Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjit Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 20 April, 2012
Author: Sabina
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Sabina
Crl. Appeal No. 454-DB of 2005 and - 1-
Crl. Appeal No. 305-DB of 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
(1) Criminal Appeal No. 454-DB of 2005
Date of Decision: 20.4.2012
Manjit Singh and another .........Appellants
Vs.
State of Punjab .......Respondent
(2) Criminal Appeal No. 305-DB of 2006
Harbhajan Singh .........Appellant
Vs.
State of Punjab and others .......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
.....
SABINA, J.
Vide this judgment, the above mentioned two appeals would be disposed of as these have arisen out of the same judgment/incident.
Prosecution case was set in motion on the basis of the statement of complainant Shindo, mother of deceased Balkar Singh. She stated in her statement before Sub Inspector Gagandeep Singh that her son Balkar Singh was married to Jasbir Kaur about 15/16 years prior to the occurrence. Balkar Crl. Appeal No. 454-DB of 2005 and - 2- Crl. Appeal No. 305-DB of 2006 Singh had been blessed with two children. The relations between her son Balkar Singh and his wife were strained and her daughter-in-law often quarreled with them. Jasbir Kaur, her daughter-in-law, was residing with her parents for the last 4/5 months. Manjit Singh alias Soni and Sukhwinder Singh, brothers of Jasbir Kaur, had been threatening Balkar Singh that they should rehabilitate their sister. On 10.8.2003, at about 12.30 P.M., she was present in her house along with her sons Balkar Singh alias Bara, Rajwinder Singh and Dalip Singh (her brother- in-law). At that time, Manjit Singh alias Sonu, Sukhwinder Singh alias Bagga and Sunny came to their house on scooters and took away Balkar Singh forcibly with them on their scooters saying that they would teach him a lesson for not rehabilitating Jasbir Kaur. She raised alarm but Manjit Singh and others succeeded in taking away her son forcibly with an intention to kill him.
On the basis of the statement of the complainant, formal FIR No. 39 dated 10.8.2003 was registered at police station Talwandi Chaudhrian under Section 364, 34, 120-B and Section 302 (added later on) of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short).
Sub Inspector Gagandeep Singh reached the bus stand Talwandi Chaudhrian where he met Rajwinder Singh and Dalip Singh. He recorded their statements. Thereafter, Sub Inspector Gagandeep Singh along with complainant, Rajwinder Singh and other police officials met Balwinder Singh while travelling on Hussainpur road near Tibba Civil Hospital. His statement was recorded. Dead body of Balkar Singh was recovered from the area of village Muradpur. He prepared Crl. Appeal No. 454-DB of 2005 and - 3- Crl. Appeal No. 305-DB of 2006 inquest report qua the dead body of Balkar Singh. The dead body was sent for post mortem examination. He prepared rough site plan qua the place of recovery of dead body.
On 11.8.2003, accused Manjit Singh, Jasbir Kaur and Harbhajan Singh were arrested. On 13.8.2003, Manjit Singh suffered a disclosure statement during interrogation and got recovered one plastic pipe from the disclosed place and the same was taken in possession.
On 15.8.2003, accused Jaspal Singh was arrested. After completion of investigation and necessary formalities challan was presented against accused Manjit Singh, Jasbir Kaur, Harbhajan Singh and Jaspal Singh.
During trial, an application was moved by the prosecution under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' for short) for summoning accused Sukhwinder Singh to face the trial as an additional accused. Vide order dated 21.4.2004, the said application was allowed.
In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 12 witnesses during trial.
After the close of prosecution evidence, appellants when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. pleaded that they were innocent and had been falsely involved in this case.
The accused did not examine any witness in their defence.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case. No reliance could be placed on the testimony of the complainant and Dalip Singh qua abduction of Balkar Singh alias Bara by the Crl. Appeal No. 454-DB of 2005 and - 4- Crl. Appeal No. 305-DB of 2006 accused. The prosecution witnesses had made material improvements in their statements while appearing in the witness box. The accused had been falsely involved in this case due to pendency of matrimonial litigation between deceased Balkar Singh and his wife.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that prosecution had been successful in proving its case. Deceased Balkar Singh was abducted from his house by the accused in the presence of the complainant and PW-2 Dalip Singh.
The present case relates to abduction and murder of Balkar Singh alias Bara son of complainant Shindo. In this regard, the complainant while appearing in the witness box has deposed as per the contents of the FIR. The statement of the complainant is corroborated by PW-2 Dalip Singh. However, the cross examination of the complainant renders the prosecution case doubtful qua abduction of Balkar Singh by the accused. The complainant in her cross examination has deposed that about 20/25 persons were present at the spot when her son was abducted. The statements of the said persons were not recorded by the police. There was litigation pending between her son and accused Jasbir Kaur.
The fact that 20 to 25 persons were present at the spot when Balkar Singh was abducted renders the prosecution case doubtful. The accused were allegedly unarmed at that time. As per the complainant Sukhwinder Singh, Manjit Singh and Sunny had abducted her son. At that time, the complainant was present in the house along with her sons Raj Singh, Balkar Singh Crl. Appeal No. 454-DB of 2005 and - 5- Crl. Appeal No. 305-DB of 2006 and her brother-in-law Dalip Singh. Further 20/25 persons were also present at the spot. In these circumstance, it is highly improbable that three persons, who were unarmed, had been successful in abducting Balkar Sigh forcibly as they could have been easily overpowered by the persons present at the spot. The persons who were present at the spot knew that Balkar Singh was being taken away under threat and hence, it was unlikely that they would have allowed the abductors to abduct Balkar Singh. Further, as per PW-12 appellant Manjit Singh was handicapped person as his one leg was polio effected. In these circumstances, the possibility that the accused might have been falsely involved in this case, after the recovery of the dead body of Balkar Singh due to pendency of litigation between the deceased and his wife, cannot be ruled out.
As per PW-12 Sub Inspector Gagandeep Singh, the dead body of the deceased was sent to Civil Hospital, Sultanpur Lodhi at 7.30 P.M. A perusal of Ex.PT (report No. 22 dated 10.8.2003) reveals that at 11.30 P.M., the dead body of the deceased had been sent for post mortem examination. However, PW-10 Dr. Kam Raj, who had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, in his cross examination deposed that police papers were received by the Senior Medical Officer at 12.55 P.M. on 11.8.2003. The post mortem examination was conducted by him at 1.05 P.M. on 11.8.2003. The said discrepancy also renders the prosecution case doubtful. Although PW-10 Dr. Kam Raj had found 11 injuries on the person of the deceased and the cause of death was opined by him to be injuries to vital organs namely liver and Crl. Appeal No. 454-DB of 2005 and - 6- Crl. Appeal No. 305-DB of 2006 spleen and excessive blood loss but the prosecution has failed to establish that the said injuries had been caused by the accused persons. Since the prosecution has failed to establish that the appellants had abducted the deceased, the prosecution case that thereafter they had murdered the deceased also stands demolished.
The learned trial court had rightly disbelieved the statement of PW-11 Balwinder Singh. The said witness had allegedly seen accused Jaspal Singh and Manjit Singh throwing away the deceased from their motor cycle. As per this witness, Jaspal Singh was driving the motor cycle whereas Manjit Singh was sitting on the pillion seat. One person with his neck hanging on the one side was in between the driver and the pillion rider. The statement of the said witness was not recorded to this effect under Section 175 Cr.P.C. when the inquest report was prepared by the investigating officer. There was no mention in the inquest report that the dead body of Balkar Singh had been thrown by Jaspal Singh and Manjit Singh on 10.8.2003 and such act has been witnessed by Balwinder Singh. Thus, in the initial version, the prosecution had not put up the story that Balwinder Singh had seen accused Jaspal Singh and Manjit Singh throwing away the deceased from their motor cycle. The trial court had rightly held that it appeared that Balwinder Singh had been later on introduced as a witness. The dead body of Balkar Singh was found in the fields which was under cultivation of Balwinder Singh PW-11 and due to this reason he might have towed the prosecution story to save himself from criminal liability. So far as accused Jaspal Singh is concerned, he was acquitted by the Crl. Appeal No. 454-DB of 2005 and - 7- Crl. Appeal No. 305-DB of 2006 trial court vide the impugned judgment dated 5.3.2005. The said acquittal has not been challenged by the state or the complainant.
As per the site plan Ex.PL, prepared by the investigating officer, the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the fields. PW-5 Ravinder Kumar Patwari has deposed that the place where the dead body was lying was under
the cultivation of Balwinder Singh (PW-11). PW-12, while appearing in the witness box, has deposed that the dead body was recovered near the brick-kiln in the area of Muradpur. Although the said witness in the site plan (Ex.PL) has shown the dead body lying in the fields. PW-1 complainant in her cross examination deposed that when she reached the spot, the dead body of her son was lying there and police had reached there after her arrival. On the other hand, PW-12 investigating officer has deposed that he had gone with the complainant, Rajwinder Singh and other police officials on Hussainpur road when the dead body of the deceased was found lying near the brick-kiln in the area of Muradpur.
During investigation, the prosecution has recovered a plastic pipe on the basis of the disclosure statement suffered by appellant Manjit Singh. The said recovery also fails to connect the accused with the injuries suffered by the deceased.
Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances brought on record, we are of the opinion that the prosecution case is not free from doubt. It is a settled principle of law that whenever there is doubt in the prosecution case, the benefit of the same has to go to the accused.Crl. Appeal No. 454-DB of 2005 and - 8-
Crl. Appeal No. 305-DB of 2006 Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed. The judgment/order of the trial court dated 5.3.2005/10.3.2005 are set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them. Appellant Sukhwinder Singh, who is in custody, be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
(JASBIR SINGH) (SABINA)
JUDGE JUDGE
April 20, 2012
Gurpreet