Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 214 (PNJ)

Ranbir Singh v. State of Haryana

2006-01-25

MEHTAB S.GILL, UMA NATH SINGH

body2006
JUDGMENT UMA NATH SINGH, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal arises out of a judgment dated 11.11.1999/13.11.1999 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar, in Sessions Case No.41 of 11.3.1998/13.8.1998, holding accused- appellant Ranbir Singh guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC, and sentencing him to undergo RI for life with a fine of Rs.2,000/. In default of payment of fine, the accused-appellant has been directed to undergo further RI for six months. 2. The prosecution case is based on the statement of Ex. Sarpanch Ram Kumar (PW8). He stated that he was sleeping in his house in the night. The house of Nathu Ram is adjacent to his house. At about 4.30 in the night, Nathu Ram made him got up. Nathu Ram told him that his son appellant Ranbir Singh had murdered his wife Sunita and daughter Pinki with a spade (khodna) . Accused- appellant Ranbir Singh was confined in the house and police be informed immediately. Accordingly, witness Ram Kumar informed the City Police Station on Telephone No.312200 installed in his neighbourhood in the name of one Sube Singh son of Chiranji Lal. The motive for commission of offence was stated to be that Sunita and Pinki used to do less domestic work. Accordingly, an FIR (Ex.P1/1) was registered on 23.11.1997 at 7.30 AM. The special report was sent to the Ilaqa Magistrate on the same day at 9.00 AM. After completion of investigation, a challan was laid and accused-appellant was tried on a charge under Section 302 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses. Dr.Raj Karan (PW1) conducted the post mortem of deceased Sunita on 23.11.1997. Dr.Kul Pratibha (PW13) conducted post mortem on the dead body of Pinki. Mahinder Singh (PW3) is a Draftsman, who prepared a scaled site plan (Ex.PD), with correct marginal notes. Constable Sukhpal (PW4) is a Photographer. At the instance of SHO, Police Station, City, he took the photographs of the dead bodies. Mehar Singh (PW5) is the father of deceased Sunita. Bed Singh (PW6), an agriculturist of village Parnala, had identified the dead bodies of Sunit and her daughter Pinki. ASI Faqir Chand (PW7) received a ruqa (Ex.P1) from SI Raghbir Singh. He recorded a formal FIR (Ex.P1/1). Ram Kumar (PW8) is the Ex-Sarpanch, on whose statement the FIR was recorded. Mehar Singh (PW5) is the father of deceased Sunita. Bed Singh (PW6), an agriculturist of village Parnala, had identified the dead bodies of Sunit and her daughter Pinki. ASI Faqir Chand (PW7) received a ruqa (Ex.P1) from SI Raghbir Singh. He recorded a formal FIR (Ex.P1/1). Ram Kumar (PW8) is the Ex-Sarpanch, on whose statement the FIR was recorded. Jaibir son of Sube Singh (PW9) corroborated that witness Ram Kumar came to his house at 5.30 AM on the date of incident and telephoned the police from his telephone connection bearing No.312200. SI Raghbir Singh (PW10) recorded the statement (Ex.P1/2) of complainant Ram Kumar, Ex- Sarpanch. He also recorded the statement of Nathu Ram. Naib Court Mahender Singh (PW11) and HC Braham Swarup (PW12) gave their evidence on affidavits. 3. Accused-appellant Ranbir Singh, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., stated that he is innocent. His wife and daughter were murdered by some unknown person about whom, he was not aware. He came to know about the death of his wife and daughter only in the morning when he woke up. He informed his father-in- law about the death of his wife and daughter. Nevertheless, he has also mentioned that, later on, he had sent his father to Ram Kumar, Ex-Sarpanch, for giving information to the police. He did not make any disclosure statement to the police, nor did he get anything recovered in pursuance thereof. The recovery was falsely foisted upon him and he was falsely implicated, at the instance of his father-in-law. 4. Learned amicus curiae submitted that the prosecution case is based only on hearsay evidence. Nathu Ram was not examined, nor was his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. She also submitted that the medical evidence does not corroborate the ocular evidence. 5. We have carefully examined the prosecution evidence so also the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant. This is a case of double murder. The wife and minor daughter of six years were done to death inside the house of the accused-appellant. He has not denied his presence in the house in the night of incident. His conduct appears to be absolutely unnatural in saying that he came to know about the death of his wife and daughter only when he got up in the morning. The place of occurrence was a small house of the accused. He has not denied his presence in the house in the night of incident. His conduct appears to be absolutely unnatural in saying that he came to know about the death of his wife and daughter only when he got up in the morning. The place of occurrence was a small house of the accused. Looking to the number and nature of injuries, the place and location of the scene of occurrence, it was not possible for an outsider to have intruded inside the room in the night and committed the offence of double murder without shriks and noise. The accused-appellant has admitted that he had sent his father to Ex-Sarpanch Ram Kumar (PW8) for giving information to the police. Ram Kumar, in his examination-in- chief, has stated that Nathu Ram, father of accused-appellant, told him that his son had killed his wife and daughter. In the cross-examinations, he has not denied this fact. He appears to have modified it by saying “it is correct to say that Nathu Ram only told him that his daughter-in-law and grand daughter had died and police may be informed. He did not tell the name of anybody”. Still we cannot ignore the fact that this witness is a neighbourer of the accused. SI Raghbir Singh (PW10) testified that Nathu Ram and Ram Kumar (PW8) told him that the accused- appellant was confined in the room of the house when dead bodies were lying. Trial court’s proceedings dated 5.6.1998 indicated that Nathu Ram was present in the Court on that date. He died on 7.9.1998, therefore, he could not be produced in the Court. His statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 23.11.1997. Since Nathu Ram died during the pendency of the trial, this statement has lost its relevance, nevertheless he has categorically implicated the accused-appellant. Mehar Singh (PW5) father of deceased Sunita and father-in-law of the accused- appellant, in his cross-examination, has stated that during her last visit a month’s back, deceased Sunita had told about mal- treatments at the hands of accused-appellant. According to SI Raghbir Singh (PW10), Nathu Ram, father of the accused-appellant, was residing in that house itself. He has denied a suggestion that the accused did not make any disclosure statement and there was no recovery. According to SI Raghbir Singh (PW10), Nathu Ram, father of the accused-appellant, was residing in that house itself. He has denied a suggestion that the accused did not make any disclosure statement and there was no recovery. He has stated that on the disclosure statement (Ex.PF) made by the accused-appellant, he had recovered a blood stained Khodana (spade) as well as his bushirt and paijama. Even in the serological analysis of blood on the seized articles, it has been found that the shirt and paijama of the accused were found to have human blood of group `O’. In the post mortem report (Ex.PB) of deceased Sunita, Dr.Raj Karan (PW1) has found that the fatal injuries were caused with the weapon seized at the instance of the accused-appellant. According to him, the time between death and post mortem examination was around 12 to 24 hours. Rigor mortis was found all over the body. The doctor found the following injuries:- “1. There was a contusion of size 9x7 cms over the superior aspect of left shoulder region and adjacent part of the neck, which was red blue in colour. 2. There was a contusion of size 12x16 cms covering whole anterior aspect of the neck, which was reddish blue in colour. 3. A contusion of size 4x3 cms over the superior aspect of right shoulder joint. Reddish blue in colour. 4. An abrasion of size 1x.05 cm over the palp of right index finger, distal phalanx. Red scab was present. 5. An abrasion of size 1x1 cm over the palp of left index finger, distal phalanx. Red scab was present. 6. Semi incised wound of size 7x1.5 cm over the sub manibular region horizontally placed, clotted blood was present.” 6. In the opinion of the Doctor, the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury Nos.2 and 6, which led to rupture of vital blood vessels and trachea. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and injury Nos.2 and 6 were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The doctor on seeing the weapon of offence (Ex.P1), told that the aforesaid injuries could be caused by that weapon. In his cross- examination, he has denied the suggestion that injury Nos. 3 to 6 could not be caused with the said weapon (Ex.P1). The doctor on seeing the weapon of offence (Ex.P1), told that the aforesaid injuries could be caused by that weapon. In his cross- examination, he has denied the suggestion that injury Nos. 3 to 6 could not be caused with the said weapon (Ex.P1). He has also denied the defence suggestion that none of the injuries found on the body could be caused from the said weapon. Similarly, in the case of deceased Pinki, Dr.Kul Pratibha (PW13) has not denied that the injury No.1, being the fatal one, was not caused by the aforesaid weapon. According to her, rigor mortis was present on the toes only. Greenish discolouration was present over the right iliac. She found the following injuries:- “1. A bluish red coloured contusion 15x26 cms. situated over the anterior and lateral aspects of neck and extending in the anterior part of chest bilateral and shoulder region. 2. A lacerated wound 4 x 0.7 cms on the anterior aspect of chin 1 cm below the lower lip situated in the midline wound and injuring the skin, muscle, mucosa and mendible. Clotted blood was present and margins were irregular. 3. A sharp penetrating wound 0.7 x 3 x 1 cm deep on the right side of neck 4 cms below and anterior to right ear lobule. Margins were clear cut. 4. An abrasion .5 x .3 cm reddish brown on the left side of neck 3 cms below the left ear lobule. 5. An abrasion reddish brown 3 x .5 cm on the left side of chin just overlying the inferior surface of mendible, 1 cm lateral to midline. 6. An incised wound .8 x 3 cms cutting skin only 1.5 cm below the injury No.2 on the right side of chin. 7. An incised wound 8 x 2.5 cms on the anterior aspect of neck in midline extending laterally both side injuring the skin only. Subcutaneous tissues were exposed. Margins were clear cut. 8. An abrasion reddish brown 10x4 cms on the back of the neck in midline. 9. An abrasion reddish brown colour 0.5 x 0.5 cm on the anterior aspect of left knee. 10. A contusion 3 x 2 cms on the right temporal region.” 7. In the opinion of the Doctor, the cause of death was due to injury No.1, which caused rupture of vital blood vessels and trachea causing haemorrhage and shock. 9. An abrasion reddish brown colour 0.5 x 0.5 cm on the anterior aspect of left knee. 10. A contusion 3 x 2 cms on the right temporal region.” 7. In the opinion of the Doctor, the cause of death was due to injury No.1, which caused rupture of vital blood vessels and trachea causing haemorrhage and shock. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. According to her, probable duration between the death and the post mortem was 24 to 48 hours. The post mortem was conducted on 24.11.1997. She stated that injury Nos. 3, 6 and 7 are not possible with the weapon, like Ex.P1. However, she was not put any suggestion about fatal injury No.1. 8. In the premises discussed herein-above, we find that the prosecution has placed on record unimpeachable evidence of Ram Kumar (PW8), which is duly corroborated by the testimonies of other witnesses, the medical evidence and also the serologist report. Hence, impugned judgment is hereby affirmed. Resultantly, Crl.Appeal No.571-DB of 1999 is dismissed. 9. The connected Crl.Appeal No.109-DB of 2000, which has also been filed by the appellant through a private counsel, also stands dismissed for the aforesaid reasons.