Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaswinder Singh Alias Jassa And Another vs ' Was Prepared And Taken Into Police ... on 21 August, 2012
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Inderjit Singh
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
(1) Criminal Appeal No.-D-113-DB of 2012
.....
Date of decision:21.8.2012
Jaswinder Singh alias Jassa and another
...Appellants
v.
State of Punjab
...Respondent
....
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Kumar Mittal
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
.....
Present: Mr. Akshay Jain, Advocate for the appellants.
Ms. Ritu Punj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the
respondent-State.
.....
(2) Criminal Appeal No.-D-1089-DB of 2011
.....
Gurpreet Kaur
...Appellant
v.
State of Punjab
...Respondent
....
Present: Mr. S.S. Sodhi, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Ritu Punj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the
respondent-State.
.....
Inderjit Singh, J.
This judgment will dispose of above two criminal appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal No.-D-1089-DB of 2011 filed by appellant-Gurpreet Kaur wife of Sarabjit Singh and Criminal Appeal No.-D-113-DB of 2012 filed by Cr. A Nos.-D-113-DB of 2012 etc. [2] appellants-Jaswinder Singh alias Jassa and Inderjit Singh alias Indra as these arise from the same judgment and order.
These appeals have been filed against judgment and order dated 21.9.2011 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, whereby all the accused- appellants have been held guilty for the offence under Section 120-B IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of `1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each. Appellant-Jaswinder Singh alias Jassa has been held guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of `10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Appellant-Inderjit Singh alias Indra has been held guilty for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of `10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Appellants- Jaswinder Singh alias Jassa and Inderjit Singh alias Indra have also been held guilty for the offence under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of `2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months each. However, all the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
The brief facts of the prosecution case are that Surjit Singh was working as Driver with Namdharis at Rupnagar but for the last one month he was in the house. The marriage of his daughter was fixed for 17.11.2010. Surjit Singh had gone to know about the gas cylinders from the house on Cr. A Nos.-D-113-DB of 2012 etc. [3] 28.10.2010 at about 8.30 p.m. and had not come to the house during the entire night. He had received a phone call from someone for arranging the cylinders and when it was inquired from him as to who was on the phone call, he told his wife that the phone call was of Jassa-their neighbour. At about 9.00 p.m., a phone call was given on Mobile No.9417625915 but the Mobile was found switched off. At that time, there was no suspicion on anybody regarding his missing. Wife of Surjit Singh, namely, Inderjit Kaur reported the matter to the Police regarding which DDR No.24 dated 29.10.2010 was recorded at Police Station Singh Bhagwantpura, District Rupnagar. When no information was received by the complainant till 6.11.2010 then she again reported the matter to the Police and shown her belief against Jaswinder Singh alias Jassa, Inderjit Singh alias Indra and Gurpreet Kaur accused that her husband Surjit Singh had been murdered on the same night on 28.10.2010 and after killing him, he had been thrown in the Bhakra main canal along with motorcycle No.PB-12G-3490(T) make Discover. It was also stated by the complainant in the FIR that the motive for the occurrence was that Gurpreet Kaur was suspecting that Surjit Singh was having bad eye on her due to this reason she in connivance with other accused Jaswinder Singh and Inderjit Singh got murdered complainant's husband Surjit Singh from them. On 4.11.2010, an unidentified dead body was recovered from the canal in the area of Nauhar, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan). On the same day, post-mortem was conducted on the dead body by PW-10 Dr. Rakesh Sharma, Medical Officer, Government Community Health Centre, Nauhar, District Hanumangarh and found the following injuries on the dead body of Surjit Singh:-
Cr. A Nos.-D-113-DB of 2012 etc. [4] "1. Lacerated wound on both elbows extensor aspects almost equal sized 5 cm x 3 cm x bone deep.
2. Skin of both hands and both feet sloughed at various sites.
3. Skin of head posteriorly sloughed with underlying bone fractured.
4. Lacerated wound over both knees interiorly, almost same size 5 cm x 7.5 cm x bone deep."
In his opinion, no definite cause of death could be given due to highly decomposition of body though death due to drowning was ruled out. The dead body was identified as of his uncle Surjit Singh by PW-6 Gurinder Singh on 7.11.2010 from the photograph lying at Police Station Nauhar, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan). On 7.11.2010, accused Jaswinder Singh alias Jassa and Inderjit Singh alias Indra were produced before PW-15 Inspector Varinderjit Singh by PW-18 Avtar Singh in Police Station before whom this accused had made extra-judicial confession. On 8.11.2010, at the instance of accused blood stained earth and grass (Ex.PX) were taken into possession after converting the same into sealed parcel. Site plan of place of recovery was prepared. Motorcycle was got recovered from the canal which was taken into possession vide memo (Ex.PY) along with the documents. Site plan of place of recovery of motorcycle was also prepared. On 8.11.2010, accused Gurpreet Kaur was arrested from Bus Stand Singh Bhagwantpura. On 9.11.2010, accused Jaswinder Singh was interrogated in the presence of Harmail Singh and ASI Gurmit Singh and he made disclosure statement that he had kept concealed a small `Gandasa' stained with blood, T-shirt and Pant stained with blood, which he was wearing at the Cr. A Nos.-D-113-DB of 2012 etc. [5] time of occurrence, in his courtyard of his `Bara' in the heap of popular sticks to which he only knew and could get recovered the same. Accused Inderjit Singh alias Indra was also interrogated. He also made disclosure statement regarding kept concealing a half bottle of liquor containing some liquor in it along with a pair of chappal of Surjit Singh deceased in the bushes near the place of occurrence in the area of Village Railon Kalan. He also disclosed that he had kept concealed one T-shirt and Pant stained with blood in the trunk in his house to which he only knew and could get the same recovered. His disclosure statement (Ex.PAA) was recorded and signed by the accused and above witnesses. Inderjit Singh got recovered a half bottle of liquor and `Chappals' of Surjit Singh in the presence of Fingerprint Expert, who developed the fingerprints from the half bottle which was packed in wooden box as per rules and a separate sealed parcel with the seal of `VS' was prepared and taken into Police possession. Accused Inderjit Singh also got recovered in pursuance of his disclosure statement blood stained T-Shirt and Pant from the disclosed place which was also converted into a sealed parcel. Accused Jaswinder Singh alias Jassa in pursuance of his disclosure statement got recovered one small `Gandasa' and blood stained clothes from the disclosed place which were taken into possession after preparing separate sealed parcels. Site plans of places of recoveries were also prepared. Statement of witnesses were recorded. Photographs were taken.
On completion of investigation challan was presented. After presentation of challan, the trial Court finding prima facie charges against the accused under different sections of IPC as mentioned above framed Cr. A Nos.-D-113-DB of 2012 etc. [6] charges to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Inderjit Kaur, who mainly deposed as per prosecution version. PW-2 MHC Devinder Kumar is a formal witness, who tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PC. PW-3 HC Kewal Krishan, PW-4 HC Avtar Singh and PW-5 HC Shiv Shanker are formal witnesses, who tendered in evidence their affidavits Exs.PD, PE and PF respectively. PW-6 Gurinder Singh mainly deposed that the dead body of Surjit Singh was recovered from canal in the area of Rajasthan. On 7.11.2010, he went there and saw the photographs of the dead body which was unidentified. Then he identified the photo of dead body of his uncle Surjit Singh from so many photographs at Police Station Nauhar, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan). The photographs are at Mark-A to Mark-E. PW-7 Gaganpreet Singh (minor aged about 13 years son of deceased Surjit Singh) mainly deposed regarding last seen. He stated that he went along with his father on 28.10.2010 at about 8.30 p.m., who received a telephone call from Jaswinder Singh alias Jassa. At some distance from his house, his father made him to get down from his motorcycle. On the way, Jaswinder Singh and Inderjit Singh met his father. He also stated that he returned back home but while returning he saw towards back and found that his father along with Jaswinder Singh and Inderjit Singh went on the motorcycle of his father. He disclosed this fact to his mother. He identified the accused in the Court. PW-8 HC Satnam Singh mainly deposed regarding mechanical test report of motorcycle No.PB-12G- 3490(T). PW-9 SI Darshan Singh, Fingerprint Expert mainly deposed that on 9.11.2010, he went to the spot at Railon Kalan after receiving Cr. A Nos.-D-113-DB of 2012 etc. [7] information from Control Room. He checked the one half bottle of liquor with the help of powder. Fingerprints were developed by him from half bottle of liquor. The same were encircled and signed by him with his initials and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer. He further asked the I.O. to send the article to Director, Finger Print Bureau. PW-10 Dr. Rakesh Sharma mainly deposed regarding conducting the post-mortem on the dead body of deceased Surjit Singh. PW-11 ASI Inder Lal Sharma posted at Police Station Nauhar, District Hanumangarh mainly deposed regarding the recovery of the dead body lying in canal at Badbirana. He also deposed regarding the Police proceedings upon the basis of which FIR was registered. Inquest report was prepared. Post-mortem was got conducted and the dead body was given to Krishan Kumar for cremation. Panchayat cremated the dead body. Information to all the SHOs was given regarding recovery of dead body. Site plan was prepared. On 7.11.2010, the dead body was identified by Gurinder Singh from photographs as of Surjit Singh. PW-12 Vinod Acharya is the Photographer who mainly proved the photographs (Exs.P.3 to P.7). PW-13 Sarabjit Singh is the witness of last seen, who mainly deposed regarding last seen deceased Surjit Singh, Jaswinder Singh and Inderjit Singh on 28.10.2010 at about 8.15/8.30 p.m. They were on motorcycle. Surjit Singh was driving the motorcycle and Jaswinder Singh and Inderjit Singh were sitting on the motorcycle. They stopped near the liquor vend. They purchased half bottle of liquor and gave the same to Surjit Singh. Surjit Singh started consuming that liquor without any water etc. He also deposed that Jaswinder Singh and Inderjit Singh talked regarding throwing Surjit Singh in the canal. PW-14 ASI Satbir Cr. A Nos.-D-113-DB of 2012 etc. [8] Singh mainly deposed regarding arrest of Gurpreet Kaur on 8.11.2010. He also deposed that on 16.11.2010 he went to Police Station Nauhar, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan) from where documents relating to proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. conducted on the dead body of Surjit Singh were taken into possession from ASI Inder Lal Sharma vide memo Ex.PT. PW-15 Inspector Varinderjit Singh is the Investigating Officer, who mainly deposed regarding the investigation of the case. PW-16 Maninder Singh also mainly deposed regarding the photographs Exs.P.15 to P.26. PW-17 Harmail Singh mainly deposed regarding disclosure statement made by Jaswinder Singh alias Jassa and Inderjit Singh alias Indra and the recoveries in pursuance of that disclosure statement. PW-18 Avtar Singh is the witness of extra- judicial confession. He deposed that on 7.11.2010, he was present at his house where Jaswinder Singh alias Jassa and Inderjit Singh alias Indra came at his residence. Firstly, Jaswinder Singh alias Jassa told him that Surjit Singh had bad eye on Gurpreet Kaur and he further told him that he was also having illicit relations with Gurpreet Kaur and Surjit Singh was creating hindrance. On 28.10.2010, at about 8.00 p.m., he took Surjit Singh to liquor vend from where Indra was associated and took Surjit Singh to Railon Kalan on the motorcycle of Surjit Singh. Jaswinder Singh further told him that he gave a `Gandasa' blow on the head of Surjit Singh and when he fell down Jassa again gave a blow on the head of Surjit Singh and then they wrapped the dead body in `Loi' and thrown him in the canal along with the motorcycle. Inderjit Singh alias Indra told him that he was accompanying Jaswinder Singh at the time of occurrence. They told him that they had committed the murder of Surjit Singh on the asking of Cr. A Nos.-D-113-DB of 2012 etc. [9] Gurpreet Kaur. They requested him to produce them before the Police and he produced them before the Police. PW-19 Gurmail Singh mainly deposed regarding lifting of blood stained earth and grass from the place of occurrence and taken into police possession after preparing sealed parcel. He also deposed regarding recovery memo vide which motorcycle was got recovered from the canal.
At the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and were confronted with the evidence of the prosecution. Accused Jaswinder Singh and Inderjit Singh denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded themselves as innocent and had stated that they had committed no offence. They had been falsely involved in this case. Accused Gurpreet Kaur stated that she had committed no offence. She had been falsely involved in this case. There was litigation in between Inderjit Kaur PW and her sisters as more land was given to younger sister of Inderjit Kaur whose name is Kuldeep Kaur. The said litigation took place in civil Court at Ropar and her husband Sarabjit Singh was helping the younger sister of Inderjit Kaur, namely, Kuldeep Kaur in that litigation against Inderjit Kaur. Due to above said enmity, she had been falsely involved in this case. She had no role in commission of alleged offence.
From the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the three accused for the offences as mentioned above.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the evidence on record.
The learned counsel for the appellants firstly contended that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and chain of circumstances is not Cr. A Nos.-D-113-DB of 2012 etc. [10] complete and link is missing. He next argued that Avtar Singh (PW-18) is a related witness and the extra-judicial confession made to him cannot be believed. There is nothing as to why the appellants would go to Avtar Singh. Therefore, his statement cannot be relied upon. He next argued that the evidence of last seen also cannot be believed. The child witness and PW-13 Sarabjit Singh have been falsely introduced in the present case. Learned counsel for the appellants next argued that there is no motive for causing the occurrence. Learned counsel next contended that the statement of PW-1 is unreliable. He further argued that recovery of motorcycle and pointing of place of occurrence also cannot be connected with the accused as no statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer regarding discovery of these facts, therefore, these recoveries are not admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Learned counsel next contended that recovery of blood stained clothes and recovery of `Gandasa' also have been falsely planted upon the appellants. He next contended that the dead body was in such a condition that it could not be identified. The photographs also show that it was in unidentifiable condition. Learned counsel for the appellants next contended that telephone call record was not collected by the I.O. regarding Mobile No.94176-25915 to connect accused Jaswinder Singh that he called Surjit Singh at that time on telephone. The post- mortem report also creates a reasonable doubt as the doctor states that the death had caused two weeks earlier and further there was no incised wound on the dead body, whereas the prosecution case is that injuries were given with `Gandasa'.
On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General argued Cr. A Nos.-D-113-DB of 2012 etc. [11] that the chain of circumstances is complete. There is last seen evidence of Sarabjit Singh and of the minor child of the deceased. There is motive to cause the occurrence. PW-18 has deposed regarding extra judicial confession. PW-1 Inderjit Kaur, who is complainant, has also deposed as per prosecution version. The appellants demarcated the place of recovery of motorcycle and also the place of occurrence. Recovery of blood stained clothes and `Gandasa' also complete the chain. The dead body was identifiable. If there is any contradiction in between the ocular as well as medical evidence, the ocular evidence is to prevail. She argued that there is no merit in the appeals filed by the appellants and the same are liable to be dismissed.
From the evidence on record, we find that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and in the case of circumstantial evidence the chain of circumstances should be complete so that when all the facts and circumstances put together, it should form a complete chain and points towards the guilt of the accused only and none else. In the present case first of all we find that there is no cogent evidence led by prosecution against accused Gurpreet Kaur. The motive for causing the occurrence in the case of circumstantial evidence is significant. There is no motive of any type against appellant Inderjit Singh alias Indra. Though, it is alleged that Gurpreet Kaur was feeling that Surjit Singh had evil eye on her but no cogent evidence except the oral statement by witness is produced on the record. Even the extra-judicial confession which was made to PW-18 is only by Jaswinder Singh alias Jassa. There is no detailed statement of appellant Inderjit Singh alias Indra regarding commission of the offence.
Cr. A Nos.-D-113-DB of 2012 etc. [12] From the whole statement of PW-18, it is clear that only statement made by appellant Inderjit Singh alias Indra is that he was also with appellant Jaswinder Singh. He has no where stated as to what part he had played in the occurrence. Therefore, as there is no detailed confessional statement made by Inderjit Singh alias Indra to PW-18 Avtar Singh, therefore, it cannot be held that Inderjit Singh alias Indra made extra judicial confession.
As regards the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that why the accused would go to PW-18 Avtar Singh and he is not a reliable witness being related, we find that in cross-examination, PW-18 had stated that the land of Jaswinder Singh alias Jassa is adjoining to his land and he has good relation with Jaswinder Singh. Therefore, in view of the statement there is every chance that Jaswinder Singh made extra judicial confession to PW-18 Avtar Singh. Further more Avtar Singh PW-18 is not in close relation of complainant party. Further the fact that Avtar Singh also produced Jaswinder Singh alias Jassa to the Police also supports and corroborates the prosecution version and in the facts and circumstances, it cannot be held that the statement of PW-18 is unreliable. As already discussed, the statement of PW-18 Avtar Singh regarding extra-judicial confession regarding Inderjit Singh alias Indra cannot be held as extra judicial confession as he has not made the confession by giving detailed facts or by stating that any part played by him in the occurrence.
As regards the last seen evidence by PW-7 Gaganpreet Singh, we find that this version looks after thought because as per PW-7 he had gone from the house along with Surjit Singh on motorcycle and he was dropped in the way and he on return told this fact to his mother but all these facts are Cr. A Nos.-D-113-DB of 2012 etc. [13] neither mentioned in the DDR which was got recorded on 29.10.2010, i.e. on the next day nor these facts have been mentioned in the FIR which was recorded on 6.11.2010 by Inderjit Kaur mother of Gaganpreet Singh. Therefore, the version of PW-7 regarding last seen cannot be believed and it looks after thought. There is no reason or ground, if PW-7 has seen Surjit Singh going with Jaswinder Singh and Inderjit Singh, as to why this fact was not mentioned in the DDR and also in the FIR. Otherwise also, it is no where the case of the complainant that Gaganpreet Singh had gone from the house along with Surjit Singh. Further, we find that last seen statement of PW-13 Sarabjit Singh also cannot be believed as he had seen Sarabjit Singh along with accused Jaswinder Singh and Inderjit Singh but his statement was recorded on 9.11.2010 as stated by him in chief-examination but at the same time in his cross-examination he stated that on 29.10.2010 he went to Dabwali in Haryana in connection with business of buffaloes and he stayed there for 3-4 days. He also stated in cross-examination that he came back on 10.11.2010 from Dabwali. If he came back after 10.11.2010 from Dabwali, then how his statement was recorded on 9.11.2010. Therefore, from the cross-examination of PW-13, his statement regarding last seen cannot be believed.
As regards the recovery of motorcycle and also pointing towards the place of occurrence, we find that this evidence cannot be read against both appellants Jaswinder Singh and Inderjit Singh. As why no disclosure statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer to that effect, therefore, reasonable doubt exists regarding this fact. The mere fact as stated in the recovery memo, a motorcycle was recovered at the pointing of Cr. A Nos.-D-113-DB of 2012 etc. [14] or at the instance of the appellant cannot be held as the statement admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. There are no signatures of the accused on these recovery memos from which it can be inferred that these facts regarding motorcycle or place of occurrence were pointed or told by the appellants.
As regards identification of the dead body from the photographs, we have seen the photographs. We find that PW-6 Gurinder Singh has deposed that he had identified the dead body from the photographs. We have also seen the photographs of the dead body, which can be identified. Therefore, this argument of the learned counsel for the appellants has no merit.
As regards the next contention that no telephone record was collected by the I.O. It will not affect the prosecution version. At the most, it could be held as a defect in the investigation. Now it is settled law that on the ground of some defect in the investigation whole of the prosecution case cannot be thrown away nor this fact creates any reasonable doubt in the prosecution version.
As regards the next contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that as per medical evidence the death was about two weeks ago and there was no incised wound found on the dead body, we find that when there is difference of conflict in the oral as well as medical evidence, the ocular evidence is to prevail. As per prosecution version, which is supported by the document like DDR and the FIR etc., Surjit Singh left the house on 28.10.2010 in the evening which means that he was alive till that time. The dead body was recovered on 4.11.2010 in the canal in the area of Cr. A Nos.-D-113-DB of 2012 etc. [15] Rajasthan. Therefore, from the evidence on record, this observation of the doctor cannot be believed. Again the post-mortem was conducted at the bank of the canal itself by the doctor which, in our opinion, is not the proper procedure. As regards the cause of death, the doctor had specifically stated that the death was not with drowning though he could not give the exact cause of death but he was sure that it was not due to drowning. The doctor has also found skin of head posteriorly sloughed with underlying bone fracture which shows the injuries. There was also lacerated wounds on both elbows and both knees etc. Therefore, one thing is very clear that there were injuries on the dead body of Surjit Singh. From the evidence on record, we find that appellant-Jaswinder Singh got recovered his blood stained clothes and he also got recovered the weapon of offence i.e. `Gandasa'. Blood stained earth and grass were also taken from the place of occurrence which fact also shows that Surjit Singh was first killed and then his body was thrown into the canal. The FSL report shows that parcel containing soil and grass, `Gandasa', clothes of the accused were blood stained.
As regards evidence of PW-1 complainant, she has deposed as per prosecution version. This witness cannot be disbelieved regarding the fact of receiving of telephone call by Surjit Singh and on inquiry Surjit Singh told her that it was of Jaswinder Singh alias Jassa and also that he went for taking gas cylinders on motorcycle on 28.10.2010 in the evening and did not return back to the house are duly supported and corroborated by DDR and FIR. Therefore, her version cannot be held as totally unreliable. Even in DDR No.24 recorded on 29.10.2010, it is mentioned that Surjit Cr. A Nos.-D-113-DB of 2012 etc. [16] Singh had gone after receiving phone call from Jassa. Though, at that time, she stated that she had no doubt against anybody and that was only a missing report. Therefore, due to some contradictions in the cross- examination of PW-1 Inderjit Kaur, her whole statement cannot be disbelieved.
From the evidence on record, we find that firstly there is no cogent evidence against appellant Gurpreet Kaur to connect her with the commission of the offence. There is also no cogent evidence on record to prove any criminal conspiracy or common intention to commit the murder. Gurpreet Kaur has also not taken any active participation in the commission of the offence. Therefore, from the evidence on record, we find that the charges against her are not proved and she is not held guilty of the offences charged.
As regards Inderjit Singh alias Indra except the evidence that there is his fingerprints i.e. on the half bottle of liquor and he got recovered blood stained clothes, there is no cogent evidence to connect him with the crime. As regards his fingerprints on the bottle, he has himself got recovered half bottle, therefore, his finger impression on the half bottle are supposed to be there. Otherwise also, there are no fingerprints of the deceased on this half bottle. Therefore, this fact would not connect appellant-Inderjit Singh alias Indra with the crime. Only on the circumstance that as per disclosure statement, he got recovered his blood stained clothes, he cannot be connected with the crime in the absence of any cogent evidence. There is also no motive alleged against Inderjit Singh alias Indra. The prosecution has alleged motive against accused Jaswinder Cr. A Nos.-D-113-DB of 2012 etc. [17] Singh alias Jassa and Gurpreet Kaur but not against Inderjit Singh. There is also nothing on the record to show his any link with Jaswinder Singh. He was not related to Jaswinder Singh alias Jassa. He has no enmity with Surjit Singh. He has no alleged relation with Gurpreet Kaur etc. Therefore, there is no reason or ground as to why he would commit the crime. Therefore, a reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution case as regards appellant Inderjit Singh alias Indra and the benefit of doubt is to go to this appellant. Therefore, by giving benefit of doubt he is also held not guilty of the offence charged with.
As regards appellant Jaswinder Singh alias Jassa, we find that chain of circumstances is complete and points towards the guilt of the accused only. First of all, his name has been mentioned in the DDR which was recorded on 29.10.2010. At that time, there was no suspicion on anybody but it was got mentioned in the DDR by Inderjit Kaur that Surjit Singh had gone from the house after receiving a phone call from Jassa their neighbour. The extra-judicial confession made by appellant Jaswinder Singh alias Jassa to Avtar Singh also supports and corroborates the prosecution version. The motive is also alleged by the prosecution against Jaswinder Singh alias Jassa that he has illicit relations with Gurpreet Kaur and Surjit Singh has also allegedly evil eye on Gurpreet Kaur. Therefore, motive is there for causing occurrence by Jaswinder Singh alias Jassa. Appellant Jaswinder Singh alias Jassa has also got recovered weapon of offence i.e. blood stained `Gandasa' and further recovery of his blood stained clothes also supports and corroborates prosecution version. All this evidence and the statement of the complainant supported and corroborated Cr. A Nos.-D-113-DB of 2012 etc. [18] by medical evidence, FSL reports as well as the investigation of the case completes the chain of circumstances against him. There is no reason or ground as to why the PWs especially Police officials would depose falsely against him.
Therefore, from the above, Criminal Appeal No.D-113 of 2012 is partly allowed. Accused/appellant No.2 Inderjit Singh alias Indra is acquitted of all the charges and his conviction and order of sentence is set aside. He be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Appeal qua accused/appellant No.1 Jaswinder Singh alias Jassa is dismissed and his conviction and sentence is upheld.
Criminal Appeal No.-D-1089-DB of 2011 filed by Gurpreet Kaur, appellant/accused is allowed and her conviction and order of sentence is set aside. She be set at liberty, if not required in any other case.
(Satish Kumar Mittal) (Inderjit Singh)
Judge Judge
August 21, 2012.
*hsp*