In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh .....Criminal Appeal not D-595-DB of 2008 ....Date of decision:1.2.2013 Ram Brish Mehto ...Appellant v.
State of Punjab ...Respondent ...Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr.Justice Inderjit Singh ....Present: Mr.S.S.Tiwana, Advocate, Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant.
Mr.B.S.Bhalla, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.....Inderjit Singh, J.
This appeal has been filed by appellant-Ram Brish Mehto against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7.8.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Nawanshahr, whereby he has been held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as `IPC') and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of `10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for five months for the offence under Section 302 IPC.
The brief facts of the prosecution case are that SI Shamsher Singh along with other Police officials was present at the canal bridge of Cr.
Appeal not D-595-DB of 2008 [2].Talwandi Fattu, then a special informer from the reliable sources intimated him that dead body of one Arun Kumar son of Billat Kumar resident of Badesar, Police Station Mohinder Nagar, District Dhonsa, Nepal, aged about 18-20 yeaRs.was lying near the sugarcane fields of Jaswinder Singh alias Chhinda, who had been working for the last one month as farm labour under Jaswinder Singh above said.
The dead body bore injuries caused with a sharp edged weapon and the dead body was lying in a pool of blood.
It appeared that the murder had been committed by some unknown person.
Since, the information was reliable and confirmed; a written `Ruqa' was sent for registration of the case to Police Station at 2.30 p.m.on 17.10.2003, on the basis of which formal FIR was registered.
Then SI Shamsher Singh proceeded to the place of occurrence and conducted inquest proceedings on the dead body of Arun Kumar.
Inquest report is Ex.PB, which was prepared in the presence of Mohinder Singh and accused Ram Brish Mehto.
Blood stained earth was lifted from the spot and taken into Police possession after preparing sealed parcel.
The Investigating Officer also took into possession tractor trolley bearing registration not PB-32-B-1201 vide memo Ex.PO.
The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination.
Rough site plan Ex.PR was prepared.
Then the investigation of the case was taken over by SI Rajan Parminder Singh of CIA In-charge on 23.10.2003.
On that day, SI Rajan Parminder Singh recorded the statement of PW Bhajan Singh and thereafter he had associated him as well as Jaswinder Singh and accused Ram Brish Mehto was arrested in their presence and was interrogated.
The accused made disclosure statement that he had kept concealed one `Kahi Peen' in the sugarcane field Cr.
Appeal not D-595-DB of 2008 [3].of Bhajan Singh and offered to get the same recovered.
In pursuance of the disclosure statement, the accused got recovered `Kahi Peen' which was taken into Police possession after preparing sketc.Ex.PJ after converting the same into parcel.
Site plan of the place of recovery was prepared.
After necessary investigation, the challan was presented.
On presentation of challan, the trial Court finding prima facie charge against accused-appellant Ram Brish Mehto, framed charge for the offence under Section 302 IPC.
The accused pleaded not guilty to above charge and claimed trial.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Dr.
Manohar Lal, Medical Officer, who mainly deposed that on 18.10.2003, he was posted as Medical Officer at Civil Hospital, Banga.
On that day, he conducted post-mortem at about 1.25 p.m.on the dead body of Arun Kumar and found the following injuries:- “1.
Incised wound 2.5 x 1 cm x bone deep on the right side of forehead 4.5 cm from midline and 2.5 cm above the right eyebrow covered by blood clots.”
2. Incised wound 2.5 x 0.8 cm bone deep on the right side of scalp 12 cm behind the outer end of right eyebrow 5 cm from midline.
Blood clots present.
Crepitus present.
On dissection clotted blood.
Haematoma present between skull bone and skin layeRs.on whole of the top of scalp on both side of midline.
Underlying parietal bones of both sides and occipital bone is fractured and depressed into the scalp.
Fractured fragment penetrates the meninges and brain on Cr.
Appeal not D-595-DB of 2008 [4].further dissection.
Both the parietal lobs of the brain and lacerated and blood clots present in the vicinity.”
3. Five stab wounds on the back and outer side of right side of trunk over an area between iliac crest and lower ribs of right side they measure 1 x 1 x 3 cm, 0.6 x 0.4 x 1 cm, 0.3 x 0.3 x 1.2 cm, 0.4 x 0.2 x 2 cm, 0.3 x 0.2 x 1.4 cm on dissections all the stabs reach upto sub cutaneous tissue or muscles planes.
Fluid food oozing from the stab.”
In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to injuries which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary couRs.of nature.
PW-2 Chaman Lal Patwari mainly deposed regarding scaled map Ex.PF.
PW-3 Bhajan Singh mainly deposed that Jaswinder Singh is his real brother.
They are residing jointly in their fields and their agriculture work is separate.
Accused Ram Brish was kept as servant for agriculture work by him.
Arun Kumar (since deceased) was the servant of his brother Jaswinder Singh.
He further stated that accused Ram Brish present in the Court admitted before him that he had murdered Arun Kumar on 17.10.2003.
Accused and Arun Kumar were related to each other.
The accused further deposed that Arun Kumar used to abuse him and due to that reason he murdered him with the handle of spade (Peen).He further admitted before him that he had committed a sin and he should help him to appear before the Police as he had good terms with the Police.
He made to sit the accused with his brother Jaswinder Singh and he started for Police Station Mukandpur.
But the Police party met him on the way at the bridge Cr.
Appeal not D-595-DB of 2008 [5].of canal at Talwandi Fattu and he narrated the entire facts to them and they came with him to his village, again said to his residence in the fields.
The Police interrogated the accused and he confessed his guilt.
The accused also got recovered the weapon from near the sugarcane fields in pursuance of his disclosure statement which was taken into Police possession after preparing sketc.and sealed parcel.
PW-4 Jaswinder Singh mainly deposed that accused present in the Court is known to him.
He was employed as servant by his brother Bhajan Singh for agriculture work.
Arun Kumar was murdered on 17.10.2003.
The accused and the deceased were co-related.
On 23.10.2003, the accused came to him and Bhajan Singh was also there and in their presence he made a confessional statement before them that Arun Kumar (deceased) used to abuse him, due to that reason he had committed the murder of Arun Kumar with the handle of spade and that he had committed the sin and he be helped and he be produced before the Police.
The accused was made to sit with him and his brother Bhajan Singh went to inform the Police and the Police came at the spot and arrested the accused.
On interrogation, accused made disclosure statement that he had kept concealed `Peen' (Head of `Kahi') and in pursuance of the disclosure statement he got recovered the weapon of offence which was taken into Police possession after preparing sketc.and sealed parcel.
Rough site plan regarding place of recovery was also prepared.
PW-5 HC Surjit Singh is a formal witness, who tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PK.
PW-6 HC Pargan Ram mainly deposed regarding getting conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Arun Kumar.
PW-7 SI Shamsher Singh is the Investigating Officer, who mainly deposed regarding the investigation of the Cr.
Appeal not D-595-DB of 2008 [6].case.
PW-8 SI Rajan Parminder Singh is another Investigating Officer, who partly conducted the investigation and arrested the accused.
He also deposed regarding disclosure statement made by the accused and the recovery of the weapon of offence.
PW-9 Surinder Singh, Senior Assistant office of State Transport Commissioner, Punjab mainly deposed that had brought the summoned record pertaining to tractor not PB-32-B-1201, which was registered in the name of Harbans Kaur wife of Jaswinder Singh and Harbhajan Singh son of Tara Singh.
PW-10 HC Ashok Kumar is a formal witness, who tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PM.
The Public Prosecutor closed the evidence of the prosecution.
At the close of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.and was confronted with the evidence of the prosecution but he denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded himself as innocent.
He stated that he had committed no offence.
PWs Bhajan Singh and Jaswinder Singh were arrested in this case by the Police, but they were left free for the reason best known to the Police.
Being poor person, the present case was planted upon him.
The Police got his signatures by torturing him.
He had not suffered any statement to the Police and no recovery was effected from him.
After going through the evidence and material on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced accused-appellant Ram Brish Mehto for the offence as mentioned above.
At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Chain of circumstances should be Cr.
Appeal not D-595-DB of 2008 [7].complete and points towards the guilt of accused only and none-else.
In the present case, firstly, no motive has been proved by the prosecution and it is simply in the extra-judicial confession that deceased used to abuse him.
Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that as per inquest report the dead body was in the tractor trolley and son of Jaswinder Singh was driving the tractor trolley at that time and Jaswinder Singh was present there and the inquest proceedings were conducted on the road.
The accused- appellant was in the hospital and he identified the dead body.
The conduct of the appellant is of a normal man.
If he had committed the murder, then he might have run away from the spot.
Otherwise also, the appellant had not made any attempt to conceal the dead body or bury the dead body.
Rather, it is Jaswinder Singh and his son Balwinder Singh, who were taking the dead body from the place of occurrence in the tractor trolley.
The tractor trolley was taken into Police possession by the Police.
Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that it is in the evidence that Jaswinder Singh and Bhajan Singh were firstly interrogated by the Police in this murder case as the deceased was servant of Jaswinder Singh and the accused-appellant was servant of Bhajan Singh and further the dead body was found in the fields of Jaswinder Singh.
The conduct of PW-4 Jaswinder Singh and his son by taking away the dead body in the tractor trolley from the place of occurrence creates doubt in the prosecution version that they had caused the occurrence.
The learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the extra-judicial confession as stated by PW-3 and PW-4 before them cannot be believed.
They themselves were the suspect in the present case.
The appellant rather identified the dead body and had remained present with the Cr.
Appeal not D-595-DB of 2008 [8].Police party; reached on the spot why he will make extra-judicial confession before these persons on 23.10.2003.
Again PW-3 Bhajan Singh did not produce the appellant before the Police.
PW-3 Bhajan Singh in his statement has no where stated that when extra-judicial confession was made, Jaswinder Singh was also present.
Rather, he stated that appellant made extra-judicial confession before him whereas PW-4 Jaswinder Singh has stated that the extra-judicial confession was made in the presence of both of them.
Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that on the dead body there were two incised wounds and five stab wounds.
Both these injuries cannot be caused with the `Peen of Kahi' i.e.handle of the `Kahi'.
Therefore, the injuries caused, in the present case are also doubtful, with the weapon of the offence.
Learned counsel for the appellant next argued that there is no name in the FIR, who informed the SHO when the address and other particulars of the deceased had been given in detail and the name of his employer Jaswinder Singh, appellant's name and address had been given in detail why the name of that person had not been mentioned in the FIR also creates doubt in the prosecution version.
The statement of PW-4 Jaswinder Singh in cross-examination that the Police came at about 8.00 a.m.also creates further doubt in the prosecution version.
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the witnesses are not trustworthy.
Recovery of the weapon is doubtful.
The extra-judicial confession to PW-3 and PW-4 also cannot be believed.
Therefore, he argued that the appeal should be allowed and the appellant should be acquitted accordingly.
On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General, Cr.
Appeal not D-595-DB of 2008 [9].Punjab appearing for the respondent-State argued that the case of the prosecution has been duly proved.
There is motive for causing the occurrence as the deceased abused the appellant.
Secondly, there is statements of PW-3 Bhajan Singh and PW-4 Jaswinder Singh before whom the appellant also made extra-judicial confession and all this evidence is supported and corroborated by medical evidence and also by recovery of weapon.
Therefore, he argued that there being no merit in the appeal, it should be dismissed.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully.
From the record, we find merit in the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant.
FiRs.of all, it is a case of circumstantial evidence and in the case of circumstantial evidence chain should be complete and there should not be any missing link in it.
In other words, if all the facts and incriminating circumstances put together, it should point towards the guilt of the accused only and none-else.
In the present case, a reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution version.
FiRs.of all, there is no strong motive for causing the occurrence.
In the case of circumstantial evidence, motive assumes significance.
There is no independent evidence regarding motive produced by the prosecution.
It is only the extra-judicial confession in which it is stated that the deceased abused the appellant.
There is nothing on the record whether there was any dispute ever between the appellant and the deceased and on which ground.
Rather, it is in the statements of the PWs that the deceased and the appellant were related.
Bhajan Singh PW-3 and Jaswinder Singh PW-4 are both real brothers and residing jointly as per Cr.
Appeal not D-595-DB of 2008 [10].their evidence but separate in their cultivation.
Appellant-Ram Brish Mehto was the servant employed by PW-Bhajan Singh.
Deceased Arun Kumar was the servant employed by Jaswinder Singh PW-4.
It is in the evidence on record that in the present case the Police earlier interrogated Bhajan Singh and Jaswinder Singh, which is admitted by Jaswinder Singh in the cross- examination.
PW-3 Bhajan Singh stated in cross-examination that his brother was called to the Police Station for interrogation purpose for one time, and left free at evening by the Police.
The Investigating Officer PW-7 SI Shamsher Singh stated in the cross-examination that Bhajan Singh and Jaswinder Singh were also interrogated in this case.
A reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution version firstly on the ground that detailed particulars of the deceased and his employer were given by the secret informer but no name had been given, who had reported the matter to SI Shamsher Singh.
There was nothing to conceal the identity of the person who gave the information in the present case as it is stated by the informer that some unknown person had caused the injuries.
The concealment of the name of the person who gave the information to SI Shamsher Singh creates a doubt in the prosecution version.
Rather, it leads to an inference that all this version had been concocted one.
Again in the inquest report, it is reported by the Investigating Officer that Balwinder Singh son of Jaswinder Singh was driving the tractor and Jaswinder Singh was also present when the dead body was being taken away in the tractor trolley and inquest report was prepared on the road whereas the site plan in the inquest report shows that the dead body was lying in the field.
As the dead body was being taken away in the tractor trolley, therefore, the tractor trolley was taken into Police Cr.
Appeal not D-595-DB of 2008 [11].possession by the Investigating Officer.
PW-7 SI Shamsher Singh while appearing in the Court as witness in cross-examination stated that the tractor trolley had been brought to the place of occurrence by Jaswinder Singh and Bhajan Singh for lifting the dead body from the said place of occurrence, which is incorrect statement.
The Investigating Officer has stated that the dead body was lying on the sugarcane field whereas in the inquest report it is reported that it was in the tractor trolley when the Police party reached and the tractor trolley was stopped and inquest report was prepared on the road.
This discrepancy is material discrepancy which goes to the root of the case.
Further in the present case `Ruqa' was sent at 2.30 p.m.on 17.10.2003 on receiving secret information but PW-4 Jaswinder Singh in cross-examination has stated that the Police came at about 8.00 a.m.on 17.10.2003.
At that time, the dead body was not lying in their trolley.
The statement of PW-4 that the trolley belonging to them was not taken into Police possession on 17.10.2003 is also incorrect statement.
He volunteered to say that the dead body was taken in their trolley.
At that time, the appellant was also with the Police at the spot.
The Police did not record any statement at that time either of the appellant or the witnesses or his (PW-4) statement.
All this cross-examination shows that the witness is not reliable witness and telling lie.
This witness PW-4 further denied the fact that the Police took him and his brother to the Police Station for investigation whereas the Investigating Officer PW-7 has stated that both Bhajan Singh and Jaswinder Singh were interrogated in this case.
The story of extra-judicial confession by the appellant to them Cr.
Appeal not D-595-DB of 2008 [12].also cannot be believed.
PW-3 has stated that the appellant came to him and made extra-judicial confession to him whereas PW-4 stated that accused came to them and made extra-judicial confession to Bhajan Singh and in his presence.
PW-3 Bhajan Singh stated that he did not produce any accused before the Police except the present accused.
PW-3 Bhajan Singh further stated that there was no blood on the `Peen of Kahi'.
Therefore, even weapon cannot be connected with the crime.
He also stated that he was not present when the Police party reached at the time of recovery.
This statement in cross-examination by PW-3 also creates a reasonable doubt.
Again the statement of PW-4 Jaswinder Singh that appellant stated that he committed the murder of Arun Kumar with the handle of spade is also contrary to the prosecution version as the injuries on the person of deceased were with sharp edged weapon.
The doctor who conducted the post-mortem found two incised wounds on the body of deceased and five stab wounds.
Keeping in view the dimensions of the injuries, it looks that these injuries cannot be caused with the handle of the spade i.e.`Peen of Kahi'.
Keeping in view the above discussion, we find that a reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution version.
Statements of PW-3 and PW-4 are not believable and they are not reliable and trustworthy witnesses.
There is no motive for causing the occurrence.
The investigation in the present case is totally defective investigation and the Investigating Officer has tried to make improvements while appearing in the Court.
Keeping in view the contradictions also in the version, a further reasonable doubt exists.
Therefore, from the above, we find that there are missing links Cr.
Appeal not D-595-DB of 2008 [13].in the present case and the circumstances if put together do not point towards the guilt of the appellant only.
Therefore, giving benefit of doubt to the accused-appellant, he is acquitted of the charge framed against him.
Finding merit in the appeal, the same is allowed.
The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the learned trial Court are set aside.
The appellant, who is in custody, be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
(Jasbir Singh) (Inderjit Singh) Judge Judge February 1, 2013.
*hsp*