Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sanju Massih vs State Of Punjab on 6 May, 2009
Author: Jora Singh
Bench: Jasbir Singh
Crl. Appeal No. 574-DB of 2000. 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Appeal No. 574-DB of 2000.
DECIDED ON : 06.05.2009
Sanju Massih
Appellant.
VERSUS
State of Punjab.
Respondent.
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH
Present: Mr. Sarabjit Singh Randhawa, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr.D.S.Brar, Deputy Advocate
General, Punjab.
JORA SINGH,J.
Through the instant criminal appeal, Sanju Massih, son of Sabhu Massih, has impugned the judgment and order dated 14.9.2000, rendered by the Ld. Sessions Judge, Amritsar in Sessions case No. 33 of 1998, Sessions Trial No. 8 of 1999 bearing First Information Report No. 87 dated 2.5.1998 registered at Police Station Sadar (Vijay Nagar), Amritar, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant- Crl. Appeal No. 574-DB of 2000. 2 accused was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 2.5.1998, on receipt of QST from In-charge Guard, S.G.T.S.Hospital, Amritsar qua death of Rani, police party headed by Sub Inspector Surinderjit had gone to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar, where Parkasho along with her husband had met the police party. Statement of Parkasho Ex.PE was recorded. Allegation of Parkasho was that her daughter Rani aged about 19 years was married with Sanju Massih about one year back, Sanju Massih had illicit relation with Radha, wife of Jaspal. Rani used to obstruct Sanju Massih to carry on these illicit relations. Due to this reason, Sanju Massih used to beat Rani by saying "who are you to obstruct me." The complainant had gone to Jammu to see her daughter Rani. On 30.4.1998, the complainant came back to her house along with Rani. On 1.5.1998, Sanju Massih came to the house of the complainant in the morning. At about 8.30 P.M., Rani along with her Crl. Appeal No. 574-DB of 2000. 3 younger daughter Kamla had gone to answer the call of nature. Sanju Massih also followed them. The complainant was going to fetch milk in the bazar. She was near Rajesh Tung Pai, then heard a noise. Rani was raising raula ( noise) " Bachao, Bachao". The complainant had gone to the spot. Sanju Massih was sighted while giving dagger blows to Rani. Kamla was rescuing Rani. After giving blows, Sanju Massih had fled away from the spot. Complainant, Kamla and Shinder Singh after arranging a vehicle, had shifted Rani to hospital. Ultimately, Rani had succumbed to her injuries while lying the hospital. Husband of the complainant had gone outside for labour work. Kamla remained near the dead body. Complainant made an effort to locate her husband, but he was not traceable. On 2.5.1998, Shangara Singh husband of the complainant had gone to hospital. Complainant along with Shangara Singh had gone to lodge report but near the gate of Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar. Police party headed by Sub Inspector Surinderjit had met the complainant. Statement of the complainant Parkasho was recorded and the same was thumb marked by her in token of its correctness.
Crl. Appeal No. 574-DB of 2000. 4
After making endorsement, statement was sent to the Police Station, on the basis of which formal First Information Report was recorded.
Sub Inspector Surinderjit prepared inquest report. Dead body was handed over to the police officials for post mortem examination. Sub Inspector Surinderjit had gone to the place of occurrence. Rough site plan with correct marginal noted was prepared. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. On 3.5.1998 clothes worn by the deceased were produced before the Investigating Officer and the same were made into a sealed parcel. Sealed parcel was taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. On return to the police station, case property was deposited with the MHC.
On 19.5.1998 accused was arrested while present near bus stand Mustfabad, Amritsar. Accused was interrogated and in pursuance of the disclosure statement accused got recovered dagger Ex.PN/2 from the specified place. Sketch of the dagger was prepared and the same was made into a sealed parcel. Sealed parcel was taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses.
Crl. Appeal No. 574-DB of 2000. 5
After completion of investigation, accused was challaned.
The case was committed to the Court of Session for trial.
Accused was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined PW-1 Dr. Jagdish Singh. He had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Rani on 3.5.1998 at 10.30 A.M. and found the following injuries on her person:-
1. 2.5 x 1 cms stab incised wound was present on the front of left side of abdomen. 4 cm away from umbilicus at 2 O'clock position vertically placed. Clotted blood was present.
2. 2.5 x 1 cms. stab incised wound was present on front of right side of neck. 1 cm lateral to suprasternal notch obliquely placed. Clotted blood was present.
on dissection of injury No.1 and abdomen, the wound was entering downwards, injuring the peritoneum, mesentery and Crl. Appeal No. 574-DB of 2000. 6 amentum. About 1400 CC of fluid and clotted blood was present in the peritoneal cavity. Infiltration of blood was present in the anterior abdominal wall at wound-site. on dissection of injury No.2 and chest, the wound was entering obliquely in the left pleural cacity, injuring the left pleura and upper lobe of left lung. Left pleural cavity contained about 750 CC of fluid and clotted blood. Left lung was collapsed and pale. Infiltration of blood was present at the injury site.
Stomach was containing about 40 CC of fluid and small intestine contained chyme and large intestine contained facal matter, gases while liver spleen, kidneys, lungs, pleurae, larynx, trachea, membranes and brain were pale. Uterus was empty. Bladder was also empty.
All the injuries were ante mortem in nature. The probable time, according to the doctor, that elapsed between injuries and death was within about few hours and between death and post mortem examination was 36 hours.
Crl. Appeal No. 574-DB of 2000. 7
PW-2 Constable Amrik Singh had tendered his affidavit Ex.PG.
PW-3 Constable Raman Kumar had tendered his affidavit Ex.PH.
PW-4 Head Constable Ashok Kumar had
tendered his affidavit Ex.PJ.
PW-5 LC Gurmej Singh had tendered his
affidavit Ex.PK.
PW-6 Parkasho mother of the deceased and
PW-7 Kamla sister of the deceased have supported the prosecution story by saying that Rani was murdered by her husband by giving dagger blows.
PW8 Sub Inspector Surinderjit is the investigating Officer.
After the close of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to explain the allegations levelled against him. He denied all the allegations and claimed to be innocent. Defence version of the accused was that he was falsely implicated in this case.
Opportunity was given to lead defence evidence but no defence was led.
We have heard Mr. Sarabjit Singh Randhawa, Crl. Appeal No. 574-DB of 2000. 8 Advocate for the appellant-accused, Mr.D.S.Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the State and have gone through the evidence on the record very carefully and thoroughly.
Learned defence counsel for the appellant- accused argued that occurrence is dated 1.5.1998 at 8.30 P.M., whereas the report was lodged with the police on the next day at 9.50 A.M. After recording First Information Report at 10.20 A.M., special report was received by the Ilaqa Magistrate at 3.15 P.M., whereas post mortem examination was conducted on 3.5.1998. Learned defence counsel further argued that presence of Parkasho and Kamla at the time of occurrence is not natural. Appellant-accused was having illicit relation with one Radha and after the occurrence, Rani was shifted to hospital. Death was at 10.50 P.M. on 1.5.1998. After the death, Parkasho came back to her house with Kamla. After that, they had not gone to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar. Question is how statement of Parkasho was recorded in the hospital at 9.50 A.M. on 2.5.1998. Allegation of the prosecution is that after the death, Kamla was left near the dead body. Parkasho came to her house but husband was not available. On Crl. Appeal No. 574-DB of 2000. 9 the next day, Parkasho along with her husband had gone to hospital, then her statement was recorded. Statement of Parkasho is contrary to the statement of Kamla because Kamla stated that after the occurrence Rani was shifted to hospital. After death, police came to the hospital. Their statements were recorded. Some persons had come to the hospital. When Rani was lying admitted in injured condition. After death, they came to whom later on they had not gone to hospital. That means, when Parkasho and Kamla were in the hospital then on receipt of information, the police came there. Statements of the complainant and eye witness were recorded, but later on the story was changed. Original version is not on the file. On 2.5.1998, after Shangara Singh came to home about the death, then the appellant-accused was named because grievance of the complainant party was that appellant-accused was having illicit relations with one Radha. Delay was used to concoct the story to implicate the appellant-accused because he was not having cordial relation with the deceased.
Mr. D.S.Brar, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, argued that the appellant-accused was having illicit relation with Radha when deceased had Crl. Appeal No. 574-DB of 2000. 10 disclosed this fact to her mother, then Parkasho brought Rani to Amritsar. Appellant-accused came to the house of the complainant and gave injuries tot he deceased in the presence of the complainant and Kamla. The appellant-accused had the motive to commit the crime when the complainant party was not having enmity with somebody else, then there was no idea to leave the real culprits and name of the appellant-accused.
First submission of the learned defence counsel for the appellant-accused was that presence of Parkasho and Kamla at the time of alleged occurrence is doubtful. They have deposed being relation of the deceased. Occurrence was not near the residential house of Parkasho. Parkasho had gone to fetch milk from the Bazar and her presence was not natural at the time of occurrence.
We have gone through the evidence on the file and are of the opinion that submission of the learned defence counsel seems to be reasonable one. Occurrence was at 8.30 P.M. on 1.5.1998. Rani was shifted to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar at 10.30 P.M. At 10.55 P.M. Rani had succumbed to her injuries. According to the endorsement, on Ex.PE, QST message received from Crl. Appeal No. 574-DB of 2000. 11 Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar. Sub Inspector Surinderjit along with the police party had gone to the hospital. Statement of Parkasho Ex.PE was recorded at 9.50 A.M., then the same was sent to the Police Station. Formal First Information Report Ex.PE/2 was recorded at 10.20 A.M. Special report was received by the Ilaqa Magistrate at 3.15 P.M. but post mortem examination was conducted on 3.5.1998 at 10.30 A.M. Parkasho stated that Rani and Kamla had gone to answer the call of nature. Appellant-accused had followed them. She had gone to bazar to fetch milk, when she heard raula, then she had gone to the spot. Appellant-accused was seen while giving dagger blows to Rani. After committing the crime, the accused had fled away from the spot. Rani was shifted to the hospital and after death, she came back to her house. Kamla had stayed near the dead body. Shangara Singh, father of the deceased had gone for manual work. He was not available, on the next day, complainant had gone to hospital, where her statement Ex.PE was recorded. Parkasho in examination-in-chief stated that after the death of Rani, Kamla was deputed to stay near the dead body. She came back to her house. Her husband was Crl. Appeal No. 574-DB of 2000. 12 not available. She had gone to locate her husband. On the next day at 8/9 A.M., police came to Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar, where her statement Ex.PE was recorded. Parkasho did not state a word that on 2.5.1998, she along with her husband had gone to lodge a report with police, then police had met them near the gate. In examination-in-chief, she stated that after the death of Rani, she came back to her house. Kamla had stayed near the dead body of Rani. That means as per Parkasho, Rani was shifted to hospital by her mother and sister. After the death, Parkasho came back to her house. Husband of Parkasho was not in the house. On the next day i.e. 2.5.1998, husband of Parkasho had gone to hospital after he came to know about the death of Rani, then Parkasho and her husband had gone to lodge report as per endorsement Ex.PE/1, but in Court, Parkasho did not state a word that on 2.5.1998, her statement came to the hospital or she along with her husband had gone to the hospital and after that, they had gone to lodge report. Rather, Parkasho stated that on 2.5.1998 at 8.00/9.00 A.M., police came to hospital. Her statement Ex.PE was recorded. She had gone to the spot and had shown the place of occurrence. Husband Crl. Appeal No. 574-DB of 2000. 13 of Parkasho was not examined by the prosecution.
Kamla (PW-7) is the sister of the deceased and in Court she stated that she along with her mother had shifted Rani to hospital. Death was at 9.30 P.M. In cross examination, Kamla stated that no one came to the place of occurrence whereas Parkasho stated that number of persons had collected on the spot. Kamla in cross- examination also stated that Rani was admitted in the hospital then police came there. Police had inquired from her about the occurrence and recorded her statement. Statement of her mother was recorded by the police and her thumb impressions were taken on the statement. Many persons had reached the hospital where Rani was lying with injuries. Police had inquired from those persons, after death of Rani, she along with her mother came back to their house during night time. They remained in the house through out the night. Her mother was also in the house during night time. Thereafter, neither she nor her mother had gone to the hospital. That means on 1.5.1998, after death at 9.30/10.55 P.M. the police had gone to the hospital. Statements of the complainant and Smt. Kamla were recorded by the police. Ex.PE/1 shows that on 2.5.1998, Crl. Appeal No. 574-DB of 2000. 14 on receipt of QST, police party had gone to hospital, then statement of Parkasho Ex.PE was recorded at 9.50 A.M. If the occurrence was witnessed by Parkasho and Kamla and the police was in the hospital on 1.5.1998 and statements of the complainant and Kamla were recorded, then the question arises where those statements have gone. Purposely, QST received by the concerned police station was not produced on the file to show as to whether QST was sent, when Rani was lying admitted in injured condition or QST was sent after death. In case,QST was sent when Rani was lying then police party was expected to reach the hospital during night time on 1.5.1998 because hospital was near the place of occurrence. Police Station is at a distance of only four kilometer from the place of occurrence. After recording formal First Information Report at 10.20 A.M., Special Report was received by the Ilaqa Magistrate at 3.15 P.M. Police Station and Courts were within the municipal limits of Municipal Corporation, Amritsar. No explanation how special report reached the Ilaqa Magistrate at 3.15 PM., then formal First Information Report was recorded at 10.20 P.M. As discussed earlier, the appellant-accused Crl. Appeal No. 574-DB of 2000. 15 was not having cordial relations with the deceased because allegation of the prosecution is that the appellant-accused was having illicit relation with Radha. Husband of Parkasho was not available because he was on duty for manual work. As per the endorsement Ex.PE/1, Shangara Singh had gone to hospital after he came to know about the death of Rani. Shangara Singh was not produced to explain that on the intervening night of 1.5.1998/2.5.1998, he came back to his house and from where he came to know about the death. If he was not in the house during night time and had directly gone to hospital on 2.5.1998 then he was expected to accompany Parkasho to visit Police Station to lodge a report but Parkasho did not state a word that she along with her husband had gone to lodge report with the police. Police had met them near the gate of the hospital. Endorsement Ex.PE/1 falsifies the prosecution story. Parkasho and Kamla after their statements were recorded by the police, came back to their house after that they had not gone to the hospital. If Parkasho had gone to hospital on 2.5.1998 then Kamla cannot state that the police came to hospital and their statements were recorded. After that they came to their house and Crl. Appeal No. 574-DB of 2000. 16 had not gone to hospital. If statement of Kamla is correct one, then story put forward by Parkasho that after death she came back to her house on the next day, she had gone to hospital, then her statement was recorded at 9.50 A.M. is not correct. So, receipt of special report by the Ilaqa Magistrate at 3.15 P.M. on 2.5.1998 shows that after the occurrence at 8.30 P.M. on 1.5.1998, story was concocted. Appellant-accused was named because he was having illicit relation with Radha and used to beat Rani, when she was objected.
Last submission of the learned defence counsel for the appellant-accused was that the appellant-accused had no motive to murder Rani, because she (Rani) was brought from her in laws' house by Parkasho on 30.4.1998. On 1.5.1998 the appellant-accused came to her in laws house and stayed during the whole day. In the evening, Rani and Kamla had gone to answer the call of nature, appellant-accused was not expected to follow them. If appellant-accused had the motive to murder, then Rani could easily be murdered while present at her in laws house at Jammu. On the other hand, complainant party had the motive to implicate the appellant-accused because complainant party was Crl. Appeal No. 574-DB of 2000. 17 suspecting that appellant-accused had illicit relation with Radha. Submission of the learned defence counsel seems to be reasonable one. One year earlier to the occurrence, Rani was married with the appellant-accused and from this wed lock, there is no issue. Rani was objecting the appellant-accused not to carry on illicit relations with Radha but in support of this allegation, there is not a word by Kamla, no complaint to any authority. There was no Panchayat, if appellant-accused gave beatings to the deceased. If appellant-accused was having an illicit relation with Radha and Rani came to her parental house along with her mother Parkasho, then the appellant-accused was not expected to visit his in laws house. While staying at Nanak Nagar, Hira Colony, Jammu Rani could easily be eliminated. Secondly, when Rani had gone to answer the call of nature with Kamla, then no question of causing injury because Rani was not alone, Kamla was with her. At about 8.30 P.M., how Parkasho was expected to be near Rajesh Nagar, Tung Pai while going to fetch milk, particularly, when she was the resident of Comrade Chakki, Mohakampur, Batala Road, Amritsar. When the appellant-accused was not having cordial relation Crl. Appeal No. 574-DB of 2000. 18 with Rani, then he was named. Motive seems to be with the complainant party to implicate the appellant-accused, when there was no issue from the womb of Rani. Appellant-accused is a poor man. Before the trial Court, Mr. Kundan Lal Chaudhary was appointed as Amicus Curiae to defend the appellant-accused. Before this Court also Amicus Curiae was appointed to defend the appellant-accused who is in custody with effect from 19.5.1998. All this shows the occurrence had not taken place, as alleged by the prosecution. In fact, due to previous enmity, false story was concocted.
No other contention was put forward.
In the light of above discussion, appeal is accepted. The appellant-accused is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Release warrant be issued.
( JORA SINGH )
JUDGE
06.05.2009. ( JASBIR SINGH )
Anoop JUDGE