Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1229 (PNJ)

Surjit Singh v. State Of Punjab

2005-12-01

MEHTAB S.GILL, PRITAM PAL

body2005
Judgment Mehtab S.Gill, J. 1. By this common judgment, we will be deciding Criminal Appeal No. 3-DB of 2002, Criminal Appeal No. 9-DB of 2002, Criminal Appeal No. 89-DB of 2002 and Criminal Revision No. 1417 of 2002, as they arise out of the same judgment/order dated 6.12.2001 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby he convicted appellants Surjit Singh alias Bagga, Surjit Singh alias Dhanna, Lakhwinder Singh alias Lakha and Daljit Singh alias Dulla Under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Appellant harinderjit Singh alias Bittu was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Further, appellants Surjit Singh alias Bagga, Harinderjit Sing alias Bittu, Surjit Singh alias Dhanna, Lakhwinder Singh alias Lakha and Daljit Singh alias Dulla were convicted under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each. Appellants Surjit Singh alias Bagga, Harinderjit Singh @ Bittu, Surjit Singh alias Dhanna, Lakhwinder Singh alias Lakha and Daljit Singh alias Dulia were convicted under Section 450 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. 2. Criminal Appeal No. 89-DB of 2002 qua appellant Lakhwinder Singh alias Lakha son of Bachan Singh has abated, as the learned counsel appearing for Lakhwinder Singh has stated that Lakhwinder Singh has died, during the pendency of the appeal. 3. Story of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement Ex. PH of Rattan Singh son of Thoru Ram given to Swaran Singh, SI/SHO of Police Station Kahnuwan on 21.2.1997 at 8.35 PM. in the area of village Bed Rattan Singh stated that he is a resident of village Ben and does domestic work. He has two brothers. Both his brother Mohan Singh and Sohan Singh and his father are working in the Sabzi Mandi (vegetable market), Pathankot. He along with his mother Harbans Kaur resides in village Beri. in the area of village Bed Rattan Singh stated that he is a resident of village Ben and does domestic work. He has two brothers. Both his brother Mohan Singh and Sohan Singh and his father are working in the Sabzi Mandi (vegetable market), Pathankot. He along with his mother Harbans Kaur resides in village Beri. He had discontinued his studies about two years back and had studied till 6th class. On 21.2.1997 at about 5.00 P.M., he had gone to the school ground as usual to play Guli Danda which is at a distance of about 1/1-1/2 killas from his house. When he came back at about 6.00 P.M. he saw the dead body of his mother Harbans Kaur smeared with blood, which was lying in the Courtyard of his house. He went to the roof of his house and raised an alarm. On hearing his voice, people of the village came to his house. After leaving his Chacha (uncle) Swaran Singh to guard the dead-body of his mother, complainant proceeded to police post, Tugalwala. On the way, he met Swaran Singh, SI/SHO of Police Station Kahnuwan. He further stated that some unknown persons had killed his mother. Or the basis of his statement, Ex. PH, FIR, Ex. PH/2 was recorded on 21.2.1997 at 9 30 P.M. Special Report reached the Judicial Magistrate I Class on 21.2.1907 at 11.20 P.M. 4. Prosecution to prove its case, brought into the witness box Mohan Singh (PW-1) Rattan Singh (PW-2), Kapur Chand (PW-3), Tript Singh Constable (PW-4) Harbhajan Singh, HC (PW-5), Dr Rana Verma (PW-6), Jagir Singh (PW-7), SI Karanvir Singh (PW-8), Dr. Jatmder Kumar (PW-9), Swaran Singh, SI (PW-10) and Manjit Singh, HC (PW-11). 5. Learned Counselor the appellants has argued that the theory of allegation of rape has been discarded by the trial Court. The allegation of rape is not corroborated by the medical evidence. In fact, Dr. Rana Verma (PW-6), in his post mortem report, Ex.PL has categorically stated that no rape was committed on the person of the deceased. The learned trial Court has also discarded the version put forward by the prosecution regarding the foot moulds and the finger prints being taken from the liquor bottle and the glasses. In the inquest report, Ex. PQ, at Mark `A Kapur Chand (PW-3) has stated that it does not bear his signature. In the Photostat copy, Ex. The learned trial Court has also discarded the version put forward by the prosecution regarding the foot moulds and the finger prints being taken from the liquor bottle and the glasses. In the inquest report, Ex. PQ, at Mark `A Kapur Chand (PW-3) has stated that it does not bear his signature. In the Photostat copy, Ex. DD also, Kapur Chand (PW-3) has denied his signatures on the second inquest report. Learned Counsel has drawn our attention to the original inquest report, Ex. PQ, wherein, allegedly statement of Kapur Chand (PW-3) has been written by a different hand and different ink in the report Ex. PQ. Learned counsel has stated that the Investigating Officer has introduced Kapur Chand (PW-3) at a later stage to falsely implicate the appellants. In the inquest report, Ex. DD, the Investigating Officer Swaran Singh, Sub Inspector (PW-10), has stated that it bears his signatures. Further he has stated that Kapur Chand (PW-3) signed under his statements in the inquest report Ex. DD. It is thus clear that two inquest reports were prepared. Memos Exhibits PA, PB, PC, PD and PU do not bear the names of the accused. In fact in these memos which were prepared, the same day of the occurrence i.e., on 21.2.1997, all that is mentioned is "State v. _____." If at that moment of time, the Investigating Officer knew the names of the accused, he would not have kept these men as blank, rather the names of the accused would have figured on them. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that the conduct of the alleged eye witnesses, i.e., Mohan Singh (PW-1), Rattan Singh (PW-2) and Kapur Chand (PW-3) is suspicious. In fact, they did not witness the occurrence. It was at a later stage, when they came and saw that Harbans Kaur had been murdered that they built up a story of she being raped by the appellants and thereafter being murdered. Mohan Singh (PW-1) has stated that when he reached, appellants were present. They raped his mother Harbans Kaur deceased and thereafter tried to take her body away in a Chadar to be dumped in a river. It is only when Mohan Singh (PW-1) and Rattan Singh (PW-2) shouted for help that the appellants ran away. This version of Mohan Singh (PW-1) finds mention, after two months, i.e., in an application, Ex. They raped his mother Harbans Kaur deceased and thereafter tried to take her body away in a Chadar to be dumped in a river. It is only when Mohan Singh (PW-1) and Rattan Singh (PW-2) shouted for help that the appellants ran away. This version of Mohan Singh (PW-1) finds mention, after two months, i.e., in an application, Ex. PE, given to the higher authorities on 14.4.1997 and also in the complaint, Ex. PF, filed before the Illaqa Magistrate on 17.4.1997, similarly Rattan Singh (PW-2) in his statement Ex. PH, made before Swaran Singh, Sub Inspector (PW-10), the Investigating Officer on 21.2.1997 at 8.35 P.M. near a culvert of the Canal Minor of village Beri, the names of the appellants are not given. Rattan Singh (PW-2) also, for the first time, gives the names of the appellants when he came before the Court, after the complaint, Ex. PF, was filed on 17.4.1997. Kapur Chand (PW-3) is a resident of village Nanowal, which is at a distance of 2 to 3 Kms. from village Beri. He, in fact came to the scene after the murder had taken place and was called by his nephews, i.e., Mohan Singh (PW-1) and Rattan Singh (PW-2). Mohan Singh (PW-1) in his statement has stated that his mother died instantaneously which is contradictory to the statement of Dr. Rana Verma (PW-6), who has stated that the death occurred within one hour. If Mohan Singh (PW-1) and the other alleged eye witnesses Rattan Singh (PW-2) and Kapur Chand (PW-3) were present, they would have immediately taken Harbans Kaur to the hospital. In fact, Kapur Chand (PW-3) was not present at the time of the occurrence, nor were Mohan Singh (PW-1) and Rattan Singh (PW-2). Further in his testimony Kapur Chand (PW-3) has stated that at the time of occurrence, he could not identify appellants Harinderjit Singh and Daljit Singh. 7. Learned Counsel for the State has argued that the appellants deceased and the eye witnesses Mohan Singh (PW-1) and Rattan Singh (PW-2), all belonged to the same village, i.e., village Beri. They were easily identified by the eye witnesses. In fact, Mohan Singh (PW-1) and Rattan Singh (PW-2) are natural witnesses. As the occurrence had taken place at 6.00 P.M. in the month of February and by this time, it becomes dark. They were easily identified by the eye witnesses. In fact, Mohan Singh (PW-1) and Rattan Singh (PW-2) are natural witnesses. As the occurrence had taken place at 6.00 P.M. in the month of February and by this time, it becomes dark. Mohan Singh (PW-1) and Rattan Singh (PW-2) being the sons of the deceased, were present at the place of the occurrence, i.e., the house of the deceased. The Investigating Officer Swaran Singh, Sub Inspector (P-10), while recording the statement Ex. PH, of Rattan Singh (PW-2) has in fact, tried to help the appellants, as they were also serving in the police department. Appellants Surjit Singh alias Bagga and Surjit Singh alias Dhanna both were Special Police Officers (SPOs) in the police department. Appellant Daljit Singh alias Dulla was a constable in the commando force. In column No. 3 of the inquest report Ex. PQ., date and time and the discovery of dead body has been given 21.2.1997 at 8.10 P.M. the witnesses, who identified the body, were none other than Kapur Chand (PW-3) and one Swaran Singh of the village. Statement, Ex. PH of Rattan Singh (PW-2) was recorded on 21.2.1997 at 8.35 P.M. FIR Ex. PH/2 cane into the existence the same day at 10.15 P.M. It is clear that the Investigating Officer did not record the statement of Kapur Chand (PW-3) or Mohan Singh (PW-1), but instead took the signatures of Rattan Singh (PW-2) on blank sheet of papers, who was at that time a young boy aged 12 to 13 years. If he had recorded the statement of Kapur Chand (PW-3) or Mohan Singh (PW-1) the names of the appellants would have figured in the FIR, Ex. PH/2 and the memos, Exhibits PA, PB, PC, PD and PU qua the recoveries of blood, Salwar, glasses and bottles. Mohan Singh (PW- 1) is a witness to all these recoveries. The recoveries were made at night time on 21.2.1997, immediately after the alleged statement, Ex. PH, of Rattan Singh (PW-2) was recorded. Complainant party are poor labourers. They did not know at that moment of time that the Investigating Officer Swaran Singh, Sub Inspector (PW-10), was wanting to help the appellants and to take the investigation of the case in a wrong direction. PH, of Rattan Singh (PW-2) was recorded. Complainant party are poor labourers. They did not know at that moment of time that the Investigating Officer Swaran Singh, Sub Inspector (PW-10), was wanting to help the appellants and to take the investigation of the case in a wrong direction. It was only on 14.4.1997 that Mohan Singh (PW-1) came to know when one of the appellants moved his application for granting of bail before the trial Court, that the names of the appellants have not been mentioned in the statement, Ex. PH and the fir ex. PH/2. Mohan Singh (PW-1) thereafter sent a registered letter, Exhibit PE, on 14.4.1997 in the form of a complaint to the higher authorities, i.e. the Chief Minister and the Director General of Police etc. stating therein that a wrong had been done to the complainant party, as the Investigating Officer had not acted fairly. Receiving no response, complaint, Ex. PF, was filed before the Illaqa Magistrate on 17.4.1997, wherein the version of the complaint party was spelt out in detail. Appellants were summoned and both the cases, i.e., the complaint case and the police case were clubbed together on 11.8.1998 by the trial Court. Statements, Exhibits DB and DC, of Mohan Singh (PW-1) and Kapur Chand (PW-3) under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded by Swaran Singh, Sub Inspector (PW-10) the Investigating Officer, on the same day, i.e., on 21.2.1997. In these statements Ex. DB and Ex. DC, the names of all the appellants are mentioned. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the State and perused the trial Court records with their assistance. 9. This is a typical case, where the Investigating Officer Swaran Singh, Sub Inspector (PW-10) in the initial stages of his Investigation, had tried to help the appellants, who were no other persons but, serving with the police department. Appellants Surjit Singh alias Bagga and Surjit Singh alias Dhanna were working as Special Police Officers and Daljit Singh alias Dulla was working as a Constable in the commando force. Complainant party were poor labourers. Appellants, with the intention of raping Harbans Kaur, entered the house of Mohan Singh (PW-1) and Rattan Singh (PW-2) Rattan Singh (PW-2) a child of 12 to 13 years, was present in the house. Complainant party were poor labourers. Appellants, with the intention of raping Harbans Kaur, entered the house of Mohan Singh (PW-1) and Rattan Singh (PW-2) Rattan Singh (PW-2) a child of 12 to 13 years, was present in the house. Mohan Singh (PW-1) who had gone out of his house to answer the call of nature, had by that time come back and he also witnessed the occurrence Salwar of deceased Harbans Kaur was removed by the appellants and an attempt was being made to rape her, but as they were not being successful and resistance was being put up by the deceased, she was hit by a brick, Ex. PB on the head to subdue her resistance. In the process, the injury inflicted was very server that Harbans Kaur died instantly, Dr Rana Verma (PW-6), who prepared the post mortem report, Ex. PL, on 22.2.1997 at 11.15 A.M. has stated in his testimony the injury No. 1 was a lacerated wound measuring 7 cms x 1cm on the fore-head, on the right side of the parietal region of the deceased. According to the opinion of the doctor, this injury led to haemorrhage and shock and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Injury No. 2 was a lacerated wound on the right side of the ear, just above the pinna. Injury No. 3 was an abrasion on the dorsum of right hand just below the base of right index finger. It is clear from injury No. 3 that the deceased was putting up a resistance, it is at this moment of time that one of the appellants gave her a brick blow that she succumbed to the head injury within five minutes, as spelt out by Dr. Rana Verma (PW-6), who has stated that minimum time of survival, after the injuries could be five minutes. On seeking that Harbans Kaur had died, appellants panicked. They then was wanted to take the body of the deceased away, so that she could be thrown into a river, but as Mohan Singh (PW-1) and Rattan Singh (PW-2), by that time shouted for help. Appellants then threw the body of deceased Harbans Kaur in the Courtyard and ran away. On seeking that Harbans Kaur had died, appellants panicked. They then was wanted to take the body of the deceased away, so that she could be thrown into a river, but as Mohan Singh (PW-1) and Rattan Singh (PW-2), by that time shouted for help. Appellants then threw the body of deceased Harbans Kaur in the Courtyard and ran away. Mohan Singh (PW-1) and Rattan Singh (PW-2), in heir testimony before the Court, have been categorical that the appellants came to their house on 21.2.1997 at 6.00 P.M. Before coming to the house, appellants had uttered some indecent words to deceased Harbans Kaur, when she was returning back home. Appellants, at that time, were drinking liquor in the school grounds. Mohan Singh (PW-1) on reaching his house saw that the door was locked and from a window, he saw his mother lying without a salwar. Appellant Lakhwinder Singh was in the process of wearing his trouser Rattan Singh (PW-2) was sitting in a corner and weeping. Appellant Daljit Singh alias Dulla, on seeing Mohan Singh (PW-1), took out his pistol and pointed it towards him threatening him that in case he made a noise, he would be shot. Thereafter, appellant Surjit Singh alias Bagga said that in case Harbans Kaur remained alive, she would implicate them and thus, she should be finished. Appellant Harinderjit Singh @ Bittu then hurled a brick, which struck the head of Harbans Kaur. Appellants then tied the dead body of Harbans Kaur in a Chadar/Shawl. Bhagwan Singh, Ex. Sarpanch (DW-1), who, admittedly, had gone to the house of the deceased after the occurrence, has stated in his testimony before the Court that he did not know whether the police inspected the dead body after removing the chadar. Meaning thereby that the dead body was wrapped in a chadar. The appellants, at this time, realizing that a hue and cry had been raised, then threw the body of Harbans Kaur deceased in the Courtyard and ran away. Statement of Mohan Singh (PW-1) gets corroboration from Rattan Singh (PW-2). These two witnesses are natural witnesses. We cannot be oblivious of the fact that Mohan Singh (PW-1) and Rattan Singh (PW-2), are the sons of the deceased. They live in the same house with their mother. By 6.00 P.M. in winters, labourers are usually back at home, after doing their daily work. 10. These two witnesses are natural witnesses. We cannot be oblivious of the fact that Mohan Singh (PW-1) and Rattan Singh (PW-2), are the sons of the deceased. They live in the same house with their mother. By 6.00 P.M. in winters, labourers are usually back at home, after doing their daily work. 10. Much emphasis has been laid by the learned counsel for the appellants regarding the names of the appellants not being mentioned in the FIR, Ex. PH/2. We cannot be oblivious of the fact that the appellants are poor labourers, who put their trust in Swaran Singh, Sub Inspector (PW-10), the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer got the signatures of Rattan Singh, a 12 years old boy (PW-2) affixed on blank sheets of paper. Little did the complainant party know that the Investigating Officer was wanting to help the appellants, who were police officials. It was only on 14.4.1997 that Mohan Singh (PW-1) when he went to hear the arguments on the bail application moved by one of the appellant that he came to know the names of the appellants have not been mentioned in the FIR, Ex. PH/2. On that very day, i.e., on 14.4.1997, Mohan Singh (PW-1) sent a registered letter. Ex. PE, to the Chief Minister, Punjab and the Director General of Police etc., stating that the police are not investigating the case fairly. Receiving no response, Mohan Singh (PW-1) then filed a complaint, Ex. PF, on 17.4.1997 before the Illaqa Magistrate. Appellants were summoned. The police case and the complaint case were clubbed together by the learned trial Court on 11.8.1998. 11. Rape in this case had not taken place but we can safely come to a conclusion that the appellants had the intention to rape Harbans Kaur. If the appellants had the motive only to murder Harbans Kaur, then her salwar would not have been taken off. They could not be successful in raping Harbans Kaur, as there were two eye witnesses Mohan Singh (PW-1) and Rattan Singh (PW-2). Mohan Singh (PW-1), by the time shouted for help. Appellants then wanted to destroy the body by taking it away from the house, but could not be successful. They then threw the body in the Courtyard and ran away. Appellants were arrested within 24 hours. Mohan Singh (PW-1), by the time shouted for help. Appellants then wanted to destroy the body by taking it away from the house, but could not be successful. They then threw the body in the Courtyard and ran away. Appellants were arrested within 24 hours. Complainant would not falsely implicate them as the appellants belonged to the same village, i.e., village Beri of the complainant. There was no previous enmity between the appellants and the complainant party. False implication thus can be safely ruled out. 12. The argument put forward by the learned counsel for the appellants, that the eye witnesses were not present at the scene of occurrence, otherwise Harbans Kaur would have been taken to the hospital. Dr. Rana Verma (PW-6) has categorically stated that death of deceased Harbans Kaur occurred within one hour. Further, he has stated that minimum time of survival, after the injuries could be five minutes. As Harbans Kaur had died within 5 minutes of she being struck on the head by a brick, taking her to the hospital would have not done any good. Complainant rightly instead informed the police. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant had argued at Kapur Chand (PW-3) was not present at the time of occurrence but was introduced at a later stage. It has been argued that Kapur Chand (PW-3) belonged to village Nanowai, which was about 2 to 3 Kms away. This argument of the learned counsel does not cut much ice. In column No. 3 of the inquest report, Ex. PQ, date and time of discovery of the dead body has been shown as 21.2.1997 at 8.10 P.M. in column No. 4 of the inquest report, name of Kapur Chard (PW-3) is mentioned, who had identified the body. Occurrence had taken place at 6.00 P.M. statement of Rattan Singh (PW-2) was recorded at 8.35 P.M. on the same day. It is clear from the inquest report, Ex. PQ, that Kapur Chand (PW-3) was present before the FIR came into existence. Little did these two witnesses know, i.e., Mohan Singh (PW-1) and Kapur Chand (PW-3) that the Investigating Officer Swaran Singh, Sub Inspector (PW-10) has not recorded the statement of Rattan Singh (PW-2), but had forced him to sign on blank papers. PQ, that Kapur Chand (PW-3) was present before the FIR came into existence. Little did these two witnesses know, i.e., Mohan Singh (PW-1) and Kapur Chand (PW-3) that the Investigating Officer Swaran Singh, Sub Inspector (PW-10) has not recorded the statement of Rattan Singh (PW-2), but had forced him to sign on blank papers. If at that moment of time, it had come to their knowledge that Rattan Singh (PW-2) had signed on blank papers probably the Investigating Officer would have been changed by his superior officers. 14. We are in consonance with the argument of the learned counsel for the State that the Investigating. Officer Swaran Singh Sub Inspector (PW-10) wanted to help the appellants, as the appellants were police officials statements of Mohan Singh (PW-1) and Kapur Singh (PW-3), Exhibits D.B and DC, under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were recorded, the same day, i.e., on 21 2.1997. The names of the appellants are mentioned in these documents. 15. With the above observations, we do not find any merit in the appeals. 16. Criminal Appeals Nos. 3-DB, 9-DB and 89-DB of 2002 are dismissed : 17. We do not find any merit in Criminal Revision No. 1417 of 2002, which is also dismissed.