Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision :
21. 02.2013 CRA No.849-DB of 2009 Paramjit Kaur ...Appellant Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CRA No.93-DB of 2010 Sukhwinder Singh ...Appellant Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE RITU BAHRI 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?.
Present : Mr.Lalit Mohan Gulati, Advocate, for the appellant(s).Mr.Pavit Mattewal, Addl.
AG, Punjab, for the respondent-State.
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
This order shall dispose of afore-mentioned two appeals i.e.CRA No.849-DB of 2009 filed by Paramjit Kaur and CRA No.93-DB of 2010 filed by Sukhwinder Singh, against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.09.2009 passed by the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide which both the appellants namely Paramjit Kaur and Sukhwinder Singh, wife and husband, were convicted for the offence CRA No.849-DB of 2009 & CRA No.93-DB o”
2. punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- each.
In default of payment of fine, the defaulter was ordered to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period three months.
The prosecution case was set in motion on the statement of Jaswinder Singh son of Bant Singh (Ex.PC) made to SI Satnam Singh, SHO, P.S.City, Jagraon on 30.04.2004 at about 2.30 PM, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PC/2 was registered at about 2.50 PM.
In his statement (Ex.PC).Jaswinder Singh stated that they are three brothers and one sister.
Jagsir Singh @ Kala is the eldest, Jasbir Singh is younger to Jagsir Singh and he is the youngest of all.
He stated that marriage of Jagsir Singh @ Kala was solemnized about 11/12 years back with Manjit Kaur and he had three children.
He was working as tailor master with Negi TailORS.Jagraon.
He further stated that his brother Jagsir Singh had illicit relations with Paramjit Kaur wife of Sukhwinder Singh for the last 3/4 yeaRs.His brother used to pay less attention towards his wife and used to provide more money to Paramjit Kaur for maintenance and also used to visit her house off and on in routine.
He further stated that last night i.e.29.04.2004, his brother Jagsir Singh @ Kala met him and told him that today he is going to Paramjit Kaur to take the money, which she had borrowed from him and therefore, he would come late to the house.
In the morning, when his brother did not return, he went to search him.
When he reached near Malak Chowk, Gurwinder Singh son of Nirbhai Singh, Jat, resident of Agwar Lopon and Dev Singh son of Jagir Singh, Ramdasia, resident of Agwar Dala met him.
He told them that his brother Jagsir Singh had gone to take money from Paramjit Kaur wife of Sukhwinder Singh last night, but has not returned till now.
Thereafter, both of them disclosed that during the night at about CRA No.849-DB of 2009 & CRA No.93-DB o”
3. 10.00/11.00 PM, Paramjit Kaur and her husband Sukhwinder Singh were taking Jagsir Singh @ Kala by putting him in a rickshaw rehri (cycle cart).Sukhwinder Singh was peddling the cart, whereas Paramjit Kaur was sitting behind.
On their asking, they (Sukhwinder Singh and Paramjit Kaur) disclosed that as Kala is ill, they are going to get him treated from the doctor.
Thereafter, he and both the above named persons reached at main street, Hira Bagh, Katcha Malak Road in search of Jagsir Singh, where they noticed that some persons were gathered.
They stopped and found that dead body of his brother Jagsir Singh was lying on one side of the road.
Thereafter, after preparing inquest report Ex.PA/1, SI Satnam Singh sent the dead body of Jagsir Singh to Civil Hospital, Jagraon for conducting post mortem examination.
Both the accused namely Paramjit Kaur and Sukhwinder Singh were arrested on 01.05.2004.
On interrogation, Sukhwinder Singh suffered a disclosure statement (Ex.PW9/F) to the effect that he has kept concealed cloth like parna under the other clothes lying on the cot, whereas the rickshaw rehri (cycle cart) has been concealed in a vacant plot behind Pappu Studio, Katcha Malak Road under Purali (rice husk).In pursuance of such disclosure statement, accused Sukhwinder Singh got recovered the parna and cycle cart from the disclosed places.
Both parna and cycle cart were taken into possession vide recovery memos Exs.PW9/G and PW9/H.
On completion of necessary formalities, the accused were made to stand trial.
To prove its case, apart from examining PW-9 SI Satnam Singh – the Investigating Officer and PW-11 ASI Raminder Singh, who deposed in respect of investigations carried out by them, the prosecution examined PW-1 Dr.
Harinder Singh, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Jagraon, who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of CRA No.849-DB of 2009 & CRA No.93-DB o”
4. Jagsir Singh son of Bant Singh on 01.05.2004 at about 8.00 AM.
While appearing in the witness-box, PW-1 Dr.
Harinder Singh deposed that the cause of death in his opinion was due to asphyxia caused due to pressing of neck and that all the injuries are ante mortem in nature and are sufficient to cause death in ordinary couRs.of life.
He also proved the post mortem report as Ex.PA.
He deposed that the probable time between injury and death was sudden and time between death and post mortem was about 36 houRs.In his cross-examination, Dr.
Harinder Singh stated that the pressing of neck done by any blunt object, but he cannot specify.
The prosecution agency also examined PW-2 Jaswinder Singh - author of FIR and brother of the deceased, who reiterated his statement made to the police on 30.04.2004, on the basis of which FIR was registered.
In his cross-examination, he stated that he knew accused Sukhwinder Singh for the last one year prior to the occurrence, but he never visited his residence.
He further stated that they all the three brothers were having common mess along with their parents.
He stated that his brother met him on 29.04.2004 at about 8.00 PM and that he never objected to the illicit relations of his brother with Paramjit Kaur to her husband.
He stated that Kacha Malak road is metalled road.
There is no cross-examination in respect of illicit relations of the deceased with Paramjit Kaur.
PW-3 Dev Singh son of Jagir Singh is a relative of the deceased and is of Ramdasia caste to which the deceased belonged.
He deposed that on 29.04.2004 at about 10/11 PM, he along with Gurvinder Singh noticed that accused Sukhwinder Singh was plying cycle cart and accused Paramjit Kaur along with Jagsir Singh @ Kala was sitting in the said cycle cart.
On being asked that why they were bringing Jasgir Singh @ Kala in cycle cart, they told that Jagsir Singh @ Kala was ill and they were taking him to the CRA No.849-DB of 2009 & CRA No.93-DB o”
5. Doctor.
He further deposed that on the next date i.e.30.04.2004, the dead body of Jagsir Singh @ Kala was found lying in the vacant plot situated at Kacha Malak road.
In his cross-examination, he stated that Kacha Malak road falls on the way from Raja Dhaba to his house and that accused were seen in the area of Punjabi Bag near the Gali.
He denied the suggestion that two persons cannot sit on the cycle cart.
PW-4 Gurvinder Singh son of Nirbhai Singh reiterated the version of PW-3 Dev Singh in examination-in-chief.
In his cross- examination, he stated that Dev Singh came back from Ludhiana along with him and that Sukhwinder Singh accused told him that Jagsir Singh @ Kala was ill.
He also denied the suggestion that two persons cannot sit on the cycle cart.
He denied the suggestion that while coming from Raja Dhaba to their house, Kacha Malak road does not fall on the way.
He further stated that they were on one scooter and that his statement was recorded next day at about 2/2.30 PM at the spot, where the dead body was found.
PW-8 Bant Singh son of Ami Chand is the father of Jagsir Singh @ Kala (deceased).who produced photographs as well as letter written by accused Paramjit Kaur to his son and a greeting card.
All such documents have not been admitted in evidence.
In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that letter and greeting card do not bear the name and signatures of the person, who had written or sent the same and to whom these were sent.
The incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecution evidence were put to them while recording their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C.The stand of the accused was that they have been falsely implicated at the instance of the relative of the CRA No.849-DB of 2009 & CRA No.93-DB o”
6. deceased in connivance with the police.
After going through the evidence on record, the learned trial Court held the accused guilty for intentionally committing the murder of Jagsir Singh and consequently, convicted and sentenced the appellants, as mentioned above.
Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the prosecution case is full of infirmities and the witnesses produced are unreliable and untrustworthy.
He further argued that the prosecution has failed to complete the chain of events in respect of circumstantial evidence, so as to bring its case against the appellants beyond any reasonable doubt.
Reliance is placed upon Supreme Court judgments reported as State of Goa versus Sanjay Thakran & another (2007) 3 SCC 75.and Tipparam Prabhakar versus The State of Andhra Pradesh (2009) 13 SCC 53.as well as judgments of this Court in Mohammad Azam versus State of Punjab 2005 (3) RCR (Criminal) 464; Ved Parkash @ Bhagwan Dia versus State of Haryana 2006 (3) RCR (Criminal) 992; Smt.
Manju @ Sapna versus State of Haryana 2008 (1) RCR (Criminal) 16 and Parveen Kumar versus State of Punjab 2011 (7) RCR (Criminal) 2487.
It is argued that there is no proof of illicit relations of the deceased with Paramjit Kaur and even if Paramjit Kaur has illicit relations, then the prosecution has failed to prove the motive of Paramjit Kaur in taking life of Jagsir Singh @ Kala.
It is contended that the presence of PW-3 and PW-4 at 10.00/11.00 PM is most unlikely.
PW-3 Dev Singh is a relative of the deceased and thus, is an interested witness.
The prosecution has also failed to prove that the deceased was being taken in a cycle cart, as it is impossible to carry two persons in the cycle cart.
Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove charges against the appellants, warranting conviction.
CRA No.849-DB of 2009 & CRA No.93-DB o”
7. On the other hand, Mr.Mattewal argued that the appellants have not disputed illicit relations of Paramjit Kaur with that of the deceased as no cross examination was conducted on the prosecution witnesses to this effect.
The prosecution led evidence that the deceased had disclosed to his brother i.e.PW-2 Jaswinder Singh that he is going to Paramjit Kaur for taking money, which was borrowed by her.
Therefore, keeping in view such background and the fact that there is no enmity alleged against PW-3 Dev Singh and PW-4 Gurvinder Singh, the prosecution has proved the charges against the appellants beyond any reasonable doubt.
The statements of PW-2 Jaswinder Singh made to the police and to the Court on oath are in respect of illicit relations of the deceased with Paramjit Kaur-appellant.
No cross-examination has been conducted on the said witness while appearing in the witness-box by any of the accused regarding such assertion.
Therefore, the stand of the prosecution that the deceased had illicit relations with Paramjit Kaur stands proved.
Furthermore, the statement of PW-2 Jaswinder Singh to the effect that his brother Jagsir Singh @ Kala (deceased) told him that he was going to take money from Paramjit Kaur, which was borrowed by her, has again not been shattered in any manner.
In fact, there is no suggestion to PW-2 Jaswinder Singh that there was no financial dealing between the deceased and Paramjit Kaur.
Therefore, the statement of PW-2 Jaswinder Singh that deceased has gone to the house of Paramjit Kaur for taking money is proved.
After some time i.e.at about 10.00/11.00 PM, PW-3 Dev Singh and PW-4 Gurvinder Singh, who are returning to their houses after taking meals from Raja Dhaba, have seen the deceased in the company of appellants, when Sukhwinder Singh-appellant was riding the cycle cart, whereas Paramjit Kaur-appellant was sitting in the said cycle cart along with CRA No.849-DB of 2009 & CRA No.93-DB o”
8. the deceased.
The suggestion put to both the witnesses is that there is not enough space in the cycle cart for Paramjit Kaur and Jagsir Singh to sit.
Both the witnesses have denied such suggestion.
Once there is denial of suggestion and there is categorical assertion of the witnesses, who have been cross-examined at length that both Paramjit Kaur and the deceased were sitting in back portion of cycle cart, we do not find any reason to disbelieve their testimonies as well.
PW-3 Dev Singh though a relation of the deceased, but again there is no cross-examination to him and to PW-4 Gurvinder Singh that they had any animosity against the appellants to appear as a witness against them.
Mere relation of one of the witnesses with the deceased is not a ground to discard his entire statement, but such fact will warrant careful scrutiny of evidence of such witnesses.
Both the witnesses have denied that while coming from Raja Dhaba to their houses, Kacha Malak road does not fall on the way.
The statements of both the witnesses i.e.PW-3 Dev Singh and PW-4 Gurvinder Singh are consistent.
The evidence of last seen given by PW-3 Dev Singh and PW-4 Gurvinder Singh was further strengthened from the statement of PW-1 Dr.
Harinder Singh, who conducted the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased on 01.05.2004 at about 8.00 AM, when he deposed that the probable time between death and post mortem examination was about 36 houRs.Therefore, the time of death is in close proximity with the evidence of last seen produced by PW-3 and PW-4.
Therefore, such evidence becomes relevant to return a finding of causing of death by the persons, in whose company, the deceased was lastly seen.
In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., except false implication nothing was said by the accused.
Therefore, there is no reason for us to disbelieve their statements disclosing the fact that the deceased was lastly seen by them in the company of the appellants.
CRA No.849-DB of 2009 & CRA No.93-DB o”
9. More so, the cycle cart has been recovered in pursuance of the disclosure statement suffered by Sukhwinder Singh (Ex.PW9/F) from the vacant plot behind Pappu Studio, Katcha Malak Road, which was lying concealed under rice husk.
The fact that cycle cart rickshaw was hidden under the rice husk shows that the appellant Sukhwinder Singh wanted to avoid the process of law.
The learned trial Court has examined the entire evidence to return a finding that the prosecution has completed the chain of circumstances against the appellants so as to prove the offence punishable under Section 302.
Since both the accused are proved to be together, therefore, both the accused have been rightly convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 with the aid of 34 IPC.
The judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the appellants are on the facts of each case on the appreciation of evidence as to when evidence of last seen is relevant to prove the charges against an accused.
We do not find that the evidence of last seen tendered by PW-3 Dev Singh and PW-4 Gurvinder Singh is unreliable or irrelevant.
PW-3 Dev Singh and PW-4 Gurvinder Singh have seen the deceased with the appellants at about 10.00/11.00 PM, whereas the dead body of the deceased was recovered next morning.
Such evidence of last seen by PW-3 Dev Singh and PW-4 Gurvinder Singh is corroborated by the statements of PW-2 Jaswinder Singh, brother of the deceased given to the police and in the Court, when he categorically stated that at about 8.00 PM, his brother left the house to visit the house of Paramjit Kaur for taking money, which was borrowed by her.
Therefore, the conduct of the appellants, the evidence of last seen and also unrebutted testimonies of the prosecution witnesses in respect of relationship of the deceased with Paramjit Kaur completes the CRA No.849-DB of 2009 & CRA No.93-DB o”
10. chain of circumstances to prove the allegation of causing death of Jagsir Singh @ Kala beyond any reasonable doubt.
In view of the above, we do not find any illegality in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, which may warrant any interference in the present appeals.
Consequently, both the appeals are dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 21 02.2013 (RITU BAHRI) Vimal JUDGE