Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 272 (PNJ)

Nachhattar Singh Alias Gogi v. State Of Punjab

2010-01-12

HEMANT GUPTA, JASWANT SINGH

body2010
Judgment Jaswant Singh, J. 1. This order shall dispose of above mentioned three Criminal Appeals as all these appeals have arisen against the judgment and order dated 19.3.2001 passed by learned Sessions Judge, rupnagar, convicting both the accused-appellants (Nachhattar Singh and Ranbir singh) under Sections 302/34, 201 IPC and sentencing both of them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each under Sections 302/34 IPC and in case of default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for further period of three months. Both the accused-appellants have been sentenced to undergo RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each under Sec.201 ipc and in case of default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for a further period of one month. 2. Appellant Ranbir Singh appears to have, by mistake, filed two appeals bearing Criminal Appeal Nos.340-DB of 2001 and 347- DB of 2001, challenging his conviction and sentence. 3. Case of the prosecution is that Sant Ram deceased was working as a Forest guard with the Forest Department, Punjab. He was posted as such in Bhaddi beat. He used to reside in a rented house in Village Bhaddi, Tehsil Balachaur, district Nawanshahar. His wife Smt. Suresh (PW/10) used to reside at Village bhawat (Daulatsinghwala), PS Sohana, District Ropar with their three children-2 sons and one daughter. Deceased Sant Ram used to visit his house in Village bhawat after every 8-10 days. According to FIR dated 10.8.1998 (Ex. PT/1) recorded by complainant smt. Suresh (PW/10), she came to know at her house on 26.7.1998 that her husband did not attend his duties w. e. f.12.7.1998 whereupon she alongwith three others went to the house of her husband-Sant Ram at Village Bhaddi. After calling the Sarpanch of Village Bhaddi the lock of the house was opened and it was seen that the clothes of Sant Ram and other domestic articles were lying in the house and scooter was also parked. Thereafter she went to the kothi of Divisional Forest Officer, Garhshankar where she was told that an application regarding absence from duty of Sant Ram has already been submitted to Station House Officer, Balachaur through Range officer. After verifying from PS Balachaur they went back to Village Bhawat. Thereafter she went to the kothi of Divisional Forest Officer, Garhshankar where she was told that an application regarding absence from duty of Sant Ram has already been submitted to Station House Officer, Balachaur through Range officer. After verifying from PS Balachaur they went back to Village Bhawat. She alongwith 20-22 persons of her village again on 27.7.1998 reached PS balachaur where she was told that Rapat number 39 dated 27.7.1998 regarding her missing husband has been registered and is being investigated. Thereafter they all returned to their Village Bhawat. On 29.7.1998 she alongwith her sisters jasbir Kaur, Surinder Kaur,brother Jasmer Singh and other relatives reached PS balachaur where she was told about a dead body lying in a jungle near pucca road leading from Bhaddi to Nurpur Bedi, which is wearing underwear alone and was requested to identify the dead body. Thereupon, she alongwith her sisters and brother reached the said place in the jungle, where police officials and public was present. There she found the decomposed dead body comprising of skeleton of bones and wearing a purple coloured underwear. She identified the dead body as of her husband Sant Ram from the Purple underwear which was stitched by her. 4. Assistant Sub Inspector Ashok Kumar (PW/16) of PS Nurpur Bedi, District ropar after recording signed statement of complainant Smt. Suresh (PW/10) under section 175 Cr. P. C. , submitted inquest report dated 29.7.1998 (Ex. PC) in DDR no.15 dated 29.7.1998, PS Nurpur Bedi and thereafter sent the decomposed/ skeletonised dead body through Constable Jaspal Singh to Civil Hospital, anandpur Sahib, district Ropar for its post mortem. Dr. Palwinderjit Singh (PW/1) conducted the post mortem of the dead body at 3pm on 30.7.1998 and on examination found that it was a skeletonised body with skull separate from rest of the body. Skin was present on the backside of the abdomen and partially on the legs also. The body was wearing a dark violet underwear. Brain and membranes, spinal cord, lungs, larynx, trachea and heart were absent. Only ribs and sternum were present. All the organs were absent. External and internal genitalia was badly decomposed with maggots present. It was stated that duration between the death and postmortem was more than two weeks. However, cause of death was to be declared after receipt of the report of the Chemical examiner. After the receipt of Chemical Examiners Report dated 6.10.1998 (Ex. All the organs were absent. External and internal genitalia was badly decomposed with maggots present. It was stated that duration between the death and postmortem was more than two weeks. However, cause of death was to be declared after receipt of the report of the Chemical examiner. After the receipt of Chemical Examiners Report dated 6.10.1998 (Ex. PD) stating no poison was detected, Dr. Palwinderjit Singh (PW/1) vide his letter dated 12.10.1998 (Exh. PE) opined that "the cause of death could not be ascertained even after detailed post mortem examination and chemical analysis of the bones and skin". 5. It is apparent from the record that the Divisional Forest Officer, Garhshankar addressed a letter dated 4.8.1998 (Exh. DE) to SSP Nawanshahar regarding non-registration of FIR by the police in respect of murder of Sant Ram, Forest Guard. Thereafter, the FIR No.24 dated 10/8/98 (Exh. PT/1) under Sections 302/201/34 IPC was registered at PS Nurpur bedi by Station House Officer, ASI Ashok Kumar (PW/16 ). On 12.8.1998, investigation of the case was handed over to Inspector Pritam Singh (PW18) of cia Staff Ropar. 6. Prosecution to establish its case based on circumstantial evidence of last seen, extra judicial confession, motive and disclosure statement etc. , examined as many as 20 PWs besides tendering various documents on record. Thereafter the statements of the accused- appellants Nachhattar Singh and Ranbir Singh were recorded under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. , in which they denied the prosecution evidence against them and stated that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case. They did not lead any evidence in their defence. 7. The learned Sessions Judge/trial Court on analysing the material brought on record by the prosecution, found the following circumstances against both the accused to record a judgment of conviction against them:- (a) motive; (b) last seen together with the deceased at 2.30 am on the intervening night of 11-12.7.1998 at village Bhaddi; (c ) extra judicial confession stated to have been made before PW6 Ranjit Singh; and (d) discovery of articles belonging to deceased sant Ram on the disclosure statement of both the accused. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution on record does not complete the chain of evidence which discloses that appellants only could have been the perpetrators of the alleged offence. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution on record does not complete the chain of evidence which discloses that appellants only could have been the perpetrators of the alleged offence. Firstly, by referring to medical evidence, it was urged that PW1 Dr. Palwinderjit Singh has clearly opined that the cause of death could not be ascertained and therefore, the death could not be assumed to be homicidal. It was then urged that it was quite possible that the animals in the jungle may have killed and eaten the deceased. Secondly, it was contended that the identification of the dead body being that of deceased Sant Ram could not be expected to be proved merely on the basis of his underwear recognised by his wife Smt. Suresh PW/10. It was then submitted that even the underwear had been planted by the prosecution as is clear from its intact condition. Thirdly, it was contended that the evidence of last seen introduced by way of testimony of PW7 Jaswant Rai cannot be treated as trustworthy and reliable. It was submitted that the presence of PW7 a Forest Guard on beat duty at a different place at the odd hour of 2.30 am on the intervening night of 11-12.7.1998 at Village Bhaddi was neither explained nor natural nor believable. It was also submitted that the naming of the accused Nachhattar Singh and Ranbir Singh by PW7 was also unbelievable as it has not been explained as to how PW7 recognised both the accused. No identification parade was held. Fourthly, it was contended that the evidence in the shape of alleged extra judicial confession made by the accused before PW6 ranjit Singh does not inspire confidence at all and therefore, cannot be relied upon. It was submitted that both the accused are residents of Village Bhaddi whereas PW6 Ranjit Singh is a resident of Village Rasulpur which is at a quite distance from Village Bhaddi and further PW6 himself stated that he had met the accused once in a blood donation camp and therefore it cannot be believed that that this solitary meeting would have caused the accused to approach Ranjit singh PW6 to make their extra judicial confession before him. Fifthly, by referring to letter dated 10.4.1998 (Ex. Fifthly, by referring to letter dated 10.4.1998 (Ex. PZ/1) written by deceased Sant Ram to forest Range Officer, Balachaur it was contended that besides the accused-appellants, others had also been accused of committing theft of "khair" trees in Bhaddi jungle in the area of Bhaddi beat and hence there could be others who could be attributed the same motive as has been attributed to the accused. Sixthly, it was argued that the articles belonging to deceased Sant Ram like karra, ring, clothes, chappals etc. alleged to be recovered from both the accused on their suffering disclosure statement was an instance of subsequent padding up done by the police as there is no witness/evidence regarding their deposit in the malkhana. Even their subsequent identification before Om Parkash, Naib Tehsildar PW17 suffers from legal infirmity. Seventhly, it was submitted that as per PW7-Jaswant Rai, a witness of last seen, he had, along with Mohinder Singh, Forest Guard at 2.30 AM on the intervening night of 11/12.7.1998, seen both the accused putting deceased Sant ram inside a Maruti Van whereas the vehicle seized and produced in evidence is a Maruti Car bearing No. PIL 1465, which, as per Ram Chand,clerk-PW5 office of sdm, Balachaur belongs to one Parshotam Lal and prior to 28.8.1998, the registration Certificate was in the name of Oma Wati wife of Dharuv Thus, it was contended that the vehicle (Maruti Van) in which the accused-appellants were alleged to be putting the deceased Sant Ram at the time of last sighting by PW7 Jaswant Rai cannot be connected besides rendering the version of PW7 as false. Lastly, it was contended that the entire investigations are tainted being a result of padding done after 12.8.1998 when the investigations were handed over to PW-18 Pritam Singh. 9. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent State has supported the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge and has submitted that the circumstances established by the prosecution taken together complete the chain of evidence that points unequivocally to the guilt of the accused persons and are incompatible with their innocence. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties in detail and with their able assistance gone through the evidence on record. 11. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties in detail and with their able assistance gone through the evidence on record. 11. It is well settled that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove each of the circumstance having a definite tendency pointing towards the guilt of the accused and though each of the circumstances by itself may not be conclusive but the cumulative effect of proved circumstances must be so complete that it would exclude every other hypothesis/possibility and unequivocally point to the guilt of the accused. In other words, prosecution must prove that within all human probabilities, the act must have been done by the accused. 12. When we examine the circumstances said to have been established in the present case in the light of the aforesaid principle, we find sufficient merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that the circumstances do not prove the guilt of the appellant-accused beyond reasonable doubt. 13. In the present case when there is no direct evidence and the dead body in a decomposed and skeletonised form has been recovered, we shall have to first determine that the dead body was that of deceased Sant Ram and his death was homicidal in nature. 14. Amar Nath PW11 who was posted as a Forester in the Mallewal block, which comprised of six beats including the Bhaddi beat which was under the charge of deceased Sant Ram, has deposed that on 9.7.1998 he was asked by Range Officer, Balachaur to check the plantation work undertaken by Sant Ram deceased on the basis of the muster rolls issued to him as the season of plantation was underway. On 15.7.1998 when he went for that purpose to Bhaddi, Sant Ram was not found present and labourers Subhash and naseeb Chand told him that they had met Sant Ram on 11.7.1998 who had directed them to start the work and they had started the work with effect from 12.7.1998 as directed. On his enquiry, he was told by them that Sant Ram had not come on work since 12.7.1998. On 16.7.1998, Amar Nath PW11 told Range Officer, balachaur (Swaran Singh) regarding Sant Ram not being found on duty. On his enquiry, he was told by them that Sant Ram had not come on work since 12.7.1998. On 16.7.1998, Amar Nath PW11 told Range Officer, balachaur (Swaran Singh) regarding Sant Ram not being found on duty. Swaran singh, Range Officer, Balachaur (PW14) deposed that on 19.7.1998 he went to the spot to check plantation work and there he met labourers Naseeb Chand and subhash Chand who told him that Sant Ram has not come on duty since 12.7.1998. On 23.7.1998 both the said labourers informed him that Sant Ram had not still visited the site. Thereafter PW14 talked about this to Divisional Forest officer, Garhshankar on 24.7.1998 and deputed Dharam Chand, Guard to enquire about Sant Ram from his house in Village Bhaddi. On 26.7.1998 Dharam Chand informed that Sant Ram was not present in his house at Village Bhaddi. It is then that Dharam Chand contacted Smt. Suresh (PW10) wife of deceased Sant Ram on 26.7.1998 at her house in Village Bhawat. An unidentified body was found and reported in the jungle of Nurpur Bedi road on 29.7.1998 in a decomposed state by Amar Nath PW11 and the same was identified by Smt. Suresh PW10 as that of her deceased husband Sant Ram. In her signed statement dated 29.7.1998 during the inquest proceedings conducted under section 174 Cr. P. C. , it has been clearly stated by her that the dead body was recognised by her on the basis of purple underwear stitched by her, found on the body of the deceased. PW1-Dr. Palwinderjit Singh, who conducted the post mortem, has deposed in his testimony that all the organs were absent and external and internal genitalia was badly decomposed with maggots present. The colour of the underwear is denoted as of dark violet colour. In his cross examination, PW1 has admitted that the underwear did not bear any cut nor did it contain any foreign matter. Therefore, the near perfect and intact condition of the underwear is difficult to comprehend and reconcile. Even from the photograph of the dead body (Ex. P.9 to P.13) which we have perused, the impeccable condition of the underwear in contra distinction to the state of dead body raises a serious doubt regarding its planting by the police for the purpose of identification of the body. Even from the photograph of the dead body (Ex. P.9 to P.13) which we have perused, the impeccable condition of the underwear in contra distinction to the state of dead body raises a serious doubt regarding its planting by the police for the purpose of identification of the body. In the absence of any other scientific method like DNA test adopted for identification of the dead body, it is difficult for us to accept that the recovered dead body was that of deceased sant Ram. Still further, PW1 Dr. Palwinderjit Singh after the receipt of the chemical Examiners Report has clearly opined that the cause of death cannot be ascertained and therefore, in the light of the badly decomposed dead body having been found in the jungles it cannot be concluded that the death was homicidal in nature. 15. In a similar situation of circumstantial evidence, where the doctor was unable to find the cause of death because the dead bodies were in decomposed state, Honble the Supreme Court in State of Punjab V/s. Bhajan Singh, 1975 AIR sc 25, in para 13 held that it could not be said that the death of the persons whose bodies were recovered was homicidal. Further the Honble Apex Court in hargobind Das Devraj Bhai Patel and others V/s. State of Gujarat, 1998 Crl. L. J.662 in para 16 held that the homicidal death of the deceased being not proved the guilt of the accused could not be established beyond doubt as links in the chain of evidence were missing and accordingly conviction was set aside. 16. It is a settled principle of law, as already noticed hereinabove, that a complete/linked chain of evidence is to be established leading towards the guilt of the accused and incompatible towards his innocence. As discussed hereinabove, in the present case, we have found that the first link in the chain of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt is missing as the dead body cannot be proved to have been identified as that of sant Ram nor his death is proved to be homicidal to sustain the conviction of the accused-appellant. 17. Even otherwise, the other evidence led by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused in the shape of last seen theory and extra judicial confession and subsequent recovery does not inspire confidence. 17. Even otherwise, the other evidence led by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused in the shape of last seen theory and extra judicial confession and subsequent recovery does not inspire confidence. PW7 Jaswant Rai, Forest Guard has been produced to establish that the deceased Sant Ram was last seen with the accused persons at 2.30 AM on the intervening night of 11/12.7.1998 near the boundary line of Forest Beat of village Chandiani Kalan, where he was posted and village mallewal, where Mohinder Kumar, Forest Guard was posted. Their presence, at that hour, is highly improbable and not explained at all. PW7 in his cross examination has admitted that he did not inform the police immediately after the recovery of the body of Sant Ram on 29.7.1998. Although in his cross examination, he has stated that on 16.7.1998, he had orally informed his Range officer about the kidnapping of Sant Ram by the accused but this statement has not been corroborated by the Range Officer-PW14 and other official of the department, who had got missing report recorded on 26.7.1998 without mentioning the fact of Sant Ram having been last seen with the accused. It has come on record that the Investigating Officer Pritam Singh-PW18 had turned his attention towards the accused only after the recovery of one statement of surender Kumar (Ex. PV) from the house of the deceased Sant Ram after 12.8.1998. PW7-Jaswant Rai has also not stated as to how he knew Nachhatar Singh and ranbir Singh accused while recognizing them on that intervening night. Even the time gap between the alleged time of last seen and recovery of body is enough to raise serious doubt about his version. Therefore, the last seen evidence adduced by the prosecution is not reliable and unworthy of acceptance. The extra judicial confession of the accused-appellant before PW6-Ranjit Singh, to whom, admittedly, accused nachhattar Singh had met only once in a blood donation camp held one and half years prior to the date of occurrence, is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. From the testimony of PW6-Ranjit Singh, it is evident that Ranjit singh and accused persons were not close to each other. From the testimony of PW6-Ranjit Singh, it is evident that Ranjit singh and accused persons were not close to each other. It is not in dispute that Ranjit Singh-PW6 resides at village Rasulpur, which is at a quite distance from village Bhaddi (to which accused belong) and from the cross examination of ranjit Singh-PW6, it emerges that he is not familiar with the geography and typography of the area of village Bhaddi. They were neither friends, relatives nor colleagues. It is not possible to accept that the accused will confess his guilt before an unknown or little known person. Therefore, the evidence of extra judicial confession and subsequent recovery of articles in pursuance of the disclosure statement made in the presence of PW6-Ranjit Singh does not inspire confidence. As regards motive, no doubt the prosecution has been able to show that Sant Ram deceased had, vide his letter dated 10.4.2008 (Ex. PZ/1), reported to his superiors regarding theft of khair trees committed by both the accused along with three other persons and the same had been forwarded for taking action to SHO, Balachaur, however, motive itself is not sufficient, when no other evidence is available to sustain the conviction. 18. In view of the above discussion, we are satisfied that the prosecution has not been able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore both the appeals bearing crl. A. No.222-DB of 2001 and Crl. A. No.340-DB of 2001 are allowed. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of both the accused are set aside and they are acquitted of the charges framed against them. However, the second appeal bearing Crl. A. No.347-DB of 2001 is disposed of as having become infructuous in view of the orders passed in Crl. A. No.340-DB of 2001.