Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3221 (PNJ)

Piare Lal v. State of Punjab

2010-12-02

AJAY TEWARI, RANJAN GOGOI

body2010
JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjan Gogoi, J.(Oral): - The accused-appellant Piare Lal has been convicted by the Learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur under Section 302 and 201 of the I.P.C. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and also to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 months more for the offence under Section 201 I.P.C. Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed. 2. We have heard Shri A.P.S. Deol, Senior Advocate who has been appointed as the amicus curiae and Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab. 3. The case of the prosecution in short is that PW-4 Prem Kumar had made a statement before the police (Ex.PC) that his father, deceased Siri Ram, was working as a chowkidar in the D.A.V. College for Girls at Garhshankar for the last 6/7 years. According to PW-4 his father used to stay in the college though at times he used to come home. In his statement PW-4 had further stated that the accused-appellant is the brother of the deceased and that the accused appellant had earlier left for Kerala from where he had returned 2/2 ½ months prior to the incident. In the statement recorded, it was further mentioned by PW-4 that the accused-appellant had nursed a grudge against the deceased with regard to sale of some property by the deceased without giving any share thereof to the accused-appellant. According to PW-4, on 14.5.2000 at about 8 A.M., he had come to meet his father in the college and finding the gate locked from inside he scaled over the gate and went inside the room of his father but could see him lying dead with his body burnt. In the statement made by PW- 4, it was further stated that he suspected his uncle i.e. the accused-appellant to be responsible for the commission of the aforesaid offence. On the basis of the statement made by PW-4, formal F.I.R. was registered. In the course of investigation photographs of the place of the occurrence and the dead body were taken at the instance of the Investigating Officer by a police photographer, Gurminder Singh (PW-3). On the basis of the statement made by PW-4, formal F.I.R. was registered. In the course of investigation photographs of the place of the occurrence and the dead body were taken at the instance of the Investigating Officer by a police photographer, Gurminder Singh (PW-3). Furthermore, in the course of investigation, PW-6, Gurdip Singh, Sub Inspector of police and Finger Print Expert developed finger prints from a half bottle smelling of kerosene which was claimed by the prosecution to have been recovered from a place near the dead body. The specimen thumb impression of the accusedappellant was obtained under the orders of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate who was examined as PW-13. Thereafter on receipt of the confirmatory report from the Bureau of Finger Print, Phillaur and on completion of investigation challan was submitted against accused appellant under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The offences alleged being exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Garhshankar, by order dated 19.8.2000 committed the case for trial to the court of Sessions at Hoshiarpur. In the trial Court charge under Section 302/201 I.P.C. was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and also exhibited a number of documents including the report of the Finger Print Bureau which was exhibited as Ex.PX. Amongst the witnesses examined by the prosecution, the complainant was examined as PW-4 whereas the doctor who had performed the autopsy on the dead body was examined as PW-5. Gurdip Singh S.I. of police and Finger Print Expert who had developed the finger prints from the half bottle seized from the place of the occurrence was examined as PW-6. The Investigating Officer of the case was examined as PW-12 whereas the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate under whose orders sample thumb impression/finger prints of the accused were taken was examined as PW-13. The finger Print Expert who had conducted the analysis leading to the report of the Finger Print Bureau (Ex.PX) was examined by the accused as DW-1 on the basis of an application filed. Thereafter, the learned trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order, has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as aforesaid giving rise to the present appeal. 4. The finger Print Expert who had conducted the analysis leading to the report of the Finger Print Bureau (Ex.PX) was examined by the accused as DW-1 on the basis of an application filed. Thereafter, the learned trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order, has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as aforesaid giving rise to the present appeal. 4. We have read and considered the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution and the judgment and order under challenge.We have also considered the arguments and counter arguments advanced on behalf of the respective parties. 5. Admittedly, there are no eye witness to the occurrence and the prosecution case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. The principles of law which have to be applied to determine the culpability of an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence would not require a detailed reiteration except to point out that not only the circumstances inimical to the accused must be proved and established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt but also the several circumstances taken together must be capable of giving rise to only one inference and to no other, namely it is the accused and no body else who had committed the crime. Having understood the principles of law that will require application in the present case in the above manner, the court may now proceed to notice the circumstances which the prosecution claims to have proved against the accused and thereafter to consider whether such circumstances can reasonably lead to the satisfaction that the accused should be held liable for the offence for which he has been charged. 6. From a bare reading of the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses it appears that the prosecution has brought on record evidence to prove that the accused had a motive for killing his brother i.e. not giving him a part of the sale proceeds of the property. The prosecution also relies upon report of the Finger Print Expert (Ex.PX) to contend that the finger prints developed from the half bottle of kerosene had matched with the sample finger prints of the accused taken under the orders passed by the learned Magistrate. The prosecution further contends that the motive and similarity of the finger prints would be enough to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecution further contends that the motive and similarity of the finger prints would be enough to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Before the aforesaid aspect of the matter is considered the court has to be satisfied that the circumstance claimed to have been proved by the prosecution has, in fact, been proved to the satisfaction of the court. 7. The first issue that has to be dealt with is whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that the accused had a motive to commit the crime in passion. Human motive would always be a matter of inference and, therefore, the courts are normally slow in drawing an inference of motive for determination of the effect thereof on the culpability of the accused. In the present case the deceased is alleged to have sold some property without giving the accused his share thereof. The sale took place about 7/8 years back. Even if time factor is to be excluded, it can hardly be believed that the said fact, by itself, would have impelled the accused to commit the murder of his brother. Given the circumstances, the motive of the accused would have been to obtain his share of the sale proceeds of the property. There is no evidence that the accused had made any such demand, failing which, he had resorted to the alleged criminal act. 8. Coming to the report of the Finger Print Expert (Ex.PX) and the extent of reliance that can be placed on, the Court is of the view that in the first instance, the prosecution must proved the fact that a half bottle smelling of kerosene was actually recovered from a place near the dead body. The learned amicus curiae has urged that the said fact is not established from the photographs of the place of the occurrence (Ex.P-9 to Ex.P-16) taken by PW-3.We have carefully looked into the photographs and find that in none of the photographs the presence of any bottle is disclosed. In this regard we have also noticed the site plan Ex.PU wherein the place marked as C has been shown to be the place where the bottle was found. In this regard we have also noticed the site plan Ex.PU wherein the place marked as C has been shown to be the place where the bottle was found. If the details of the site plan and the several locations indicated therein is accepted to be correct, then, surely the photograph Ex.P-13 would have revealed the presence of the bottle which is conspicuously missing from the said photograph. The above raises a strong doubt with regard to correctness of the prosecution version about the presence of the half bottle of kerosene at the place of the occurrence. This doubt is strengthened by looking at the inquest report (Ex.PJ), wherein, against column No. 22 and 23, there is no mention of the recovery of the bottle. That apart, from the evidence of Iqbal Singh PW-8 MHC of Police Station Garhshankar it is clear that the half bottle duly sealed was handed over to him by the Investigating Officer Kulwant Singh (PW-12) on 14.5.2000. The bottle was sent for analysis on 16.5.2000 which coincidentally is the date of arrest of the accused. Though no evidence has been led, the learned amicus curiae has pointed out that the possibility of the Finger Print Impression of the accused being taken on the bottle after his arrest cannot be ruled out. 9. A careful consideration of the facts stated above would led us to the conclusion that the prosecution has not succeeded in establishing the core facts beyond all reasonable doubt. A doubt has arisen in our mind as to whether the bottle was actually recovered from the place of the occurrence as claimed by the prosecution. We are, therefore, not prepared to hold that the report of the Finger Print Expert (Ex.PX) would connect the accused with the crime alleged against him beyond all reasonable doubt. 10. It is further pointed out by the learned amicus curie that even if the Finger Print of the accused is assumed to be on the bottle and the report of the Expert is accepted the said fact by itself will not be conclusive to prove that it is the accused-appellant, to the exclusion of any other person, who had committed the crime. As we have already taken the view that the prosecution has not proved recovery of the bottle from the place of the occurrence it will not be necessary for us to enter into the aforesaid aspect of the case pointed out by the learned amicus curiae. 11. Consequently and in the light of the discussions that have preceded we do not agree with the learned trial Court that in the present case the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The accused therefore, would be entitled to the benefit of doubt. We, accordingly, allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and order dated 24.1.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur and acquit the accused. He be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. Before parting we place on record our appreciation of the services rendered by the learned amicus curiae, Shri A.P.S.Deol, Senior Advocate. --------0.N.K.0.--------