Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 80 (PNJ)

Teka @ Tek Chand v. State Of Haryana

2002-01-14

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, HARJIT SINGH BEDI

body2002
Judgment Harjit Singh Bedi, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the following facts :- Kishan Chand (deceased) a resident of village Pinangwan, was a Goldsmith by profession. On January 22, 1991 he left for village Ramgarh to meet his brother-in-law but did not return thereafter. On January 27, 1991, P-4 Giani Ram, Kishan Chands son heard a rumour that a skeleton was lying in the fields of one Jagdish in Village Punhana. On receiving this information, Giani Ram aforesaid, his younger brother, Dayalu and uncle, Paras Ram, went to that place and found the skeleton lying in the fields with a Kurta, Pyjama, Safi, Sweater, Banian, Shoe and socks lying near the skeleton. Giani Ram identified the clothes as having been worn by his father when he had left the house on January 22, 1991. On inquiry, Giani Ram also received information that Ramesh had seen Kishan Chand alongwith Teka son of Ram Chand resident of village Pinangwan, going towards the Safeda trees and that the two had taken liquor together in the house of Puran son of Buli. This information was furnished to the police and an F.I.R. was recorded on January 27, 1991 and the apprehension was also expressed therein that as Kishan Chand had been carrying 1/2 kg of silver for preparing ornaments and that Teka had murdered him for grabbing the silver. The investigations were thereafter set in motion. The police also recorded the statement of PW-7 Om Parkash, Lambardar, who stated that Teka had come to him at about noontime and had made an extra-judicial confession to him. He was accordingly arrested on a charge of murder. The accused was interrogated on January 31, 1991 and February 1, 1991 and on the basis of his disclosure statements a Kulhari and a bag containing silver ornaments were recovered. On the completion of the investigation, the accused was charged for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and as he pleaded not guilty, was brought to trial. 2. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined inter alia. PW-1 Dr. On the completion of the investigation, the accused was charged for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and as he pleaded not guilty, was brought to trial. 2. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined inter alia. PW-1 Dr. P.K. Paliwal, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body on January 29, 1991 and had found that it was a mere skeleton with no clothes and there were several cut injuries on it, which were sufficient to cause death and the death could have occurred a week before the date of post-mortem; PW-4 Giani Ram, the complainant and the son of the deceased, who stated to the version given in the F.I.R. PW-5 Puran in whose house the accused and the deceased had consumed liquor on January 22, 1991, but did not support the prosecution; PW-6 Sub Inspector Bharat Singh, who had recorded the F.I.R. and had partly investigated the case; PW-7 Om Parkash, Lambardar, a witness to the extra-judicial confession; and PW-8 Inspector Jai Parkash, the main Investigating Officer. PW Ramesh, who was a witness of having last seen the accused and the deceased together was, however, given up as having been won over by the accused. 3. The prosecution case was then put to the accused and his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied the allegations levelled against him or that he had made any extra-judicial confession before Om Parkash. 4. The trial Court observed that in the absence of direct evidence, the prosecution story rested on circumstantial evidence, which was consisted of the extra-judicial confession made to Om Parkash, the motive, the recovery of ornaments, the recovery of a Kulhari, the alleged murder weapon and the medical evidence and relying on this evidence, the trial Court convicted the accused for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. 5. Hence this appeal. 6. Mr. 2000/- and in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. 5. Hence this appeal. 6. Mr. R.K. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant, has argued that the prosecution story rested primarily on the extra-judicial confession and the recovery of the clothes, the ornaments and the Kulhari but in the circumstances of the case, the chain of circumstances linking the appellant with the crime was wholly lacking. He has placed primary reliance on the fact that Shahansha alias Ramesh, who had last seen the accused and the deceased together, had not been produced as a witness whereas Puran Kohli, in whose house the two had consumed liquor, had not supported the prosecution story and as there were no distinguishing marks on the ornaments, no conviction ought to have been recorded. 7. The learned State counsel has, however, supported the judgment of the trial Court on all particulars. 8. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence with their assistance. 9. We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant. Ramesh, who, had last seen the accused and the deceased together, had not been produced on the plea that he had been won over by the accused and Puran Kohli, in whose house the two had consumed liquor, had not supported the prosecution story. The chain of circumstances linking the accused with the crime is thus lacking. It has come in the evidence of Giani Ram (PW-4) that there were no distinguishing marks on the ornaments and that he was unable to give any exact details of the ornaments so as to fix their identity. It has also come in the evidence of this witness that Kishan Chand deceased and Teka used to take liquor jointly and often drank at the formers shop as well as at other places. They were thus apparently good friends. In this view of the matter, the motive stands clearly disproved. Likewise, we find that Puran (PW) had not supported the prosecution story. We are also of the opinion that the identity of the dead body has also not been clearly established. It has come in the evidence of the doctor as also admitted by Giani Ram that the skeleton did not have any clothes thereon. Likewise, we find that Puran (PW) had not supported the prosecution story. We are also of the opinion that the identity of the dead body has also not been clearly established. It has come in the evidence of the doctor as also admitted by Giani Ram that the skeleton did not have any clothes thereon. Giani Ram also stated that the skeleton was lying about 5 yards away from the clothes. He had identified the clothes but as the clothes were not on the skeleton and had been recovered from a short distance away, the fact as to whether the clothes had been picked up from the spot also becomes suspect. In this situation, we are left primarily with the extra-judicial confession made to Om Parkash. We are of the opinion, that the conviction cannot be recorded solely on the basis of an extra-judicial confession. We are therefore, of the opinion that the judgment under appeal cannot be sustained. 10. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the appellant Teka is acquitted.