Criminal Appeal not D-709-DB of 2008 and Criminal Appeal not D-697-DB o”
1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal not D-709-DB of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : July 23, 2013 Loveleen Arora ...Appellant Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent Criminal Appeal not D-697-DB of 2008 Hardeep Singh ...Appellant Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANITA CHAUDHRY Present:- Mr. Vikram Chaudhary, Advocate with Ms. Vriti Gujral, Advocate for the appellant in Criminal Appeal not D-709-DB of 2008 Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate for the appellant in Criminal Appeal not D-697-DB of 2008 Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. J.K. Sibal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dhawal Bhandari, Advocate for the complainant. *** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?. Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. Yes Singh Parvinder 2013.07.30 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal not D-709-DB of 2008 and Criminal Appeal not D-697-DB o”
2. M.JEYAPAUL, J.
1. Accused Hardeep Singh and Loveleen Arora were convicted by the trial Court for the offence under Section 302 IPC and were each sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of `10,000/- each and in default to undergo a further period of one year R.I.
2. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court they have preferred the above individual appeals.
3. The case in brief of the prosecution is that on 30.7.2006 at about 4.50 P.M. PW2 Robin Arora was chatting with his wife PW3 Tamanna Arora in their bedroom at House No.473, Mohalla Kartar Nagar, Shahkot. On hearing the shrieks from the lobby of their house, he rushed out of the bedroom and saw accused Loveleen Arora who was none other than her cousin and another accused later on identified as accused Hardeep Singh stabbing her mother Santosh Rani (since deceased) and his father Roshal Lal (since deceased) with their respective knives. The accused Loveleen Arora stabbed his father in his abdomen with his Khukhri type weapon and accused Hardeep Singh stabbed his mother Santosh Rani in her abdomen with a Khukhri type weapon possessed by him. After causing injuries both the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence, despite an attempt made by PW2 to catch hold of them. Khukhri of Loveleen fell down when he was running away. Accused Hardeep Singh managed to run away with his Khukhri. Both the accused boarded a car parked in a street and sped away. On hearing hue and cry raised by PW2 his neighbour Bharat Kumar Gupta came over there. Both the injured were taken to Tagore Hospital, Singh Parvinder 2013.07.30 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal not D-709-DB of 2008 and Criminal Appeal not D-697-DB o”
3. Shahkot for their treatment. After first aid, both the injured were taken to Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana for their treatment.
4. PW6 Inspector Piara Singh received telephonic message from PW2 Robin Arora that his parents Roshan Lal and Santosh Rani were hospitalised at Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana in a serious condition. PW6 proceeded to the said hospital and recorded the statement Ex. PB suffered by PW2. A formal First Information Report Ex. PF was registered based on the statement of PW2.
5. PW6 proceeded to the scene of occurrence and recovered two empty bottles of Limca Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 lying at the spot. Two sheaths of daggers Ex.P3 and P4 and a blood stained dagger found lying at the spot were also recovered. Blood found on the floor were also collected with the help of cotton swabs.
6. On 31.7.2006 PW6 was informed that Santosh Rani died in Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana. PW6 held inquest proceedings and prepared inquest report. On 31.7.2006 a supplementary statement of PW2 Robin Arora was recorded.
7. PW4 Dr. Harbans Lal conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Santosh Rani on 31.7.2006. He found two skin deep 1 inch long cut mark present on the right side of neck without any ligature mark. Two inch long incised and stitched wound was present on the right iliar region of abdomen. On dissection he found that large intestine was also found stitched. Internal hemorrhage was also noticed. Abdominal cavity contained blood stained fluid. He also found two incised and stitched wounds on the right arm. Two parallel wounds were Singh Parvinder 2013.07.30 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal not D-709-DB of 2008 and Criminal Appeal not D-697-DB o”
4. also present on the front side of the right forearm.
8. In his opinion Santosh Rani had died due to hemorrhageic shock on account of abdominal injuries she sustained.
9. On 4.8.2006 accused Loveleen Arora and Hardeep Singh were arrested near Godhaipur in the area of Shahkot. On the basis of the disclosure statement suffered by accused Hardeep Singh a Chura in the elephant grass alongside Shahkot Qilanwali road was recovered.
10. Roshan Lal Arora died on 18.8.2006. Dr. Varinder Pal Jagat conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Roshan Lal Aora on 19.8.2006. He found the following injuries on the dead body of Roshan Lal Arora :- 1. Stitched wound 5 cm in length present over left hypochondrine. On removing the stitches unlying soft tissues were lacerated, unlying omentum was stitched, underlying diafram was found reparied and underlying portion of gut was stitched.
2. Stitched would 20 cm long present in the mid line (laportomy incision). On removing the stitches and opening of abdominal cavity underlying portion of small and large gut was found repaired alongwith masentry.
3. Stitched wound 2 cm in length over left lumber region of abdomen. On removing stitches underlying portion of soft tissues were found stitched and underlying portion of gut was found repaired.
4. Stitched wound 2 cm in length present over left lumber Singh Parvinder 2013.07.30 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal not D-709-DB of 2008 and Criminal Appeal not D-697-DB o”
5. region 2 cm below injury no.3. Underlying portion of peritonium and gut was found repaired.
5. Stitched wound 5 cm in length on front of right side of chest. 7 cm inferolateral to right nipple. Underlying portion of chest and lung was found repaired.
11. In his opinion Roshal Lal Arora had died due to septicaemic shock resulting from chest and abdominal injuries as described above. On completion of investigation the Investigating Officer laid a final report as against both the accused.
12. Both the accused have contended in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that they were innocent but a false case was foisted on them.
13. On the side of the defence DW1 Kulwinder Kaur the mother of accused Hardeep Singh was examined to support the defence that accused was arrested as early as on 4.8.2006 itself from her house. DW2 Vikas Arora who was the brother of Loveleen Arora was examined to support the defence that Roshan Lal and Santosh Rani were murdered by unidentified persons and at the time when Vikas Arora was present at the scene of crime, neither PW2 not PW3 was present. DW3 Ajit Singh the alleged employer of accused Hardeep Singh was examined to support the version of Hardeep Singh that he was on duty as Welder in the factory run by DW3.
14. The trial court having rejected the finger prints opinion exhibited as Ex. PU heavily relied upon the evidence of PW2 and PW3 and the recovery of weapon made from the place of occurrence and the Singh Parvinder 2013.07.30 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal not D-709-DB of 2008 and Criminal Appeal not D-697-DB o”
6. recovery of weapon made on the basis of disclosure statement suffered by accused Hardeep Singh in the background of the medical evidence on record recorded conviction and sentence as stated supra.
15. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would vehemently submit that PW2 had not chosen to drop in the police station to lodge a report as to the occurrence, inspite of the fact that the police station was located on the way to the hospital. The occurrence had taken place at about 4.50 P.M. on 30.7.2006 but the First Information Report was lodged only at 10.30 P.M. on the said day and the First Information Report was registered only at 1.00 A.M. on 31.7.2006 and the special report reached the court at 10.50 P.M. on the said day. Therefore, there is an unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report and dispatching the special report to the court. A police official had visited the scene of occurrence even before the First Information Report was registered but the said police official has not chosen to record the statement of PW3 Tamanna Arora and recover the material objects lying at the scene of occurrence. Accused Hardeep Singh had been added only through the supplementary statement. One Bharat Kumar alleged to have furnished the name of Hardeep Singh was not examined. The bed head ticket issued by Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana would go to show that Santosh Rani was admitted to the hospital with the history of attack by unidentified persons. Therefore, PW2 and PW3 could not have been the eye witnesses to the occurrence. There was no motive established by the prosecution. In as much as Hardeep Singh was not named in the First Singh Parvinder 2013.07.30 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal not D-709-DB of 2008 and Criminal Appeal not D-697-DB o”
7. Information Report and his introduction to the crime was an after thought, Hardeep Singh is also entitled to acquittal.
16. We heard the submissions made by learned Senior counsel appearing for the complainant as well as learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Punjab.
17. The occurrence had taken place on 4.50 P.M. As the marriage of PW2 and PW3 had taken place just about a month earlier to the occurrence, PW2 had spent most of his time with his wife in the house. PW2 and PW3 had been present at the time when the occurrence had taken place. The inmates of the house are the best witnesses who could speak about the occurrence which took place inside the house. Just because PW2 and PW3 are closely related to the deceased, we cannot entertain any doubt in their testimony.
18. Of course the occurrence had taken place at 4.50 P.M. on 30.7.2006. Both the injured were taken to Tagore Hospital, Shahkot and thereafter both of them were shifted to Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana at about 9.30 P.M. on the said day. PW6 had reached the hospital at 10.30 P.M. covering about 60 kms. having recorded the statement of PW2 at 10.30 P.M. PW6 had returned covering the very same distance and got registered the First Information Report at 1.00 A.M. As it was night hours, the special report had been dispatched in the morning and the same reached the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate at 10.50 A.M.
19. In our considered view, the delay in lodging the First Information Report and the delay in sending the special report to the Singh Parvinder 2013.07.30 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal not D-709-DB of 2008 and Criminal Appeal not D-697-DB o”
8. learned Judicial Magistrate have been properly explained. Further, the family members who were concentrating on the best of treatment that could be given to the injured who were fighting for life cannot think of registering a case forthwith setting the law in motion. Further, we find that in the First Information Report the name of accused Hardeep Singh did not find a place. If there had been any deliberation, prior to the lodging of First Information Report, the name of accused Hardeep Singh also would have figured in the First Information Report. When there is no embellishment in the First Information Report, the delay, if any, does not go to the root of the case.
20. PW2 had received the shock of life at about 4.50 P.M. when the occurrence took place. Both the parents were fighting for life, having received lethal injuries on their vital organs. He was concentrating on the best treatment to be given to them. In such circumstances, one cannot expect PW2 to drop in the police station located on way for the purpose of lodging a report as to the occurrence.
21. PW3 Tamanna Arora would depose that a police official came to the scene of occurrence within about 1½ hour of the occurrence. It may be a case where a police official had been dispatched by PW6 the movement he received telephonic message from PW2. The said official might not have recorded the statement from PW3, as PW6 had actually gone to the Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhaina for the specific purpose of recording the statement from PW2. The police official at the house of PW3 might not have thought of recovering the material objects as the First Information Report Singh Parvinder 2013.07.30 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal not D-709-DB of 2008 and Criminal Appeal not D-697-DB o”
9. itself was not registered. Under such circumstances, the presence of police official at the house of PW3 does not in any way create a doubt in the case of the prosecution.
22. Only in the supplementary statement recorded from PW2 the specific name of accused Hardeep Singh figured. It appears that PW2 had collected the name of accused Hardeep Singh from his wife who got information from one Bharat Kumar, a neighbour. On a careful perusal of the First Information Report lodged by PW2, we find that he has categorically stated that he could easily identify the other accused who participated in the occurrence along with accused Loveleen Arora. PW2 identified Hardeep Singh as the other accused who also attacked and caused injury to his mother.
23. The occurrence had taken place during day time. According to PW3, accused Hardeep Singh also had visited her house twice. Therefore, she could easily recollect the name of accused Hardeep Singh and furnish the same to PW2. Therefore, the evidence of PW2 and PW3 attributing specific role to Hardeep Singh also appears to be credible.
24. In the bed head ticket of Santosh Rani maintained by Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana, it has been mentioned that Santosh Rani was admitted to the hospital with the history of attack by an unidentified person. Firstly, we find that PW2 has specifically stated in the First Information Report that her mother was attacked by an unidentified person. No wonder an information was furnished to the hospital that an unidentified person attacked Santosh Singh Parvinder 2013.07.30 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal not D-709-DB of 2008 and Criminal Appeal not D-697-DB o”
10. Rani and caused injury. Further, we find that the doctor who recorded such a statement was not examined. Even otherwise, the information furnished to the hospital when Santosh Rani was admitted does not throw any doubt on the role of the accused.
25. In a case where ocular testimony is available to establish a case beyond reasonable doubt, motive for the occurrence takes a back seat. In other words if the motive was not established in a case where ocular testimony is available on record, the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown overboard. Only in a case where the prosecution relies upon circumstantial piece of evidence, the motive for murder looms large. In the instance case PW2 and PW3 were the eyewitnesses to the occurrence. The prosecution has established the charges against accused through ocular testimony. Therefore, even if there is no motive for the murder the case of the prosecution cannot be rejected.
26. Further, we find that PW2 has categorically stated that father of the accused Loveleen Arora had claimed share in the business, inspite of the stand taken by the deceased Roshal Lal Arora that he had already settled his share. At any rate, we find that there was no reason for PW2 to implicate his cousin Loveleen Arora as one of the accused if at all he had not participated in the occurrence.
27. The neighbourer Bharat Kumar was not examined by the prosecution. The evidence of PW2 would disclose that Bharat Kumar came to the scene of occurrence only after the accused had left causing injuries to Roshan Lal Arora and Santosh Rani. Therefore, not examination of Bharat Kumar does not affect the case of the Singh Parvinder 2013.07.30 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Criminal Appeal not D-709-DB of 2008 and Criminal Appeal not D-697-DB o”
11. prosecution.
28. The recovery of the material objects as well as the medical evidence do support the ocular testimony of PW2 and PW3. The trial Court has rightly convicted the accused for the charge under Section 302 IPC.
29. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court stands confirmed and both the appeals stand dismissed. (M.JEYAPAUL) JUDGE (ANITA CHAUDHRY) JUDGE July 23, 2013 p.singh Singh Parvinder 2013.07.30 15:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document