Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranjit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 20 January, 2011
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta
Crl. Appeal No.345-DB of 2001 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: January 20, 2011
Crl. Appeal No.345-DB of 2001
Ranjit Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR
Present: Mr. Vinod Ghai, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. S.S.Dhaliwal, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab,
for the respondent-State.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.06.2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. The appellant was also convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence punishable under Section 364/34 IPC. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.
Crl. Appeal No.345-DB of 2001 2
Dilbagh Singh, father of the deceased Opinder Singh has set the prosecution case in motion when he made statement before SI Sarabjit Singh on 31.12.1997 at 1.30 AM to the effect that his son Opinder Singh aged about 20-22 years, who had undergone heart operation was residing with him in the village and was unmarried and unemployed though sometimes he used to go on tempo with Ranjit Singh son of Prem Singh- the appellant herein. At about 9.30 PM, he along with his wife Mohinder Kaur and son Opinder Singh was present in the house, when Ranjit Singh and his mother's sister's son Mohan Singh son of Kashmir Singh, who is employed as a cleaner on the tempo of Ranjit Singh came to their house and asked his son Opinder Singh to accompany them, as they have to go to Khanna. He and his wife Mohinder Kaur refused and their son Opinder Singh was also reluctant, but Ranjit Singh and Mohan Singh insisted that he must go with them. When they both along with Opinder Singh came out of the house, then he and his wife also came on the road by following them to the place where the tempo of Ranjit Singh was standing of which Ranjit Singh was the driver. Ranjit Singh and Mohan Singh made his son Opinder Singh to sit forcibly in the tempo despite his being reluctant. Ranjit Singh said in high pitch that today they will teach Opinder Singh a lesson for levelling the allegations against his sister. Ranjit Singh along with Mohan Singh started four-wheeler tempo and went towards Bilga. He and his wife felt danger to the life of their son and disclosed the said fact to his son Jasvir Singh. Thereafter, he along with Jasvir Singh chased the four-wheeler towards Bilga. At around 10.30 PM, when they reached near the canal minor bridge in the area of Bilga, the tempo was standing on the canal bridge on metalled road and the lights were on. After stopping the scooter at some distance, they saw that Mohan Singh had caught hold of Crl. Appeal No.345-DB of 2001 3 both the arms of his son Opinder Singh from back side and Ranjit Singh was giving blows on the head and mouth of his son Opinder Singh with iron rod held by him in his hands. Opinder Singh fell down on the ground, but Ranjit Singh gave blows with iron rod on the mouth and head of Opinder Singh. He and Jasvir Singh raised alarm that they should not kill, then Ranjit Singh alongwith his rod and Mohan Singh went away on four- wheeler tempo from the spot towards Bilga. He along with Jasvir Singh saw his son Opinder Singh by going near to him and found that he had died due to head injuries and was smeared with blood. After weeping a lot, he came to his house on foot by leaving his son Jasvir Singh near the dead body of Opinder Singh and disclosed about the entire incident to Mohan Singh, Member Panchayat of Village.
On the basis of such statement (Ex.PF), ruqa was sent by SI Sarabjit Singh for registration of FIR through HC Bakhshi Ram. On receipt of ruqa, FIR Ex.PF/2 was lodged at about 2.10 AM. The special report was received by the learned Magistrate at 10.00 AM.
During the course of investigation, SI Sarabjit Singh, the Investigating Officer has taken into possession the personal belongings of the dead body i.e. T-shirt, coat, pant, underwear, white vest and belt and converted into parcel. The Investigating Officer has also taken into possession one pair shoes and blood stained earth from the place of occurrence and converted into separate parcels.
Ranjit Singh and Mohan Singh were arrested by SI Sarabjit Singh on 05.01.1998. During the course of interrogation, Ranjit Singh suffered a disclosure statement Ex.PL to the effect that he has concealed the iron road and blood stained clothes in the field of wheat crop under a Crl. Appeal No.345-DB of 2001 4 heap of parali and got the same recovered after pointing out the same. Such disclosure statement was signed by the accused and witnesses namely Balwinder Singh and HC Bakshi Ram. Thereafter, accused Ranjit Singh led the police party to the stated place from where a rod, pullover (jarsi) and a pant were recovered and taken into possession after preparing the parcels of the above clothes and a separate parcel of the rod vide recovery memo Ex.PM. On 07.01.1998, SI Sarabjit Singh, the Investigating Officer has taken into possession the four wheeler bearing registration No.PB 08 N
- 9182 vide recovery memo Ex.PO. On 21.01.1998, three parcels were sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner, Patiala. The Chemical Examiner vide its report Ex.PQ has found blood on rod, jarsi and pant apart from the earth lifted from the place of occurrence.
On completion of investigation, the accused namely Ranjit Singh was made to stand trial for the offences punishable under Sections 364/302/34 IPC, whereas Mohan Singh son of Kashmir Singh, who was stated to be juvenile, was tried by Juvenile Justice Board.
To prove the guilt, the prosecution has examined PW-4 Dilbagh Singh, the author of FIR and PW-5 Jasvir Singh, step brother of the deceased as witnesses, who have witnessed the occurrence. The prosecution has also examined PW-2 MHC Harjinder Singh; PW-3 Dalbir Singh Patwari; PW-7 Surjan Dass, Senior Assistant in the office of DTO, Jalandhar and PW-8 Constable Narinder Singh, who are the formal witnesses. However, the prosecution has not examined any of the attesting witness of the disclosure statement Ex.PL except SI Sarabjit Singh, the Investigating Officer, who has been examined as PW-6. The post-mortem on the dead body of Opinder Singh was conducted by Dr. Sarabjit Singh Crl. Appeal No.345-DB of 2001 5 vide report Ex.PA and has found as many as six injuries included lacerated wounds.
After going through the evidence produced before it, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant Ranjit Singh, as mentioned above.
Before this Court, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the occurrence in the manner suggested by the prosecution. It is contended that PW-4 Dilbagh Singh and PW-5 Jasvir Singh were not present at the time of occurrence as deposed by them. It is contended that it is impossible to imagine that such persons were present at the time, when the appellant is said to have given blows with iron rod on the person of the deceased and that such persons would not take any step to protect the deceased from the assault. It is also impossible to imagine that the deceased has received six injuries, but not a drop of blood was found on any of the clothes of the witnesses, who are none else but father and step brother of the deceased. It is argued that PW-4 Dilbagh Singh has stated that he chased the four-wheeler tempo on a scooter along with Jasvir Singh and PW-5 Jasvir Singh has stated in his cross-examination that they were just 10 karms behind the tempo, which they were chasing. It has also come on record from the statement of PW-5 Jasvir Singh that the place of occurrence is not more than 1 km. from the residence of the deceased. It is contended that though Dilbagh Singh has gone on a scooter to the place of occurrence, but has come back to lodge report on foot. PW-4 Dilbagh Singh and PW-5 Jasvir Singh have taken absolutely no steps to protect the life of the deceased Opinder Singh. It is contended that there is no Crl. Appeal No.345-DB of 2001 6 probability for the appellant to inflict brutal injuries on the person of Opinder Singh-deceased without any intervention on the part of the father and step brother. It is further argued that story of enmity is unfounded.
It is also contended that as per the report of Chemical Examiner (Ex.PQ), 3 parcels were dispatched on 17.01.1998, but as per the affidavit Ex.PD of PW-2 HC Harjinder Singh the parcels were sent on 21.01.1998. The parcels were handed over in the office of Chemical Examiner by Constable Prem Chand, but there is no evidence on behalf of Constable Prem Chand that the samples were handed over in intact condition in which the same were received by him. In fact, Constable Prem Chand has not been examined at all. Still further, PW-2 MHC Harjinder Singh deposed that 3 parcels were deposited by SI Sarabjit Singh with him i.e. one containing blood stained earth sealed with seal 'SS' along with other case property and on 05.01.1998 one parcel of blood stained iron rod and another parcel of clothes of the accused Ranjit Singh, both sealed with seal 'SS'. Thus, there are 4 different parcels in the malkhana, but only 3 parcels were sent i.e. one of earth and another of iron rod, but the third parcel was of clothes of the accused or that of the deceased is not clear from the evidence on record. It is, thus, contended that alleged eye-witnesses are untrue witnesses and their testimonies are unworthy of reliance and that neither the disclosure statement nor the recovery of weapon of offence is proved nor the report of the Chemical Examiner (Ex.PQ) can led only inference that the only parcel sent to them was of the clothes of the accused.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and found that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond any reasonable Crl. Appeal No.345-DB of 2001 7 doubt that it is the accused, who has committed crime as alleged by the prosecution.
Firstly, the story of enmity seems to be not tenable for the reason that if Ranjit Singh and the deceased were not on good terms, the deceased would not go for work with Ranjit Singh on his tempo, as is deposed by PW-4 Dilbagh Singh and PW-5 Jasvir Singh, even occasionally. Secondly, the utterances attributed to the deceased regarding sisters of Ranjit Singh are again not reliable. It is admitted by PW-4 Dilbagh Singh that both the sisters of Ranjit Singh are married outside the village and elder sister of Ranjit Singh is married in village near Mehatpur and has two children and her elder child is of 13-14 years, whereas the other sister is married to Phillaur and has a child of 2 years. It is also admitted that his son Opinder Singh never talked ill of the sisters of Ranjit Singh. In these circumstances, it is not probable that the deceased could speak any ill of sisters of Ranjit Singh-appellant.
The eye-witness account as given by PW-4 Dilbagh Singh and PW-5 Jasvir Singh is not only contradictory, but is of the witnesses, who are not proved to be present at the spot at the time of occurrence. Firstly, PW-4 Dilbagh Singh, the father of the deceased, stated that he was hesitant to let his son go with Ranjit Singh, but soon thereafter he apprehends danger to his life and chased the four-wheeler tempo, which is parked at a distance from his house along with Jasvir Singh on a scooter. But, the father does not raise any alarm in the thickly populated residential locality. Still further, at the place of occurrence, which is stated to be one furlong by PW-4 Dilbagh Singh and 1 km. by PW-5 Jasvir Singh, the witnesses do not react at all even when deceased Opinder Singh, son of PW-4 Dilbagh Crl. Appeal No.345-DB of 2001 8 Singh and step brother of PW-5 Jasvir Singh, is being given deadly blows with iron rod. None of them have received any blood stain on their clothes though the extent of injuries would show that the deceased must be bleeding profusely, as is evident from the post-mortem report and also the fact that blood stained earth was removed from the spot by the Investigating Officer. As per PW-5 Jasvir Singh, the scooter was 10 karams behind the tempo. The deceased was a young person of 20-22 years, therefore, the time taken by the accused to alight the deceased from the tempo, who said to be put into tempo forcibly, would be much more than for the riders of a scooter following the tempo 10 karams behind to resist the assault on the deceased. Still further, PW-4 Dilbagh Singh has purportedly chased the tempo on a scooter along with Jasvir Singh, his step son, but after he notices that his son has died he comes back not with Jasvir Singh or on scooter, but on foot. Such conduct of the witness is highly improbable and does not inspire confidence as that of a truthful witness.
As per the report of Chemical Examiner (Ex.PQ), 3 parcels were dispatched on 17.01.1998 and received on 21.1.1998, but as per the affidavit Ex.PD of PW-2 HC Harjinder Singh the parcels were sent on 21.01.1998. The parcels were handed over in the office of Chemical Examiner by Constable Prem Chand, but there is no evidence on behalf of Constable Prem Chand that the samples were handed over in intact condition in which the same were received by him. PW-2 MHC Harjinder Singh deposed that 3 parcels were deposited by SI Sarabjit Singh with him i.e. one containing blood stained earth sealed with seal 'SS' along with other case property and on 05.01.1998 one parcel of blood stained iron rod and another parcel of clothes of the accused Ranjit Singh, both sealed with Crl. Appeal No.345-DB of 2001 9 seal 'SS'. Thus, there are 4 different parcels in the malkhana, but only 3 parcels were sent i.e. one of earth and another of iron rod, but the third parcel was of clothes of the accused or that of the deceased is not clear from the evidence on record. Thus, the report of the Chemical Examiner (Ex.PQ) does not lead to the inference that the parcel of clothes sent to them was of the clothes of the accused.
The non-completion of chain of circumstances by the prosecution is conclusive to return a finding that the charge of abduction and murder is not proved. The evidence led by the prosecution does not inspire confidence as that of trustworthy and reliable witnesses.
In view of the above, we do not find that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are sustainable in law. Consequently, we set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.06.2001 passed by the learned trial Court and acquit the appellant Ranjit Singh son of Prem Singh of the charges framed against him by granting him benefit of doubt. He shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
20.01.2011 (ARVIND KUMAR)
Vimal JUDGE