Punjab-Haryana High Court
Narender Singh And Anr. vs State Of Haryana on 17 July, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003CRILJ222
Author: R.L. Anand
Bench: R.L. Anand, Hemant Gupta
JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J.
1. By this judgment we dispose of two Criminal Appeal Nos. 270-DB of 1998 titled Narender Singh v. The State of Haryana and 309-DB of 1998 titled Bhajan Singh alias Fauji v. The State of Haryana, as both the appeals have arisen from the judgment dated 8-5-1998 and order dated 11-5-1998 vide which the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kaithal convicted appellants Narender Singh, Bhajan Singh and Paramjit Singh under Section 302/34, IPC, Bhajan Singh appellant under Section 324, IPC and his co-accused Narender Singh and Paramjit Singh under Section 324/34, IPC; appellant Narender Singh under Section 323, IPC and his co-accused Bhajan Singh and Paramjit Singh under Section 323/34, IPC and sentenced them as follows :--
All the three appellants, namely Narender Singh, Bhajan Singh and Paramjit singh were directed to undergo life inprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine each one was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The trial Court also sentenced Bhajan Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 324, IPC and the remaining appellants were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four months under Section 324/34, IPC. Appellant Narender Singh was imposed with a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 323, IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The trial Court also imposed a fine of Rs. 400/- each upon Bhajan Singh and Paramjit Singh under Section 323/34, IPC and in default of payment of fine they were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each. It was also observed by the trial Court that all the sentences shall sun concurrently.
2-3. It may also be mentioned here that along with the three appellants Smt. Manjit Kaur wife of Paramjit Singh was also tried for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC but the trial Court was of the opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge against her beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt and, therefore, she was acquitted. The State of Haryana has not filed any appeal against Smt. Manjit Kaur.
4. Narender Singh-appellant is brother-in-law (Sala) of his co-accused Paramjit Singh, while Bhajan Singh-appellant is a co-villager, all the three appellants along with Smt. Majit Kaur (since acquitted) faced a trial on the allegations that on 31-7-1995 in the area of Dera Paprala in furtherance of their common intention did commit murder by intentionally causing the death of Smt. Harbans Kaur (mother of Paramjit Singh-appellant and wife of Prem Singh PW- 1) and thereby they committed an offence punishable under Section 302/34, IPC. The appellants were also charge-sheeted under Sections 324 and 324/34, IPC when it was alleged by the prosecution that Bhajan Singh-appellant caused injuries with Gandasa to Smt. Amar Kaur and thereby he allegedly committed an offence punishable under Section 324, IPC, while his co-accused Narender Singh and Paramjit Singh committed an offence punishable under Section 324/34, IPC, Third charge against the appellants was that Narender Singh voluntarily caused simple hurt to Smt. Richhpal Kaur and he committed an offence under Section 323, IPC while his two companions Bhajan Singh and Paramjit Singh committed offence punishable under Section 323/34, IPC.
5. The story of the prosecution has been unfolded by Prem Singh (PW-1) son of Bhagwan Singh, who is none else but the father of Paramjit Singh appellant. He stated before the police through his statement Ex. PA, which was recorded by ASI Rajinder Singh, In-charge, Police Post. Arnauli, attached with Police Station, Cheeka, that he is an agriculturist by profession. He has only one son Paramjit Singh and four daughters, namely, Richhpal Kaur (PW-2), Daljit Kaur, Hardeep Kaur and Baljeet Kaur and all the children are married. He owns 20 Killas of agricultural land out of which he transferred 5 Killas of land in the name of his son Paramjit Singh and 5 Killas of land in the name of his wife Smt. Harbans Kaur. He still possesses 10 Killas of agricultural land. About 21/2 years ago his son Paramjit Singh used to say to him and his wife Harbans Kaur that the entire land should be transferred in his favour and Prem Singh complainant should live comfortably. He has already married his daughters and they should not be allowed to visit their parental house. Paramjit Singh had been separated 21/2 years back prior to the occurrence. On 29-7-1995, his son Paramjit Singh forcibly occupied the Baithak of the house and he also took a dispute. At the instance of Panchayat and considering that Paramjit Singh is his only son, he entered into a compromise. His son Paramjit Singh, however, continued bearing a grudge against the complainant and his wife Harbans Kaur in order to grab the entire land. In order to achieve this purpose he used to quarrel with the complainant and his wife. On the day of occurrence at about 6.00 p.m. the complainant along with his wife Harbans Kaur, his mother-in-law Amar Kaur (injured), his grand-daughter Rajdeep Kaur, his grandson (Dohta) Jagjit Singh aged about 8-9 years was present in his house when accused Bhajan Singh alias Foji alias Bhaju, resident of the village, armed with a Gandasi, Narender Singh alias Ninder son of Sukhdev Singh, caste Kamboj Sikh, armed with a Sotta and his son Paramjit Singh also armed with a Sotta trespassed into his house in furtherance of their common intention. Accused Paramjit Singh raised a Lalkara that the complainant had not transferred the land in his favour, therefore, he would now teach a lesson and he himself would become the owner of the land. On seeing all the three accused entering into the house, the complainant entered inside a room and bolted from inside out of fear of death. Jagjit Singh concealed himself underneath a cot. His grand-daughter Rajdeep Kaur had herself in the kitchen. Accused Bhajan Singh, Narender Singh and Paramjit Singh opened the assault on his wife Harbans Kaur. Bhajan Singh gave two Gandasi blows on the head and forehead of Harbans Kaur. Simultaneously Paramjit Singh and Narender Singh gave one Lathi blow each hitting on the head of Harbans Kaur, as a result of which she fell down. She was dragged outside the room by all the three accused while she was lying. Then accused Narender Singh gave a thrust blow on the cheek of Harbans Kaur. Paramjit Singh gave a Sotta blow on her both legs. In the meanwhile, Amarjit Kaur alias Amar Kaur and Richhpal Kaur (both injured) were attracted by the noise and they reached at the place of occurrence. While saving Harbans Kaur, all the three accused also caused injuries to Amar Kaur and Richhpal Kaur. Bhajan Singh gave two Gandasi blows on the left leg of Amar Kaur. Accused Narender Singh and Paramjit Singh gave two Lathi blows each on her head and shoulder. Accused Narender Singh gave a Lathi blow on the left arm of Richhpal Kaur. Accused Narender Singh then sprinkled salt after bringing it from the kitchen on the injuries of Harbans Kaur. On their alarm being raised, all the three accused made their escape with respective weapons. It is further alleged by the complainant that he came out of the room and found that his wife Harbans Kaur had already succumbed to the injuries. While running from the place of occurrence, turban of Narender Singh fell in the courtyard. Their alarm attracted Chhaju Ram Chowkidar, Ajmer Singh Lambardar and Gurdev Singh son of Gurnam Singh. It was alleged by the complainant that his wife Harbans Kaur had been murdered by Narender Singh, Paramjit Singh and Bhajan Singh in a merciless manner. Leaving Gurdev Singh and Chhaju Ram Chowkidar to guard the dead-body, he accompanied by Ajmer Singh Lambardar came to the police station to give the information. From the statement of Prem Singh the Thanedar came to the opinion that offence under Sections 302, 452, 324 and 323/34, IPC was made out. ASI Rajinder Singh recorded the statement Ex. PA and it was sent through Constable Dhani Ram to the police station for registration of case. Copies of the special reports were also sent to the Area Magistrate and other authorities. Thereafter, ASI Rajinder Singh accompanied by complainant and Ajmer Singh Lambardar and other employees of the police post reached the place of occurrence. He completed the proceedings under Section 174, Cr. P.C. on the dead body of Harbans Kaur and the dead body was sent to Civil Hospital, Kaithal for postmortem examination. He also arranged the photographs of the place of occurrence, he recorded the statements of witnesses and inspected the spot. He also noticed bloodstained earth, turban of accused Narender Singh and Chunni of the deceased which were lying at the spot. These articles were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PC by making sealed parcels by the Thanedar by using his own seal bearing inscription RS. The Thanedar also prepared rough site plan Ex. PT. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. He also recorded the supplementary statement of Prem Singh in which he deposed that Manjit Kaur wife of accused Paramjit Singh (since acquitted) was raising Lalkara at the time of occurrence while standing on the Buggi parked near the common wall of the house of the complainant. She was raising Lalkara ex-horting her co-accused Narender Singh that if he was her brother, he should not spare her mother-in-law Harbans Kaur. On the supplementary statement of Prem Singh the offence under Section 114, IPC was also added, the Thanedar also recorded the statements of Amar Kaur and Richhpal Kaur and their injuries were also medically examined by the doctor vide different M.L.Rs. After postmortem examination HC Raghbir Singh produced before the Investigating Officer two sealed parcels which were taken into possession. During the course of investigation. Narender Singh-accused was arrested on 5-8-1995 and the weapon of offence Sotta and the clothes which he was wearing at the time of occurrence were taken into possession. A sealed parcel was prepared by the Thanedar, he also prepared rough site plan of the place of recovery. On 7-8-1995, Bhajan Singh and Paramjit Singh-appellants were arrested. They suffered disclosure statements. The weapons of offence Gandasi and Lathi and the clothes which they were wearing at the time of occurrence were recovered. These articles were also sealed and taken into possession vide separate recovery memos. The case property was sent to the office of Director, Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination and on completion of the investigation of the case all the appellants along with Manjit Kaur were sent to the Court of Area Magistrate, who supplied the copies of the documents to the accused as relied upon by the prosecution and vide commitment order dated 9-11-1995 committed the accused to the Court of Session.
6. Vide order dated 6-1-1996 the trial Court framed charges under Section 302, 302/34, 324, 324/34,323 and 323/34, IPC against all the appellants and Smt. Manjit Kaur (since acquitted). The charges were read over and explained to the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined PW. 1 Prem Singh complainant, who unfolded the story of the prosecution as stated in his statement Ex. PA, and PW 2 Smt. Richhpal Kaur daughter of Smt. Harbans Kaur deceased and sister of Paramjit Singh appellant, who corroborated the statement of her father Prem Singh in all material particulars. PW. 3 is Dr. Rajesh Kumar Arora, who stated that on 1-8-1995 at 10-20 a.m. he medico legally examined Richhpal Kaur (PW. 2) and found the following injuries on her person :--
"1. Reddish bluish contusion 4 cm x 1 cm accompanied by swelling 4 cm x 4 cm on the lateral side and below the left elbow. Tenderness was present. Movements were restricted. X-ray was advised.
2. Patient was complaining of pain on right paraumbilicular region but there was no mark of external injury.
3. Patient complained of pain on right shoulder but there was 110 mark of external injury."
8. According to the doctor, injury No. 1 was to be declared after x-ray examination and the rest were simple, caused by blunt weapon within the probable duration of 24 hours. This witness proved Ex. PE, the correct carbon copy of the MLR and Ex. PE/1, pictorial diagrams showing the seats of injuries.
9. This doctor also proved the injuries of Smt. Amar Kaur wife of Gurnam Singh and found the following injuries on her person :--
"1. Lacerated wound 1 cm x 1/4 cm into skin deep on temporal region in the midline 15 cm above left pinna.
2. Incised wound 2.5 cm x 1/4 cm. into muscle deep at the base of left hand index finger on palmer side. Clotted blood was present. Margins were regular and clean cut.
3. Swelling 6 cm x 5 cm on dorsal side of left hand, at the base of thumb and index finger, x-ray was advised.
4. Reddish bluish contusion 15 cm x 5 cm on right: shoulder.
5. Tenderness was present on ulnar side of left fore-arm. No mark of external injury was present. X-ray was advised.
6. Reddish bluish contusion 10 cm x 3 cm above the left knee joint. Movements were restricted. X-ray was advised.
7. Stitched wound of 7 cm on palmer surface of left feet at the base of thumb and first finger. Clotted blood was present."
10. Injuries Nos. 3, 5 and 6 were kept under observation, rest of the injuries were declared simple. As per the opinion of the doctor, injury No. 2 was caused by a sharp edged weapon and rest, were caused by blunt weapons except injury No. 7 about which the nature of the weapon could not be given. All the injuries were caused within a probable duration of 24 hours, except injury No. 7 of which duration could not be given being a stitched wound. Ex. PF is the correct carbon copy of the MLR and Ex. PF/1 is the pictorial diagrams showing the seats of injuries. It was also opined by this doctor that the injuries of Richhpal Kaur and Amar Kaur could be sustained by them at 6.00 p.m. on 31-7-1995. The witness further stated that Amar Kaur was admitted in the hospital while Richhpal Kaur was not. He sent ruqa Ex. PG to SHO, Police Station Cheeka about the medical examination of the two injured and about, the admission of Amar Kaur in the hospital. Before him the police submitted application Ex. PH in order to know about the fitness of Amar Kaur whether she was fit to make a statement or not and he gave his opinion Ex. PH/1 that she was fit to make statement on 1-8-1995 at 12.20 p.m.
11. P.W. 4 is Sarvjit Singh, who visited village Paprala on 31-7-1995 and took photographs of the dead body and the surroundings on the asking of the police. We took photographs Exs. P1 to P10 and the negatives are Exs. P11 to P20.
12. P.W. 5 is Ram Niwas, Draftsman, who visited the place of occurrence on 13-8-1995 and prepared scaled site plan Ex. PJ with correct marginal notes at the instance of Prem Singh and his daughter Richhpal Kaur. The marginal notes are correct according to spot as per the statement of this witness and the site plan was prepared at scale of 1 inch =15 feet.
13. PW. 6 is ASI Azad Singh who, on receipt of statement Ex. PA of Prem Singh, recorded formal FIR Ex. PK. PW. 7 is Dr. Priti Mehta, who on 1-8-1995 conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Harbans Kaur, aged 46 years and the dead body was identified by Gurdev Singh and Chhaju Ram Chowkidar. The findings of the doctor are as follows :--
"2. The length of the body was 5"-4". It was a body of well built middle aged female wearing cotton suit light blue colour with floral print, clothes soaked with blood at places. Wearing golden ear rings in both ears and wearing Karra in the right hand. Face distorted due to injuries. Rigor mortis was present all over the body. Post mortem lividity seen on dependent parts.
Injuries :--
Incised wound 15 cm x 5 cm starting from the lateral part of eye brow up to medial angle of right eye. Underlying bones were broken into many pieces and the brain matter was coming out.
Incised wound 15 x 5 cm on the right side of forehead temporal region. Underlying bones were fractured. Brain matter was coming out of the wound.
left prominence of cheek was depressed with fracture of underlying maxillary bone and fracture of the left interior and lateral wall of the orbit (left) left eye ball was sunken due to rupture.
Reddish bruise 15 x 10 cm with diffused swelling of middle part of posterior aspect of left leg resulting in fracture both bones left leg.
Reddish bruish 10 x 5 cm on middle of antero lateral surface of right leg.
Incised wound 5 x 3 cm on back of lower part of right fore-arm with diffused swelling surrounding the wound causing fracture both right fore-arm.
Abrasion 3 x 2 cm on right infraclavical region in the middle.
Abrasion 3 x 2 cm on left infraclavicular region in middle.
3. Stomach contained semi digested food. Small intestine contained semi digested food, large intestine contained faecal matter. Bladder healthy and contained urine. Rest of the organs were healthy.
4. In our opinion the cause of death was head injury (injury No. 1) which alone was sufficient to cause death in its natural course of action.
The post mortem was conducted by me and Dr. O.P. Dabas at 10.00 a.m. on 1-8-1995. The time between injuries and death was immediate and between death and post mortem was 12 to 36 hours. I handed over the following to the police :--
Well sutured dead body, copy of post mortem report, police papers numbering 1 to 18 duly signed, bundle of clothes bearing one seal, bundle of jewellery bearing one seal and sample of seal, Ex. PQ is the correct carbon copy of the post mortem report which bears my signature, along with Dr. O.P. Dabas. The post mortem was conducted on application made by the police Ex. PQ/1 accompanied by inquest report Ex. PQ/2, duly initialled by me. If Danda blow is given on incised injuries, the injury would remain incised wound. Injuries Nos. 1, 2 and 6 are incised wound and could be caused with gandasi and the rest of injuries as shown in the post mortem report could be caused by Dang (Lathi)....."
14. PW. 8 is Nasib Singh who deposed that he joined the police party on 5-8-1995 and in his presence accused Narinder Singh was arrested by the police, who made disclosure statement on interrogation that he has kept concealed Sotta (Lathi) and his clothes in the tubewell Kotha of Paramjit Singh and he could get the same recovered by pointing out the place of concealment. His disclosure statement Ex. PU was recorded. It was read over and explained to the accused in the presence of one Shakandar Singh and this accused led the police party and the witnesses to the place of concealment and got recovered Lathi and clothes from the tubewell Kotha of his own co-accused Paramjit Singh at village Paprala. The clothes and lathi were stained with blood. The clothes were shirt and Pyjama. The Thanedar prepared a sketch of the Lathi and the lathi and clothes were taken into possession after making a sealed parcel vide recovery memo Ex. PU/1 attested by this witness and Sakandar Singh, this witness further stated that he joined the police party on 7-8-1995 at Cheeka Feeling Station where Bhajan Singh and Paramjit Singh accused appeared before the police and they were arrested in his presence and in the presence of Sakandar Singh. Firstly, Bhajan Singh was interrogated about the weapon of offence and he suffered a disclosure statement Ex. PV to the effect that he has concealed the Gandasi and clothes in the tubewell Kotha of in (sic) his Dera and could get the same recovered from the place of concealment. His statement was recorded, it was read over and explained to him. It was attested by the witness and Sakandar Singh. Thereafter Bhajan Singh led the police party to the specified place of concealment. According to this witness, Paramjit Singh accused was also interrogated. He made disclosure statement Ex. PX to the effect that he had concealed his lathi and clothes underneath the Toori fodder in his residential house. He also signed his disclosure statement. It has further come in the statement of this witness that on 8-8-1995 he and Sakandar Singh joined the police party headed by ASI Rajinder Singh at Cheeka chowk. The two accused Paramjit Singh and Bhajan Singh were in the police station where they went with the police. They were taken out from the police lock-up Paramjit Singh got recovered one lathi, one shirt and one Pyjama from the disclosed place. The shirt and Pyjama and Lathi were sealed into two separate parcels and were taken into police possession vide memo Ex. PX/1. The witness also stated that Bhajan Singh accused also led the police party to the specified place of concealment and got recovered one shirt and pyjama and one Gandasi which were stained with blood. These articles were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW/1 after making a sealed parcel.
15. PW. 9 is Investigating Officer Rajinder Singh, who deposed that he recorded statement Ex. PA of Prem Singh and made endorsement Ex. PA/1 underneath the same and it was sent to the police station for registration of the case, on the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PK was recorded. He further deposed that he visited the place of occurrence, arranged a photographer who took photographs in his presence. He inspected the spot where the dead body of Harbans Kaur was lying in the courtyard of the house of Prem Singh, he prepared inquest proceedings Ex. PQ/2 and the dead body was sent for post mortem examination through his application Ex. PQ/1 through HC Raghbir Singh, Constable Joginder Singh and Constable Rajbir Singh. He also inspected the place of occurrence and from the spot he took into possession a Chunni and a turban and made separate parcels thereof and vide recovery memos Ex. PD and P8 respectively took the same into possession. He also lifted the blood stained earth from courtyard, verandah and room and prepared separate parcels thereof and took the same into possession vide memo Ex. PC. He further stated that he recorded the statements of various witnesses and he formed two separate raiding parties and deputed them for the search of the accused, it has further come in the statement of this witness that, he added the provisions of Section 114, IPC in the FIR. On 1-8-1995 he took into possession two sealed parcels containing clothes of the deceased and other articles when those were produced by HC Raghbir Singh vide recovery memo Ex. PY. It has further come in the statement of this witness that on 5-8-1995 Balbir Singh SI took over the investigation of this case from him. On 7-8-1995, he produced accused Bhajan Singh and Paramjit Singh in the Court who were already arrested by SI Balbir Singh and obtained their remand. On 8-8-1995 in the presence of Nasib Singh and Sakandar Singh, accused Paramjit Singh and Bhajan Singh were interrogated. Their disclosure statements were already recorded by SI Balbir Singh. On 8-8-1995 accused led the police party to village Paprala where accused Paramjit Singh got recovered a lathi from his residential house. He also got recovered blood stained clothes. Shirt is Ex. P30 and Pyjama is Ex. P31 and these were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PX/1. The witness further deposed that accused Bhajan Singh as per his disclosure statement got recovered a Gandasi Ex. P32, Shirt Ex. P33 and Pyjama Ex. P34 stained with blood and these were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PV/1, attested by the witnesses. PW. 10 is Inspector Balbir Singh who also partly investigated this case.
16. The prosecution appended the statements of the formal witnesses on affidavits besides the report of FSL. Few witnesses were given up as unnecessary and finally the learned Public Prosecutor closed the case of the prosecution.
17. On the closure of prosecution evidence, statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313, Cr. P.C. and also the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to them.
18. The stand of Bhajan Singh accused was as follows :--
I am lambardar of the village and has also acted as Sarpanch of village Panchayat and during my tenure as acting Sarpanch Prem Singh PW. became inimical towards me as he had been fined. Pritam Singh, Dalip Singh and Ajmer Singh were also in litigation with me over panchayat land and they had a grievance and on account of it Ajmer Singh joined hands with Prem Singh and got me involved falsely in this case. There was also party faction on account of election and the family of Ajmer Singh. Pritam Singh etc. had suffered defeats at my hands and my family members and they thus wanted my family to be ousted from the village being the only family of Kamboh Sikhs. I am innocent."
19. Narender Singh accused took the following plea in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P.C. by stating that he was innocent and he adopted the reply given by his co-accused Paramjit Singh. The stand of Paramjit Singh was as follows :--
"I am innocent, I have been falsely involved in the present case. I was living separate along with my wife from my parents. My sister Richhpal Kaur and other sisters and their husbands were pressuring my father and mother to transfer the share of the land in their name to which my father and mother were not aggreeable. Many times my sister's husband have threatened that I and my parents will face dire consequences in case the land is not transferred to them. On 31-7-1995 at about noon time my mother was killed when she was alone in the house by some unidentified persons. Myself, my wife and my brother-in-law (loser) were falsely involved in the present case under the pressure of my sisters and brothers-in-law in order to grab the property. Now whole of the land and house of my father has been disposed of by my sisters and my father has been eliminated by my brother-in-law (gainer) and sisters in mysterious circumstances after he was made to depose falsely against me in the Court."
20. I need not reproduce the stand of Smt. Manjit Kaur as she has already been acquitted by the trial Court.
21. When called upon to enter into their defence, accused examined DW 1 Constable Satpal, who deposed that he had brought case FIR No. 42/93 under Section 302/34, IPC of Police Station Cheka which was reg-istered on the statement of one Ram Singh Lamberdar of village Baupur in connection with the murder of Nishan Singh son of Kundan Singh and the said case went untraced. DW. 2 is Ishwar Singh. Assistant complaint Clerk in the office of Superintendent of Police, Kaithal. He proved one complaint filed by Dilbag Singh son of Bhagwan Singh dated 7-8-1995 regarding the present case and this complaint was addressed to the Chief Minister, Haryana, the complaint was inquired into by DSP, Guhla, who gave his report on 27/28-8-1995. DW. 4 is Chhajju Ram Chowkidar, who deposed that Prem Singh complainant has left village and has sold his property. About 21/2 years prior to his statement he heard in the village that Harbans Kaur has been murdered. He went to the house of Prem Singh and saw the dead body of Harbans Kaur. He was asked by the villagers to collect at the place of occurrence to go to the police station to inform about this incident. When he was going to police post Harnauli on his bicycle he saw Ajmer Singh lambardar and Prem Singh PWs coming on a motorcycle near a culvert in the area of village Chhana to whom he signalled to stop. He informed them about the incident and then they all went to Police Post Harnauli in order to lodge the FIR. DW. 5 is Chander Dutt Sharma, headmaster, who proved the attendance sheet of his school of class IV for the month of July 1995. The entry has been proved as Ex. DJ, DW. 6 is Birbal, who simply proved the copy of the resolution Ex. DC. DW. 7 is Madan Lal Chalia, Ahlmad of the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Kaithal, who proved the record of Civil Appeal No. 471 of 1995 titled Virsa Singh v. Pritam Singh etc. This witness had also brought the record of the lower Court out of which the appeal had arisen in Civil Suit No. 871 of 1992, decided on 28-10-1995. PW. 8 is Ram Pal, who made a statement with reference to file No. 154 under Section 7 of the Punjab village Common Lands Act, filed on 21-10-1992 and the same was pending before the Assistant Collector.
22. The learned trial Court believed the story of the prosecution in part and convicted Narender Singh, his brother-in-law Paramjit Singh and their companion Bhajan Singh, the trial Court also gave the benefit of doubt to Manjit Kaur wife of Paramjit Singh. The defence story was rejected and, all the three appellants were convicted and sentenced in the manner stated above and aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, the present two appeals, which we are disposing with the assistance rendered by Mr. T.P.S. Mann and Mr. A.S. Virk, Advocates on behalf of the appellants, Mr. D.P. Singh, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana and Mrs. Kiran Bala Jain, Advocate on behalf of the complainant and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case.
23. The evidence recorded by the trial Court and the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties can be divided and discussed under the following heads and we would like to deal each point separately.
24. First of all, we would like to discuss as to whether there was any delay in lodging the FIR as it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the special report of this case had reached to the Ilaqa Magistrate on the next morning of the occurrence, the counsel submitted that as per the ratio of Gurdev Singh v. State, (1963) 65 Pun LR 409. It is obligatory on the part of the prosecution to establish that the FIR has been lodged with utmost promptitudeness, otherwise the chances of coloured version would arise. Similarly the special report should also reach in the hands of Area Magistrate as early as possible so as to eliminate the chances of false implication. We are not convinced with the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. So far as prompt lodging of the FIR is concerned, there is no difference of opinion between the learned counsel for the appellants and the Bench because it is always the anxiety of the law while dealing with criminal case that the FIR should be lodged with the police without any undue delay so that the coloured version may not creep in. The entire idea behind lodging the prompt FIR is that spontaneous and earliest version without influence and without any extraneous factors must reach the police and the Area Magistrate, otherwise the chances of false witnesses and tainted evidence can be there. Delay/non-delay in lodging of the FIR is a relative term and it depends upon facts of each case. It is a settled principle of law that delay per se in lodging the FIR cannot be held fatal to the prosecution. Some time is bound to be elapsed on the part of the prosecution witnesses for various reasons such as to recover from the initial shock of the occurrence and to arrange money or conveyance, etc. In some cases the injured party tries to approach respectables of the village and tries to take their assistance before going to the police station. In the present case we are of the opinion that there was no delay in lodging the FIR as the occurrence had taken place at 6.00 p.m., and even according to the statement of Prem Singh, who was none else but the real father of Paramjit Singh appellant, he stayed at the place of occurrence for some time. Police Post Harnauli is at a distance of 5 kilometres from village Paprala. In these circumstances some time must have been taken by the witness to cover that distance. The statement Ex. PA shows that this statement was concluded at 7-45 p.m. and thereafter it was sent to Police Station Cheeka for registration of the case on the basis of which Rapat No. 20 was registered at 9.05 p.m. Some time is bound to take on the part of the police in sending the special reports as they have also to arrange some vehicle3 and some time vehicle is provided by the private party. In this case the formal FIR Ex. PA was recorded and the copy of the special report was received by the Area Magistrate at 1.45 a.m. on the next morning. The reading of the FIR would show that the names of all the three appellants figured including their weapons. The names of eye-witnesses have also been mentioned. There is a detail of injuries besides the place of occurrence. In these circumstances, we repel the first argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that there was a delay in lodging the FIR and in reaching the special report to the Area Magistrate. We concur with the finding of the trial court when it was opined by it that the FIR in this case has been lodged promptly. Though there seems to be some delay in the delivery of special report at the residence of the Area Magistrate, but it cannot undo the case of the complainant party.
25. The second aspect of this case is regarding motive. The story of the prosecution is that Prem Singh complainant had 20 killas of land. The dispute between the parties was with regard to the distribution of land. It is also in evidence that Prem Singh complainant had earlier transferred 5 killas of land in favour of Paramjit Singh appellant and 5 killas in favour of his wife Harbans Kaur. Prem Singh was still owner of 10 killas of land. Narender Singh appellant is none else but brother-in-law of Paramjit Singh. It is true that Bhajan Singh is not related with Paramjit Singh or Narender Singh in any manner, but it is established on the record that there was some dispute earlier between Paramjit Singh and Prem Singh and this dispute was compromised. On that occasion Bhajan Singh appellant was present. The probability cannot be ruled out otherwise that Bhajan Singh might have taken the side of Paramjit Singh. We all know that lust of land is very predominant among agriculturist class. Paramjit Singh was the sole son of Prem Singh complainant. Therefore, he was always expectant that the entire estate of his father Prem Singh will devolve upon him after his death and he might not have tolerated that the land be transferred in the name of his mother Harbans Kaur. Motive is a hidden element and it is always locked in the heart of the assailant. What actually prompted the assailants to commit the crime is difficult to judge, but on the broad probabilities the law Courts can always say that in view of strained relations between Paramjit Singh and his parents the accused party can take law in their own hands, further more, it is established that few days prior to the occurrence there was a dispute over the possession of Baithak when it was illegally taken. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the said dispute might not have gone to the police on account of close relationship between Prem Singh and Pramjit Singh appellant. It has also come in the evidence that Paramjit Singh had been separated for the last 21/1 years prior to the occurrence and there sued to be a dispute with him and his wife. Further it has come in evidence that the quarrel took place between the complainant and accused on 29-7-1995 when Paramjit Singh forcibly occupied the Baithak. It is also in evidence that on that occasion Paramjit Singh caused injuries to his father and his arm was broken. Though the matter was reported to the police but with the intervention of the respectables the matter was compromised and in respect of that DDR No. 2 dated 30-7-1995 was recorded against Paramjit Singh and Manjit Kaur at 8-30 a.m. in the police post on the statement of Prem Singh, this DDR has also been proved on the record as Ex. PS. Thereafter, the compromise Ex. PS/1 took place. It is signed by Paramjit Singh, his wife Manjit Kaur and the respectables of the village. Meaning thereby that even one day prior to the occurrence the relations between the parties became strained. Paramjit Singh was never happy with the distribution of land by his father. Therefore, there are all probabilities that he must have gathered a strength of his companion and relation in order to cause injuries to his parents.
26. It was argued on behalf of Bhajan Singh appellant that he is not related with his co-accused Narender Singh and Paramjil Singh and he has been falsely implicated in this case. But we are not convinced with this argument for the reason that as per the story of the prosecution the maximum damage has been caused by this accused as he was armed with a deadly weapon like Gandasi, it was submitted on behalf of Bhajan Singh that he has been falsely implicated on account of his previous enmity with Prem Singh as Prem singh had cut the trees of the Gram Panchayat and a fine was imposed upon him by the Panchayat when Bhajan Singh appellant was acting as a Sarpanch. In support of his contention the learned counsel for Bhajan Singh appellant has drawn my attention to resolution Ex. DC dated 21-12-1993. We have considered this submission. The alleged incident had taken place in the year 1993 and from 1993 up to 1995 no incident had taken place between Bhajan Singh and Prem Singh. Also it is not establishment that Prem Singh had ever given a threat to Bhajan Singh that the latter would bear the consequences on some other occasion. But on the contrary, it is established on record that on 29-7-1995 a compromise took place when the incident of Baithak occurred and Bhajan Singh is the signatory of that compromise. He might have signed the compromise as a partyman of Paramjit Singh. The factum of compromise dated 29-7-1995 has also been admitted by Bhajan Singh in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P.C. clearly suggesting that he has closeness with his co-accused Paramjit Singh. Otherwise also, in all probabilities Paramjit Singh must have taken the assistance of Bhajan Singh as the latter was stranger to the family of Prem Singh. We have seen in experience that when an occurrence takes place between the blood relations, the assailant party always try to engage the services of a third person so that the third person may cause maximum damage to the complainant party, as he is not related or interested by blood with the complainant party.
27. Even Smt. Richhpal Kaur, daughter of the complainant and real sister of Paramjit Singh appellant, fully corroborates the statement of PW. 1 on the point of motive. She deposed that Paramjit Singh had been pressing his father for the transfer of entire land in his name, but her father used to tell him that after the death of his parents the entire property will be inherited by him. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement of PW. 2 Richhpal Kaur. The motive as propounded by the prosecution further seems to be probable for the simple reason that Paramjit Singh might have taken into his head that Prem Singh may not transfer the remaining land in the names of his daughters at the instance of Smt. Harbans Kaur. In all probabilities he wanted to grab the entire land as early as possible and he was not even ready to wait till the death of his parents. This Court is not inclined to believe that Bhajan Singh has been implicated at the instance of Pritam Singh. Dalip Singh and Ajmer Singh with whom he had litigation. Therefore, we are one with the learned trial Court that there was a strong notice on the part of all the three accused to commit the offence which is proved both by oral and documentary evidence.
28. Assuming for the sake of argument that there was no strong motive for the prosecution against Bhajan Singh, still we are not in a position to throw the evidence of the prosecution for the reason that in the present occurrence only one sharp edged weapon has been used which has been attributed to Bhajan Singh. It is well settled principle of law that when ocular account is convincing and has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, the motive part of the case goes into pale insignificance.
29. Now we will discuss the ocular account which has been narrated and unfolded by Prem Singh PW. 1 and by his daughter Smt. Richhpal Kaur PW. 2. It has come in the statement of Prem Singh PW. 1 that on 31-7-1995 at about 6.00 p.m. he and his wife Harbans Kaur, his mother-in-law Amar Kaur, his daughter Richhpal Kaur, son of his daughter Jagjit Singh and daughter of his daughter Rajdeep Kaur were present in the house when Bhajan Singh armed with a Gandasi, Paramjit Singh and Narender Singh armed with respective lathies entered inside the courtyard of his house. Paramjit Singh gave a Lalkara that the land was not being transferred in his name and that he would teach a lesson and would become the owner of entire land on that day. The reading of above lines would show that the occurrence had taken place inside the house of Prem Singh and this fact stands amply proved from the statement of Thanedar who found blood stained earth inside the house of Prem Singh and the blood stained earth along with turban of accused Narender Singh were taken into possession by the police. This oral and circumstantial evidence fully established that the place of occurrence is inside the house and in such a situation the most probable and most natural witnesses would be the inmates of the house. The occurrence had taken place inside the house of Prem Singh. Smt. Harbans Kaur was a domestic lady. She was the wife of Prem Singh. The presence of Richhpal Kaur in the house is very probable as she is the daughter of Prem Singh and in all probabilities she along with her children must have come to the house of his father in order to visit him. We also cannot lose sight of the fact that Richhpal Kaur is the injured/ stamped witness. Therefore, his presence at the place of occurrence cannot be ruled out. The story of the prosecution further proceeds that on hearing the Lalkara and out of fear of death the complainant entered in one of the rooms of the house and bolted it from inside, whereas Rajdeep Kaur entered the kitchen and Jagjit Singh entered the other room. Harbans Kaur also entered the room but she was chased by the accused and Bhajan Singh opened the score by giving two Gandasi blows to Harbans Kaur hitting on her head and fore-head. It is also the case of the prosecution that Narender Singh and Paramjit Singh gave lathi blows on the head of Harbans Kaur, who fell down thereafter. Further it is stated by Prem Singh (PW. 1) that all the three accused Narender Singh, Paramjit Singh and Bhajan Singh brought Harbans Kaur outside the room and throw her in the courtyard. Further it has come in the evidence that Narender Singh gave a blow on the left cheek of Harbans Kaur with his lathi and Paramjit Singh gave two lathi blows on her legs. To meet this fact the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that this part of the story appears to be improbable because had the appellants wanted to attack, their first anxiety would be to attack Prem Singh and not to Harbans Kaur. We are not convinced with the submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellants for the simple reason that the land measuring 5 killas had been transferred in the name of Harbans Kaur and on this action the accused party was not happy. Accused might have taken into their head that it was Harbans Kaur who is responsible for the entire show as she had managed the transfer of land measuring 5 Killas in her name. As the story of the prosecution proceeds that Prem Singh entered inside the room and bolted it, therefore, the easy prey for the accused was Harbans Kaur. When the direct evidence is convincing and based on natural and probable witnesses, in such a situation it is difficult to give a finding in favour of the accused that as to why they had not behaved in a particular manner, further it has come in the allegations of the prosecution that Smt. Amar Kaur and Smt. Richhpal Kaur tried to rescue Harbans Kaur but they also received injuries at the hands of the accused. When Paramjit Singh and his companions were causing injuries to Harbans Kaur, who was none else but the daughter of Amar Kaur and mother of Richhpal Kaur, their behaviour was very natural when they stepped forward in order to rescue the life of Harbans Kaur. Moreover, Amar Kaur and Richhpal Kaur received the injuries, it is true that Amar Kaur injured witness has not been examined by the prosecution, but that alone is not sufficient to reject the story of the prosecution when the ocular account is being supported by Prem Singh who is none else but the real father of Paramjit Singh accused. Hundred strong reasons are required to reject the statement of Prem Singh vis-a-vis Paramjit Singh accused and his brother-in-law Narender Singh, who is the real brother of Manjit Kaur, daughter-in-law of Prem Singh. Similarly strongest reasons are required to reject the testimony of Richhpal Kaur. Amar Kaur has been given up by the prosecution as having been won over by the accused. Amar Kaur is an old lady. Subsequently she might have taken into her head why to eliminate the entire family of Paramjit Singh as he is the sole son of Prem Singh. Be that as it may, even the non-examination of Amar Kaur does not create a reasonable dent in the story of the prosecution.
30. Faced with this difficulty the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the non-examination of Amar Kaur and the non-presence of any injury on the body of Prem Singh established that the occurrence has not taken place in the manner as deposed by Prem Singh, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that had the occurrence taken place in the presence of Prem Singh he would have intervened in order to save his wife Harbans Kaur. We are not convinced with the submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellants for various factors. It depends from individual to individual as to how bold he is. We cannot also lose sight of the fact that what an old man of 70 would do when the opposite party is armed with Gandasi and lathies. In such a situation, every reasonable person reacts differently. Some may try to intervene with a complete mind and one may try to save himself from the clutches of the accused. We have stated above that the place of occurrence is fully established i.e. inside the house of Prem Singh. Therefore, the witnesses examined by the prosecution are most probable and natural. They are not only natural but their evidence has to be considered truthful keeping in view the fact that Amar Kaur and Richhpal Kaur are related by blood with two accused and they would be the last persons to screen the real offender.
31. It was also submitted on behalf of the appellants that Prem Singh could not see the occurrence as he had bolted the door of the room. But this argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is also not acceptable as it has come in the statement of Prem Singh that he saw the occurrence through the net (Jali) from inside the room, he did not raise alarm out of fear. Had he raised the alarm the accused would have killed him also. The explanation put forth by Prem Singh appears to be very genuine. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that Prem Singh did not inform anybody in the village just after the occurrence nor anybody collected at the place of occurrence from the village. This submission of the learned counsel is devoid of any merit. We cannot lose sight of the fact that Amar Kaur and Richhpal Kaur are two injured in this case and the first anxiety of Prem Singh would be to provide help to them. He must be in a shock on seeing the death of his wife Harbans Kaur, the non-presence of the persons of the village inside the house of complainant also looks to be probable because everybody would think hundred times before going to the house of the complainant party as it was a dispute between father and son. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that just after the occurrence Richhpal Kaur does not remain present in the house, rather she goes to some other village and her conduct appears to be abnormal. The submission of the learned counsel has been examined by us in depth but it appears to be devoid of any merit. Richhpal Kaur had been injured at the hands of her own brother and his companions. She will always try to fled away from the village as the accused party had left the place of occurrence after causing the injuries. Her presence inside the house of her father just after the occurrence could aggravate and make the situation worse. The accused party in all probabilities could again come to the house of Prem Singh in order to inflict further harm to Richhpal Kaur and Amar Kaur. When Paramjit Singh has not spared his real mother Harbans Kaur, where was the guarantee that he would leave his real sister and maternal grandmother and would not inflict further injuries. Safety is the paramount consideration for every human being. It is just possible that somebody might have given an advice to Richhpal Kaur to leave the village so that she may not come into the clutches of the accused party.
32. Now the point for determination would be whether the statements of PW. 1 Prem Singh and PW. 2 Richhpal Kaur should be accepted or not? We are of the opinion that their statements are very natural. They have stood the test of cross-examination and no infirmity or improbability has been pointed out in their statements which may detract us from non-relying their statements. The trial Court has already given compassion to Manjit Kaur mainly on the ground that her name does not figure in the FIR and moreover the role attributed to her was that she was exhorting her co-accused from the other side. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the ocular account as stated by Prem Singh in the FIR stands duly proved vis-a-vis all the three appellants and his version has been amply supported by a natural and stamped witness like Smt. Richhpal Kaur (PW. 2).
33. The next aspect of this case is with regard to the medical evidence. PW. 7 Dr. Priti Mehta conducted post mortem examination on the dead-body of Harbans Kaur on 1-8-1995 along with Dr. O.P. Dabas. As per the statement of the doctor, the deceased was aged about 46 years. Rigor mortis was present all over the body. In the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was head injury which alone was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The time between injuries and death was immediate and between death and post mortem was 12 to 36 hours. The doctor also opined that if Danda blow is given on incised injury, the injury would still remain incised wound. It has also come in the statement of the doctor that injuries Nos. 1, 2 and 6 could be caused by a Gandasi and the rest of the injuries could be caused by a Danda, suggesting that two types of weapons have been used. It is the story of the prosecution that one of the accused Bhajan Singh was armed with a gandasi while his two companions namely Paramjit Singh and Narender Singh were armed with Lathies. The number of the injuries suggests that all the three accused must have participated in the crime.
34. Two arguments were raised by the learned counsel for the appellants firstly, that there was no dragging mark on the body of the deceased, and that there was no blunt head injury. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that it is the story of the prosecution that one of the accused throw salt on the injuries of Harbans Kaur after bringing it from the kitchen, but there is no averment in the statement of the doctor that he noticed salt sticking with the injuries. We are not convinced with any of the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. It will depend what portion of the body touched the ground; what was the nature of the surface and what force had been used in dragging the injured. In the absence of all these factors there might or might not be dragging mark on the body of Harbans Kaur. Also, it is not clear from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses how much salt was used, whether any grain of salt actually touched the injuries of Harbans Kaur. If the salt had been thrown on that portion of the body of Harbans Kaur where there was no injury, in such a situation the salt would not remain sticking there. If it has been put in the wound it might have melted. In such a situation the doctor must not have noticed the grains of salt.
35. We have stated earlier that there are two injured in this case. We have already discussed the nature of the injuries on deceased Harbans Kaur. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Arora (PW. 3) medico legally examined Smt. Richhpal Kaur on 1-8-1995 at 10-20 a.m. and noticed three injuries, which have already been reproduced in the earlier portion of this judgment, on her person. Injury No. 1 was declared grievous after the x-ray examination and the rest of the injuries were declared simple, caused by blunt weapon within the probable duration of 24 hours. This very doctor also medico legally examined Amar Kaur and found 7 injuries on her person. Injuries Nos. 3, 5 and 6 were kept under observation and rest were declared simple. The doctor also opined that injury No. 2 was caused by sharp edged weapon and the rest by blunt weapon within the probable duration of 24 hours, except injury No. 7 of which duration could not be ascertained being a stitched wound. The doctor also proved the copies of the MLRs and pictorial diagrams showing the seats of injuries of both the injured witnesses. It has further come in the statement of this witness that Amar Kaur was admitted in the hospital while Richhpal Kaur was not admitted. The presence of injuries on the persons of these two witnesses fully established their presence at the spot. It further corroborates the story of the prosecution that two types of weapons were used. Though an effort was made to say on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellants that the injuries of Richhpal Kaur are fabricated, but we are not convinced with the submission keeping in view the duration of injuries and also keeping in view the fact that she and other injured Amar Kaur reached the hospital at one time and the doctor sent the ruga Ex. PG to S.H.O., Police Station. Cheeka about the medico legal examination of the two injured together and about the admission of Amar Kaur. The medical evidence though is an opinion evidence but, it is always a corroborative piece of evidence. The learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to show that there is inherent contradiction between the ocular account and the medical evidence.
36. The next aspect of this case is with regard to the recovery of weapons. Concealment or destruction of weapon by a criminal after the commission of offence is an ordinary behaviour. It is amply proved on the record from the statement of Rajinder Singh (PW. 9) that on 5-8-1995 SI Balbir Singh took investigation from him and he was associated in the investigation. SI Balbir Singh went for training and he handed over the investigation to him on 7-8-1995. On that day he produced Bhajan Singh and Paramjit Singh accused in the Court who had already been arrested by SI Balbir Singh and had obtained their police remand. It has also come in the statement of Rajinder Singh that in pursuance of their disclosure statements, which had already been recorded by SI Balbir Singh, both the accused led the police party to village Paprala. Paramjit Singh got recovered Lathi Ex. P29 from his residential house which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PX/1. He also got recovered shirt Ex. P30 and trousers Ex. P31 which he was wearing at the time of occurrence. Bhajan Singh got recovered from his Dera Gandasi Ex. P32, shirt Ex. P33 and trousers Ex. P34. A sealed parcel of the Gandasi was prepared and it was taken into police possession vide recovery memo Ex. PV/1. He deposited the case property with seals intact with the MHC. The recovery of these weapons lends corroboration to the story of the prosecution and completes its chain. An effort was made on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellants that these weapons have been planted just to strengthen the case of the prosecution. But we are not convinced with this submission. As we have stated earlier that concealment of weapon is one of the probable acts which could be performed by the accused after the commission of the offence. Investigating officers Balbir Singh and Rajinder Singh had no axe to grind against the accused. They were public officials. They performed statutory duty like interrogation and arrest of the assailants. The weapons of offence i.e. Lathis and Gandasi were sent to the office of Director, Forensic Laboratory, who gave report Ex. P2 and his finding was as follows :--
"Result of Analysis
1. Exh-1 (Chunni) was stained with a few medium and small blood stains.
2. Blood could not be detected on Exh-2 (Pagri).
3. Blood was detected on Exh-3 (blood stained earth from the spot), Exh-4 (blood lifted from Veranda), Exh-5 (blood lifted from inside the room, Exh-B (blood and hairs), Exh-7a (shirt) Exh-7b (Salwar), Exh-9 (Sua). Exh-11 (Lathi) and Exh-134 (Gandasi).
4. Exh-8a (Pyjama), Exh-8b (Kurta). Exh-10a (Kurta), Exh. 10b (Pyjama), Exh. 12a (Pyjama) and Exh. 12b (Kurta) were stained with numerous, small blood stains."
37. Assuming for the sake of argument even we exclude the recovery part of the case from the link of the prosecution, still the other evidence led by the prosecution leaves no manner of doubt that the appellants have committed the offence. We have also examined this matter from the angle of offence if any committed. All the appellants had entered inside the house of Prem Singh with pre-determined mind and in furtherance of their common intention to cause death of Harbans Kaur. They were armed with deadly weapons. The injuries caused by them to Harbans Kaur were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Some of the injuries had been caused on the vital part of the body. Their coming together and going together from the place of occurrence is a presumptive evidence that, all the three appellants shared common intention. The extent of damage caused to Harbans Kaur with deadly weapons used by the appellants further indicates that their intention was to commit the murder. They had also caused simple and grievous injuries to Amar Kaur and Richhpal Kaur. Therefore, their conviction under Section 324 and 323/34, IPC is also affirmed.
38. In the finality, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges against all the three appellants by leading cogent, reliable and satisfactory evidence. Both the appeals are totally de void of any merit and are hereby dismissed.