman. On his demarcation, the police got recovered burnt soil, piece of half burnt pant, hook of the pant, broken blade of the saw stained with blood and a pair of chappal of the deceased. Accused Mahavir Singh also made a disclosure statement that he had concealed his blood stained clothes duly washed under the culvert of bridge of Village Kavi. In pursuance of the Crl. Appeal No.499-DB of 2001 4 disclosure statement, the accused got recorded a blood stained bushirt 'Checkdar' of light yellow colour and a pant from the disclosed place.
On the basis of such broad allegations, the appellants alongwith Sudesh Rani, were made to stand trial for an offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B IPC. After going through the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated hereinbefore, whereas acquitted Sudesh Rani from the charges levelled against her. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence rendered by the learned trial Court, the accused/appellants are in appeal.
The prosecution has sought to prove the charges against the appellants broadly by circumstantial evidence led by examining Nafe Singh (PW-9), Bharto Devi (PW-8) and Jai Singh (PW-6). Bharto Devi (PW-8) has led evidence of motive i.e. of having illicit relations of Jagbir Singh and Sudesh Rani wife of Suraj Mal, whereas Nafe Singh (PW-9) has led evidence of the motive as well as of the deceased being seen lastly in the company of Jagbir Singh and Mahavir Singh. Jai Singh (PW-6) has led the evidence of last seen.
Apart from such evidence, the prosecution has relied upon the recoveries Exs.PM, PN and PQ, effected on the basis of disclosure statements of accused Jagbir, Ex.PK and Ex.PR of accused Mahavir Singh, which are corroborated by the report of Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex.PV). The prosecution has also relied upon the statement of Dr.P.K.Dhaliwal (PW-1), who has conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Suraj Mal. He has deposed that following injuries were found on the person of Suraj Mal :
"1. There was a sharp cut over the left side of the neck placed obliquely transverse 8 cms below and 2 cm santerior to the Crl. Appeal No.499-DB of 2001 5 angle of mandible. It had cut the underlying soft tissues and vessels as well the cricoid cartilages of traches. There was ecchymosis in the soft tissues.
2. There was a fracture of skull. On its posterior part situated 2 cms posterior to the parietal eminence and extending up to the place of skull involving occipital protuberance. The middle portion of bone was missing. 4.5 cms in diameter. The margins of fracture were showing multiple fractures and margins were also showing infiltration of blood. The fracture had expended into the cranial cavity up to foramen magnum. The scalp over the fractured part of a skull was showing ecchymosis."
The Doctor has further deposed that duration between death and post-mortem examination was about a week and no opinion can be given regarding the duration between injuries and death. In his cross- examination, he has deposed that injuries on the person of the deceased were before throwing the body in water and these injuries could not have been caused after being thrown in the water. He has admitted that he has not mentioned in the post-mortem report, duration between death and post- mortem and that there may be fluctuation of one day of either side.
Ex.PM is the recovery memo vide which soil, ash and one hook were recovered at the instance of accused Jagbir Singh from the place pointed out by Jagbir Singh about 2 kms from village Kavi adjacent to road and next to field of paddy of Mange Ram, and converted into one sealed parcel. Ex.PN is the recovery memo vide which broken blood stained blade of saw and pair of chappal of the deceased Suraj Mal, at the instance of Jagbir Singh, were recovered. Ex.PQ is another recovery memo vide which an iron saw with the handle of wooden with one side not present, was recovered at the instance of accused Jagbir Singh. On the other hand, Ex.PR is the recovery memo of blood stained Bushirt and Pant of accused Crl. Appeal No.499-DB of 2001 6 Mahavir Singh, at his instance, in a polythene under the bridge in Bhusalana Road on 3.7.1995. Ex.PL is again a recovery memo of blood stained clothes of accused Mahavir Singh hidden up near the village in a pullia, on the basis of his own disclosure statement. All the aforesaid recovery memos were signed by ASI Dharampal and Yashpal.
The report of Forensic Science Laboratory is Ex.PV. As per the report, the earth recovered from the place of occurrence, contained human blood. Blood was detected on Hexa blade, frame of Aari and traces of blood were also found on the pant recovered at the instance of Mahavir Singh. On the basis of such evidence, the learned trial Court convicted the accused-appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
A perusal of the above sequence of events shows that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges of an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, on the basis of motive and evidence of last seen. Such evidence is corroborated by the recovery of blood stained earth from the spot disclosed by accused Jagbir Singh and also from the pant and shirt of the accused Mahavir Singh, recovered at his instance.
Learned counsel for accused Mahavir Singh has vehemently argued that in the statement, which led to an FIR (Ex.PS), the suspect was Dhoop Singh S/o Shishu. Such FIR has been recorded on 28.6.1995 at about 8.50 PM , whereas the prosecution has said to prove charges on the basis of statement of Bharto Devi (PW-8) and Nafe Singh (PW-9), when it was alleged that Jagbir Singh was having illicit relations with Sudesh Rani wife of Suraj Mal and that Nafe Singh has last seen Suraj Mal with accused Jagbir Singh and Mahavir Singh on 21.6.1995. It is contended that Nafe Singh (PW-9) is not stranger to the family of the deceased as he belongs to the family of the deceased, but has kept silence for number of days before Crl. Appeal No.499-DB of 2001 7 disclosing that he has seen Suraj Mal with Jagbir Singh and Mahavir Singh. Similarly, Bharto Devi (PW-8), mother of deceased Suraj Mal, deposed regarding illicit relations of Jagbir Singh with Sudesh Rani and that Nafe Singh had taken Suraj Mal with him, but has returned alone. It is argued that the conduct of the mother to keep silence for number of days before lodging the missing report on 25.6.1995, is not a normal human conduct and is a suspicious circumstance, which cannot be relied upon. It is further argued that Jai Singh (Pw-6) has been examined to prove that the accused- appellants were last seen in the company of deceased Suraj Mal and that Jagbir Singh was having illicit relations with Sudesh Rani wife of Suraj Mal. Even the silence of the said witness for number of days does not inspire confidence and the story of his visiting Haridwar is palpably wrong. It is also argued that the Aari used in the commission of crime, burnt clothes of the deceased and that of the accused, are recovered at the instance of Jagbir Singh, therefore, there is no evidence of connecting Mahavir Singh with the commission of offence.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in the present appeals. Though in the statement, the basis of FIR, Dhoop Singh was named as suspect, but during the course of investigation, involvement of the appellants have come out. Bharto Devi (PW-8) is the mother of deceased Suraj Mal. She has deposed that earlier Mahavir and his younger brother Satish had assaulted Suraj Mal with lathies and the matter was reported to the Police. She has further deposed that Jagbir started visiting Sudesh Rani in our absence after the birth of child of Suraj Mal and he had illicit relations with Sudesh Rani. Suraj Mal had seen Jagbir going out from his house and Suraj Mal has given beatings to Sudesh Rani, whereupon Sudesh Rani went to her parents with her son. She has further Crl. Appeal No.499-DB of 2001 8 deposed that on 21.6.1995, Nafe Singh had come to her house and has taken Suraj Mal in the evening time for watering the fields, but Nafe Singh returned alone. She has further deposed that he (Nafe Singh) has disclosed that Suraj Mal was talking with Jagbir Singh and Mahavir Singh at the out- skirt of the village. In the morning, when Suraj Mal had not returned, she called Jagbir Singh and Jagbir Singh told her that there was Bandh (strike) and Suraj Mal was taken away by the Police alongwith others. After waiting for 4/5 days, she asked Jagbir Singh. He told her that she should report the matter to Police, but he refused to accompany her to lodge the report and stated that the Police would harass him, but she should take his father along. She has further deposed that she has gone to the P.S. Madlauda alongwith father of Jagbir Singh and lodged DDR No.9 dated 25.6.1995. In her cross-examination, a suggestion has been put to her that whether her son Suraj Mal and accused Jagbir Singh were proceeded under Sections 107/51 of the Cr.P.C. at the instance of Dhoop Singh. There is no suggestion that Mahavir Singh and his brother have not assaulted Suraj Mal with lathies earlier.
Nafe Singh (PW-9), who deposed that on 21.6.1995, he alongwith Suraj Mal had gone to the fields. He further deposed that it was while returning, accused Jagbir Singh met Suraj Mal. Mahavir Singh was also standing nearby. Jagbir Singh took Suraj Mal and started talking. He waited for Suraj Mal for sufficient time and then they told him to go to village as they were to talk for some work. In the morning, one child was sent to call Jagbir Singh and he (Jagbir Singh) told Bharto Devi, mother of Suraj Mal that Suraj Mal might have been arrested by the police due to Bandh. He then returned to Village Naru Kheri. The witness was confronted with his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. alleging his Crl. Appeal No.499-DB of 2001 9 statement in Court to be improvement then what was stated to the Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The said improvements does not create any doubt on the veracity of the witness in respect of his visit to the house of Suraj Mal on 21.6.1995 and his taking Suraj Mal to the fields. Jai Singh (PW-6) has also deposed that Ravi Singh, father of Mahavir Singh was not happy with the marriage of Suraj Mal with Sudesh Rani. He has also deposed that on 21.6.1995 around 9.00/9.30 PM on the bank of Hansi canal, he saw Jagbir Singh and Mahavir Singh. He further deposed that they became scared on seeing him and accused Jagbir Singh was having iron saw (Aari). Jagbir Singh told him that they were to cut wood. The line of cross- examination was that the family of Mahavir Singh has shifted from Naultha i.e. the village of Sudesh Rani from the time of his grand-father. He has deposed that though Jagbir Singh was not desisting from carrying his relations with Sudesh Rani and Suraj Mal was quite annoyed with Jagbir Singh, but despite it they are in good visiting terms with each other.
From the oral testimonies of aforesaid three witnesses, it transpires that Jagbir Singh is said to have illicit relations with Sudesh Rani wife of Suraj Mal and that on 21.6.1995, he was last seen in the company of accused Jagbir Singh and Mahavir Singh. It has also come on record that Mahavir Singh and his brother were involved in a fight with Suraj Mal sometime back and Suraj Mal and Jagbir Singh were part of one group, which was involved in security proceedings against Dhoop Singh.
Ram Chander, brother of the deceased, the author of the FIR has been examined as PW-13. He has deposed that on 21.6.1995, his brother Suraj Mal went missing and a report in this regard was lodged by his mother on 25.6.1995. On 26.6.1995, he has found a piece of Aari blade, blood stained 'V' shape chappals, on Western Yamuna canal bank, at a Crl. Appeal No.499-DB of 2001 10 distance of 2 or 2 ½ kms from village Kavi. He suspected some foul play. The dead body was tied with the rope of grass standing on the bank, but the body could not be identified due to darkness. He informed the police and on next day, he went to the place where the dead body was lying and it was identified as that of Suraj Mal. He has further deposed that Mahavir Singh and his family members had raised the objections at the engagement ceremony of Sudesh Rani with Suraj Mal and on the complaint of Dhoop Singh, Suraj Mal and accused Jagbir Singh were challaned in the month of January 1995, under Section 107 Cr.P.C. He has further deposed that thereafter Jagbir Singh started visiting their house and developed illicit relations with Sudesh Rani. Suraj Mal has beaten his wife, suspecting illicit relations between Jagbir Singh and Sudesh Rani. Mahavir Singh was annoyed due to engagement of Sudesh Rani with Suraj Mal, being resident of the same village Naultha.
We did not find any substance in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that time of death is not disclosed in the post-mortem report. The Doctor has deposed that no opinion can be given regarding duration between the injuries and death, but the duration between death and post-mortem examination was about a week. The said opinion corroborates the prosecution evidence.
Mr. Chauhan, has relied upon a judgment reported as Kulwant Rai @ Nona Vs. State of Punjab 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal)126, to contend that the prosecution has failed to prove motive of Mahavir Singh. Therefore, in a case based upon circumstantial evidence, the accused cannot be convicted.
In the judgment referred to by learned counsel for Mahavir Singh, it was found that complete chain to exclude possibility of innocence Crl. Appeal No.499-DB of 2001 11 of the accused is not formed. In the present case, Jagbir Singh is alleged to have illicit relations with Sudesh Rani, wife of deceased Suraj Mal, whereas family of Mahavir Singh originally belongs to village Naultha, but even if the said family has shifted to village Kavi, the story that such family was not happy with the marriage of Sudesh Rani with Suraj Mal cannot be said to be improbable and unworthy of reliance. Apart from such evidence, the recovery of clothes of accused Mahavir Singh, at his instance, under the bridge is corroborative to the other evidence led by the prosecution witnesses. So is the recovery of Aari, burnt clothes and the earth from the place of occurrence, containing human blood corroborates the prosecution case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Consequently, we do not find any illegality in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, as the same are based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law on the point, which may warrant interference by this Court in the present appeal.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
January 20, 2010 (JASWANT SINGH)
Vimal JUDGE