Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The learned trial Court has held all the accused to be guilty. The learned trial Court has though held that there was no direct evidence with regard to the murder of Bant Singh in this case, however, it was observed that the circumstantial evidence was complete in all respects Cr. Appeal No.458-DB/1998 & Cr. Appeal No.56-DB of 1999 which proved the guilt of the accused that they had committed the murder of Bant Singh (deceased). It was noticed that the offence was committed in the month of September 1994 but the complainant went to the Police on 2.11.1994. This also though was observed to be a long delay in lodging the report. However, it was observed that the facts and circumstances in the case which caused the delay were liable to be gone into to find out whether there was any deliberate delay in lodging the report and whether there was scope for implicating the accused falsely in the case. It was observed that the complainant Sher Singh had been asking his sister-in-law Paramjit Kaur (appellant) about Bant Singh as regards his whereabouts and unless he (complainant-Sher Singh) got a definite reply he could not go and lodge a report with the Police. He had to wait for the return of Bant Singh from the place where Paramjit Kaur (appellant) had alleged that he had gone. Therefore, it was observed that delay in the lodging of the report was not deliberate nor did it cause any advantage to Sher Singh (PW-4) to delay the lodging of the report because he had found all the accused at the house of Paramjit Kaur (appellant) on 4.9.1994 itself and he knew them and could identify them personally. As such, it was observed that there was no scope for any false implication of the accused. It was also observed that a co- villager, namely, Harbans Singh (PW-6) had later disclosed to Sher Singh- complainant (PW-4) regarding Kesar Singh (appellant) and Harbans Singh (appellant) carrying something on their cycle carrier i.e. a gunny bag on the night of 4.9.1994. It was observed that it was then that the suspicion of Sher Singh-complainant (PW-4) became firm and he lodged the report. Therefore, it was held that delay in reporting the case to the Police cannot Cr. Appeal No.458-DB/1998 & Cr. Appeal No.56-DB of 1999 be held to be fatal to the case of the prosecution or to hold that the prosecution case had become doubtful on this ground. It was further observed that the circumstantial evidence in the case comprised of the fact that Paramjit Kaur (appellant) was being blamed by her husband Bant Singh (deceased) to be a lady of loose character. There was no evidence produced by the prosecution whether Paramjit Kaur was a woman of loose character. In any case, it was observed that if the wife of a person is a woman of loose character he would not go about advertising this fact and rather his efforts would be to conceal the same so that his reputation does not suffer. It was observed that Bant Singh (deceased) and Paramjit Kaur were married for a sufficient long time but there was no evidence since how long they had been married but it was observed to be clear that Bant Singh (deceased) had strained relations with his wife Paramjit Kaur (appellant) and the accused had some kind of ill-will against him. Besides, Sher Singh-complainant (PW-4) was living in the same village and, therefore, he must be knowing about the act and conduct of Paramjit Kaur (appellant). Another circumstance that was noticed by the learned trial Court was that Paramjit Kaur (appellant) was evasive with regard to the whereabouts of Bant Singh (deceased) when she was asked about this by his brother Sher Singh- complainant (PW-4). It was observed that by not giving the whereabouts of Bant Singh (deceased) would naturally raise an inference that she was deliberately concealing some important fact and later it was found that Bant Singh had actually been murdered. It was observed that Asarfi (PW-7) had deposed in favour of the prosecution that Bant Singh had not come to him. Another factor that was taken into account was that Sukhdev Singh (PW-9) Cr. Appeal No.458-DB/1998 & Cr. Appeal No.56-DB of 1999 and Sher Singh (PW-4) had no enmity towards the accused so as to falsely implicate them in the case. Reliance was placed on the deposition of Harbans Singh (PW-6) who stated that he had seen Kesar Singh (appellant) and Harbans Singh (appellant) carrying something heavy in a gunny bag on their bicycle on the night of 4.9.1994 and on seeing Harbans Singh (PW-6) they had turned their faces towards the other side and this fact was narrated to Sher Singh-complainant (PW-4) when he learnt about the death of Bant Singh. The discrepancies in the statement of Harbans Singh (PW-6) it was observed that the whole case of the prosecution could not be thrown out. It was also observed that the dead body was identified by Sher Singh- complainant (PW-4) from the clothes of Bant Singh (deceased). The period of time given by the doctor between death and post-mortem i.e. between three and six months it was observed tallies with the period when the offence was committed i.e. on 4.9.1994 and when Harbans Singh (PW-6) found the accused carrying bags on the cycle. The date of disclosing the fact by Harbans Singh (PW-6) to Sher Singh-complainant (PW-4) on 2.11.1994 or 6.11.1994 it was observed was hardly of any consequence as the dead body had been recovered. Regarding the disclosure statement (Ex.PK) of Harbans Singh (appellant) being recorded only in the presence of Police officials and not in the presence of any independent witness it was observed that the Police witnesses if found acceptable can be relied upon. Unless there were any special circumstances to disbelieve the Police officials their testimony, it was observed, should not be rejected merely on the ground that no independent witness was joined. The defence set-up by the appellants that the recovery of the dead body had been planted has also Cr. Appeal No.458-DB/1998 & Cr. Appeal No.56-DB of 1999 not been accepted by the learned trial Court. The defence counsel had placed reliance on the statement of Charanjit Singh(PW-2) wherein in cross- examination it is stated that he was present at the time of registration of the case (FIR) in the Police Station on 7.11.1994. At that time all the accused were present at the Police Station and the dead body was also there in a gunny bag at that time on 7.11.1994. From this learned defence counsel before the learned trial Court had contended that the recovery had been planted as the dead body was already at the Police Station on 7.11.1994. The learned trial Court held that Charanjit Singh (PW-2) was a witness of the link regarding deposit of `Palanda' (packet) and envelopes with seals at Patiala for chemical examination and was not to be cross-examined on a point regarding which he had not stated anything in the examination-in- chief. Besides, he had tried to help the accused in his cross-examination by going out of the way. There was no entry in the DDR that the dead body was received in the Police Station on 7.11.1994. Regarding the recovery of the dead body it was observed that from the skeleton the body could not be identified as there was no flesh on the body but in this case the dead body was identified from the clothes. Lekh Raj, ASI (PW-14) had also deposed that the body was identified from the clothes and not from the skeleton and this was observed to be no reason to disbelieve the statement. It was also observed that though the burden is on the prosecution to prove the charge but where the circumstances have been established on record then there must be some explanation from the side of the accused as to where in fact Bant Singh (deceased) had gone after 4.9.1994. If he was not traceable then Paramjit Kaur etc. (appellants) being his close relatives in the ordinary Cr. Appeal No.458-DB/1998 & Cr. Appeal No.56-DB of 1999 course of circumstances ought to have known about his whereabouts especially when Sukhdev Singh (PW-9) and Sher Singh-complainant (PW-

The observations made in Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology even though may not be binding but have probative value and are helpful in deciding a matter of this nature where the dead body has been found to be decomposed and there are only skeleton bones. It may be noticed that in case the body was decomposed and beyond recognition the possibility of the underwear and the `Parna' being in such a condition from Cr. Appeal No.458-DB/1998 & Cr. Appeal No.56-DB of 1999 which the body could be identified to be that of Bant Singh (deceased) is quite remote. Therefore, to conclusively hold in the facts and circumstances that the said body was that of Bant Singh on the basis of `Parna' and underwear which the skeleton had would be quite unsafe. The fact regarding recovery of the dead body in pursuance of the disclosure statement (Ex.PK) of Harbans Singh (appellant) may be considered. Harbans Singh (appellant) made a disclosure statement to the effect that he had concealed the dead body below the earth soil at Village Mohanpur near the G.T. road outside the village in a gunny bag and that he could get it recovered. It is in pursuance of the said disclosure statement that the dead body of Bant Singh (deceased)s was recovered. However, certain facts which have come on record are that the FIR in the case was recorded on 7.11.1994 vide report No.14/15 at 1.30 p.m. The said report, it is stated, reached the Magistrate at 2.15 p.m. on 7.11.1994 and by that time the dead body had already been recovered. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances the possibility of recovering the dead body and thereafter recording the disclosure statement of Harbans Singh ( appellant) cannot be held to prove conclusively that the dead body was recovered in pursuance of the disclosure statement (Ex.PK) of Harbans Singh (appellant). Besides, the disclosure statement (Ex.PK) of Harbans Singh (appellant) was recorded in the presence of official witnesses and not in the presence of any independent witness. The learned trial Court observed that unless there were any special circumstance to disbelieve the Police officials their testimony can be relied upon. There is no dispute with the said proposition. However, in the facts and circumstances where the identity of the dead body has not been held to be established to be that of Cr. Appeal No.458-DB/1998 & Cr. Appeal No.56-DB of 1999 Bant Singh (deceased) it would be unsafe to give undue weightage to the disclosure statement (Ex.PK) of Harbans Singh (appellant) when the same is made only before official witnesses i.e. SI Shanker Dass, SHO (PW-15), Lekh Raj, ASI (PW-14) and Kewal Singh, ASI (PW-10). The learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the statement of Charanjit Singh (PW-2) wherein in cross-examination he stated that he was present at the time of registration of the case at the Police Station on 7.11.1994. At that time, all the accused were present and the dead body was also there in the gunny bag. The learned trial Court did not accept the said statement of Charanjit Singh (PW-2) to hold that the dead body as also the accused were already at the Police Station on 7.11.1994 i.e. a day earlier to the registration of the FIR on 8.11.1994 though the reasons recorded by the learned trial Court in this regard may be a possible view and Charanjit Singh(PW-2) who is a Constable and witness of the prosecution may have tried to help the accused. Charanjit Singh (PW-2) stated that he had taken two `Palandas' (packets) with eight seals and envelops with five seals to Patiala which was given to the Chemical Examiner, Patiala with 16 seals and eight seals on the envelops along with the letter CHK-2. These were deposited on 11.11.1994. Therefore, he was a witness regarding the deposit of the articles with the Chemical Examiner. Besides, in cross-examination he has stated that he was present in the Police Station when the FIR was registered on 7.11.1994 and at that time all the accused were present in the Police Station and the dead body was also there in the gunny bag at that time on 7.11.1994. The position is that he has accepted the suggestion as put by the defence counsel. This by itself may not mean that the dead body Cr. Appeal No.458-DB/1998 & Cr. Appeal No.56-DB of 1999 was there at the police station on 7.11.1994 and the accused had already been arrested on the same day, that is, a day earlier to the registration of the FIR on 8.11.1994. However, the same does cast some reasonable doubts. In any case, there are other circumstances which do not establish the case of the prosecution.

Cr. Appeal No.458-DB/1998 & Cr. Appeal No.56-DB of 1999 In the afore-noticed circumstances, it cannot be said to be proved beyond shadow of doubt that the appellants indeed had committed the murder of Bant Singh (deceased). This is specially for the reason that the motive of committing the murder is not such which would warrant that the appellants would commit his murder. Paramjit Kaur (appellant) is stated to be a characterless lady, however, nothing has been shown as regards her alleged loose character. In case where prosecution is not able to establish a motive behind the crime it assumes importance especially when the prosecution case rests primarily on circumstantial evidence or on witnesses who have inimical background. Therefore, the absence of clear motive and somewhat bias of Sher Singh (PW-4) as to the disappearance of his brother Bant Singh (deceased) does cast a reasonable doubt as to whether Bant Singh had indeed been murdered by the appellants. The dead body has not been identified to be established to be that of Bant Singh as it was mere skeleton and the clothes cannot be accepted in such a condition from which his body could be identified. There is considerable delay in the lodging of the FIR. The extra-judicial confession made by appellants Kesar Singh, Bhagwanti and Paramjit Kaur before Bhagwant Singh (PW-11) is a weak type of evidence. There is no explanation for the delay by Harbans Singh (PW-6) to state that he had seen Kesar Singh (appellant) and Harbans Singh (appellant) carrying some heavy thing on the carrier of the bicycle on the night of 4.9.1994.