Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The appellants and their mother Gian Kaur were tried for the offences under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and both the appellants also for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, for having committed the murder of Surjit Kaur, the wife of Gulab Singh, appellant-accused at about 5.00 a.m. on 26.7.2003 and stealthily cremating the dead body in order to cause the evidence of murder to disappear, for screening the offenders from legal punishment. Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Patiala convicted both the appellants of the charges framed against them vide judgment dated 17.8.2005 and acquitted Gian Kaur co-accused by extending her the benefit of doubt. Both the appellants were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default thereof, to undergo imprisonment for one year, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and for five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentence of Gulab Singh, appellant-accused was to run consecutively, but the substantive sentence of Sarban Singh awarded under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code was to run concurrently with the sentence of life imprisonment, awarded under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Mohinder Singh son of Ujjagar Singh, the father of Surjit Kaur and resident of village Kharoula, reported the incident to the Police, vide his statement Ex.PA, which was recorded on 26.7.2003, at about 8.45 a.m. The prosecution story as unfolded during the trial is that the daughter of Mohinder Singh,Complainant was married to Gulab Singh, accused-appellant, about 12/13 years ago. She had three children from the wedlock; one son and two daughters. Gulab Singh, accused was posted as Constable in the Police Department. He used to have constant quarrel with the deceased. Few days before the incident, both the appellants and Gian Kaur their mother gave beating to the deceased for which a compromise dated 13.7.2003 was reached.

11. Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Patiala convicted both the appellants and sentenced them to under imprisonment as aforesaid. Gian Kaur, their mother, however, was acquitted.

12. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

13. We would first briefly describe the evidence produced by the parties.

14. PW1 Mohinder Singh, father of the deceased has deposed that there was a minor quarrel between his daughter and son-in-law, namely, Gulab Singh accused-appellant. About 13 days before the occurrence Surinder Kumar, Panch and his son Darshan Singh had taken his daughter to the house of accused and she was left there. He then stated about the telephonic message received from Surinder Kumar, member Panchayat and proceeding to the cremation ground. When they reached near the cremation ground, they saw both Sarban Singh and Gulab Singh accused-appellants present near the pyre of the deceased whereas Gian Kaur and Babli were hiding themselves behind the auto-rickshaw. All of them fled from there in the auto-rickshaw. During his examination the plastic Can Ex.P/1, Match Box Ex.P2, Cow Dung Cakes Ex.P3, half burnt wooden pieces Ex.P4 and parcel of ash Ex.P5 were also brought. In the examination-in-chief, the witness had stated that on receiving telephonic message about the death of his daughter, he went to the village of the accused along with his son Darshan Singh, but in the cross-examination the witness clarified that his son Jagjit Singh accompanied him, which is in consonance with the prosecution story.

44. The prosecution story is that when Mohinder Singh, complainant (PW1) reached the cremation ground he found both the appellants sitting near the pyre and a three-wheeler was also parked nearby. They tried to put off the fire but the accused prevented them from doing so. Mohinder Singh wielded gandasi blow towards them and then put off the fire and the matter was reported to the Police. Mohinder Singh,PW-1 while appearing in the witness box, did improve the version a little bit that Gian Kaur, mother of the accused and Babli had hidden themselves behind the three-wheeler and all of them fled away from there in the three-wheeler. The witness was confronted, on this aspect, with the statement made before the Police about presence of Gian Kaur and Babli, but on that account, the whole version cannot be disbelieved, especially when the matter was reported to the Police on coming to know the death of the daughter of Mohinder Singh instantly. The doctrine of "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no application in India and the witnesses, cannot on that account be rendered, as a liar. It is merely a rule of caution as held by Supreme Court in Smt. Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan V. Vasant Raghunath Dhoble and another Criminal Appeal No.857 of 1996 reported as 2004(1) RCR ( Criminal) 283. On that account Gian Kaur, accused, has already been given the benefit of doubt.