Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1131 (PNJ)

Khazan Singh S/o Ranga Singh v. State of Punjab

2009-07-13

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, MOHINDER PAL

body2009
JUDGMENT Ashutosh Mohunta, J 1. The accused-appellant Khazan Singh has filed this appeal against the judgement of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Ferozepur dated 25.5.1998 vide which the accused was convicted under Section 302/201 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for six months under Section 302 IPC and was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-and in default to undergo R.I. for three months under Section 201 IPC. The sentences awarded to the appellant were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Briefly the facts of the prosecution story are that Jarnail Singh S/o Kartar Singh made a statement before the S.I. Amarjit Singh, CIA Staff, Fazilka on 30.12.1995, to the effect that his grandfather Panja Singh, aged about 70/75 years was living in village Silewind, Police Station Makhu. There he sold his 4 acres of agricultural land and out of the sale proceeds had given Rs.12,000/-to the complainant, Rs.20,000/-to his brother Joginder Singh and a sum of Rs.30,000/-to his grand-daughter Maya. After selling his land Panja Singh went to the house of his grand-daughter Maya W/o Khazan Singh to live with her. There Panja Singh learnt that Maya was having illicit relations with Thakar Singh S/o Bagga Singh, R/o Pucca Chisti and he objected to the illicit relations of Maya. Panja Singh is stated to have demanded back the amount of Rs.30,000/-which he had given to Maya. It was further stated that Maya in conspiracy with her husband Khazan Singh, Thakar Singh and one Bagh Singh strangulated Panja Singh with a piece of cloth in the Dhani of Maya and Khazan Singh and buried him in the land of Prabh Dayal R/o village Lallowali near the kikkar tree. The incident is said to have taken place about 8 years ago. It was also stated by the complainant that he searched for his grandfather Panja Singh but was told that he had gone to Rajasthan. The complainant further averred that about 15/20 days prior to December 30, 1995 a dispute had arisen between his sister Maya and brother-in-law Khazan Singh and he alongwith his brother Joginder Singh had gone to village Lallowali and there he came to know that his grandfather Panja Singh had been murdered. The complainant further averred that about 15/20 days prior to December 30, 1995 a dispute had arisen between his sister Maya and brother-in-law Khazan Singh and he alongwith his brother Joginder Singh had gone to village Lallowali and there he came to know that his grandfather Panja Singh had been murdered. As Thakar Singh was having illicit relations with her sister Maya and when Panja Singh demanded the money back, he was murdered by Khazan Singh, Maya, Thakar Singh and Bagh Singh. 3. On the aforementioned facts SI Amarjit Singh, Incharge, CIA Staff, Fazilka recorded the statement of the complainant and registered a case against the aforementioned accused vide a formal FIR Ex.P3/2. SI Amarjit Singh took up the investigation of the case and recorded the statements of witnesses and the accused. During interrogation the accused Khazan Singh is stated to have suffered a disclosure statement wherein he stated that about 8 years ago he alongwith Maya, Thakar Singh and Bagh Singh had murdered Panja Singh and had buried him in the fields. The place of burial was pointed out by Khazan Singh, Maya and Bagh Singh. The grave was dug up by the accused and bones and skeleton were recovered which were taken in possession vide memo attested by ASI Baj Singh, Kn. Narinder Singh and Jawahra Ram Sarpanch. The bones were sent to post-mortem examination and a challan was presented against the accused before the Ilaqa Magistrate who committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 4. The prosecution in support of its case examined Dr. Parbodh Kumar, PW1, Tilok Chand Patwari PW2, Jarnail Singh PW3, Jawahra Ram PW4, Kanwar Narinder Singh PW5, Hukam Chand PW6, Dr. R.K. Gorea PW7, SI Amarjit Singh PW8, whereas Inspector Bhalla Singh, ASI Baj Singh, Joginder Singh, L.C. Gurbax Singh, ASI Avtar Singh and Constable Chaman Lal Pws were given up being unnecessary. 5. The accused in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegations against them and stated that they have been falsely implicated. 6. R.K. Gorea PW7, SI Amarjit Singh PW8, whereas Inspector Bhalla Singh, ASI Baj Singh, Joginder Singh, L.C. Gurbax Singh, ASI Avtar Singh and Constable Chaman Lal Pws were given up being unnecessary. 5. The accused in their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegations against them and stated that they have been falsely implicated. 6. Although the FIR in this case was lodged 8 years after the death of Panja Singh, but the trial Court, primarily, by relying on the disclosure statement made by Khazan Singh convicted and sentenced him under Section 302/201 IPC, but acquitted the other three accused, namely, Maya, Thakar Singh and Bagh Singh as there was no evidence to connect them with the commission of the crime. It was held by the trial Court that recovery of human skeleton on the basis of disclosure statement suffered by Khazan Singh clearly proves that he was the only person behind the commission of the crime. 7. We had appointed Dr. Deipa Singh, Advocate to conduct the case on behalf of the accused-appellant Khazan Singh as Amicus Curaie. It was argued by Dr. Deipa Singh that Jarnail Singh had made a statement before the S.I. Amarjit Singh, CIA Staff, Fazilka on December 30, 1995 wherein it was stated by him that Panja Singh had been murdered by all the four accused 8 years earlier. It was argued that no complaint of any sort was made by the complainant or any of the family members during the period of last more than 8 years. It was argued that Panja Singh had sons and daughters but none of them also approached any Police Station regarding missing of their father and therefore, no reliance can be placed on the statement of Jarnail Singh PW-3. It was argued that it is highly improbable and unbelievable that Panja Singh had not been traced for the last 8 years and yet no report was made to the Police with regard to his disappearance. 8. It was next contended that Dr. R.K. Gorea, PW-7 has stated that he had received a bag which contained human bones whose age was about 60-70 years and there could be a difference in age by about a decade. As per the statement of PW-7 the cause of death could not be determined and that the bones were not in one piece. R.K. Gorea, PW-7 has stated that he had received a bag which contained human bones whose age was about 60-70 years and there could be a difference in age by about a decade. As per the statement of PW-7 the cause of death could not be determined and that the bones were not in one piece. Even as per report of the pathologist Ex.P7 the cause of death could not be determined. It was contended by the learned counsel that mere recovery of the bones cannot conclusively prove that the same were of deceased Panja Singh and hence the accused Khazan Singh cannot be connected with his murder. 9. It was next contended that taking the prosecution case on its face-value, the same would reveal that Panja Singh was unhappy with his grand-daughter Maya for having illicit relations with Thakar Singh and he had demanded money back from her and that there was no fight or enmity with Khazan Singh and hence the case of the accused is at par with the other accused who have been acquitted and hence the appellant also deserves to be acquitted. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Manjari Nehru Kaul, Addl.A.G., Punjab has argued that Khazan Singh had a motive to murder Panja Singh because the deceased had demanded Rs.30,000/-back from his wife Maya. It is contended that the accused in conspiracy with the other three accused had murdered Panja Singh. It was next argued that disclosure statement suffered by Khazan Singh also makes it abundantly clear that the crime was committed by him. 11. We have heard the counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 12. A perusal of the aforementioned facts clearly shows that FIR in the present case was lodged on 30.12.1995, i.e. at least 8 years after the occurrence. Prior thereto, no report or complaint was ever lodged either by the complainant or by any of the sons or grandsons of the deceased Panja Singh to the effect that he had not been seen for last many years. The conduct of the complainant or that of his family members makes the entire prosecution story highly improbable and difficult to believe. Apart from the above, the skeleton which had been found and was sent for examination does not show that the same pertains to the deceased Panja Singh. The conduct of the complainant or that of his family members makes the entire prosecution story highly improbable and difficult to believe. Apart from the above, the skeleton which had been found and was sent for examination does not show that the same pertains to the deceased Panja Singh. It would be impossible for the Court to say that the skeleton was of the deceased and of none else on the basis of the evidence brought on record by the prosecution and hence the accused Khazan Singh cannot be connected with the murder of Panja Singh. Apart from the above, a perusal of the evidence of PW3 Jarnail Singh shows that there were numerous graves of Muslims in the village and thus, it is difficult to believe that the skeleton which has been exhumed from the grave was that of the deceased. Further the grave from which the skeleton of Panja Singh is said to have been taken out was pointed out by accused Maya, Bagh Singh as well as the appellant and thus, the case of the appellant is also at par with that of the other co-accused. The trial Court clearly erred in segregating Khazan Singh from the other accused whereas, he was also entitled to be dealt with similarly. 13. Thus, taking into consideration the aforementioned facts, it is clear that the entire case against the accused-appellant Khazan Singh is based on presumptions, conjectures and surmises. It is not known as to when the deceased Panja Singh was killed, was it 8 years ago or 10 years ago. It is also not known as to how the deceased was killed and who participated in the commission of the crime. It is also not known whether the skeleton and the bones which were sent for medico-legal examination pertain to that of the deceased or someone else. A guess-work in this regard has also to be done. Moreover, it is most improbable as to why no report was lodged with regard to missing of Panja Singh for more than 8 years, since he disappeared. Neither the complainant nor any other member of the family of the deceased had reported the matter to the Police. All these factors makes the case of the prosecution highly doubtful and improbable and therefore, the accused Khazan Singh cannot be convicted on the basis of the evidence led in the present case. 14. Neither the complainant nor any other member of the family of the deceased had reported the matter to the Police. All these factors makes the case of the prosecution highly doubtful and improbable and therefore, the accused Khazan Singh cannot be convicted on the basis of the evidence led in the present case. 14. For the foregoing reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgement of the Addl. Sessions Judge, Ferozepur dated 25.5.98 vide which the appellant Khazan Singh was convicted and sentenced. Consequently, we acquit the accused-appellant Khazan Singh of the charges under Section 302/201 IPC in case FIR No.234 dated 30.12.1995, Police Station Sadar Fazilka. If the accused is in custody, he shall be released from jail forthwith. Appeal allowed.