Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 572 (PNJ)

Sat Pal v. State Of Punjab

2010-01-22

JORA SINGH, SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2010
Judgment JORA SINGH, J. 1. Sat Pal filed this appeal to challenge the judgment dated 22.3.2002 rendered by Sessions Judge, Jalandhar in case FIR No.612 dated 5.11.2000 in sessions Case No.13/2001, whereby he was convicted under Sec.302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000 and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for a period of three months. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 5.11.2000, dead body of a lady was noticed in the area of village Wadala by harbhajan Lakha, Sarpanch, then he reported to Police Station Division No.7 regarding the dead body of one lady lying in the area of village Wadala. Statement of Harbhajan Lakha Ex. PG was recorded by the police, on the basis of which formal FIR was recorded. Gurvinder Singh, SI, SHO as per information by harbhajan Lakha had gone to the spot, where dead body was lying. Inquest report ex. PC was prepared. Photographer was arranged. Photographs of the dead body were got clicked. Dead body was sent to the hospital for post mortem examination. Rough site plan with correct marginal notes was prepared. 2. On 6.11.2000, SI, Gurvinder Singh along with the party had gone to civil Hospital, Jalandhar, where Constable Avtar Singh and Constable Parminder singh had produced the post mortem report along with police papers and the clothes worn by the deceased. Clothes were made into sealed parcel sealed with the seal bearing impression `gs and the sealed parcel was taken into police possession vide memo Ex. PS attested by the witnesses. On 12.11.2000, photographer had produced the photographs with the negatives before the investigating Officer and the same were taken into police possession. 3. On 8.12.2000, Hira Singh had identified the dead body from the photographs as of Parkash Devi. On 12.12.2000, as per secret information, police party headed by SI, Gurvinder Singh had apprehended the accused while present near Bus Stand Jalandhar. On personal search of the accused, identity card of Parkash Devi was recovered and the same was taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. Cycle recovered from the accused was also taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. On 14.12.2000, accused was interrogated and on interrogation, accused suffered disclosure statement that he has kept concealed a datar in the area of Nakodar. Cycle recovered from the accused was also taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. On 14.12.2000, accused was interrogated and on interrogation, accused suffered disclosure statement that he has kept concealed a datar in the area of Nakodar. He knew about the same and could get the same recovered. In pursuance of the disclosure statement, accused got recovered datar from the specified place. Sketch of the datar was prepared and the datar was made into a sealed parcel. Sealed parcel was taken into police possession vide separate memo attested by the witnesses. Case property was deposited with the incharge of malkhana. After the completion of investigation, accused was challaned. 4. Vide order dated 15.2.2001 passed by Judicial Magistrate First class, Jalandhar, case was committed to the Court of Session for trial. 5. Accused was charged under Sec.302 IPC. Accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 6. Prosecution examined thirteen witnesses in support of its case. PW-1, Dr. Gurjit Kaur stated that on 6.11.2000 at 11:30 a. m, he had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of unknown female, aged about 50 years and had found following injuries on her person: 1. Incised wound 11 cm x 2 cm on left hand on dorsal side extending from base of little finger to base of thumb. Underlying muscles bones were cut. Clotted blood was present. 2. Incised wound on left wrist joint on dorsum 4 cm x 3 cm muscle deep. Clots were present. 3. Incised wound 10 cm x 1 cm lateral side of left shoulder joint 10 cm below the lateral and of clavical. 4. incised wounds measuring 1 cm x 1/2 cm on the anterior side of left shoulder joint on anterior axillary fold.2 cm. apart. Underlying muscles were cut. Clots were present. 5. Incised wound 17 cm x 2 cm across eyes and root of nose, bone deep. Orbit and axillary bone cut. Clots were present. 6. Incised wound 20 cm x 2 cm extending from middle of left cheek to middle of left cheek. Nostrils, maxilla and mendible cut. Clots present. 7. Incised wound 8 cm x 1 cm on left angle of mouth muscle deep. Clotted blood was present. 8. Incised wound 11 cm x 2 cm across the chin. Clotted blood was present. Bone deep. 9. Nostrils, maxilla and mendible cut. Clots present. 7. Incised wound 8 cm x 1 cm on left angle of mouth muscle deep. Clotted blood was present. 8. Incised wound 11 cm x 2 cm across the chin. Clotted blood was present. Bone deep. 9. Incised wound 12 cm x 2 cm on anterior side of neck from mid line to right 8 cm below the right ear, muscle trachea, thyroid, cartilage were cut. Blood clots were present. 10. Incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm on lower lobe of left pinna. 11. Incised wound 12 cm x 2 cm on left temple just above the left pinna. Temporal bone was cut. Cranial cavity contained blood, and Brian matter exposed. 12. Incised wound 10 cm x 5 cm on left side of posterior part of head 3 cm away from left ear. Underlying bone was cut. Menigns and brain matter injured. Blood clots were present in the cranial cavity. 13. Incised wound 4 cm x 2 cm bone deep in the midline in public area just above the public sympysis. Clotted blood was present.14.3 cm x 1 cm abrasion on left medial malleous. Stomach was healthy contained semi digested food particles and gastric juices. Small intestines was healthy contained digestive juices. Large intestine was healthy contained faecal matters and gas fluids. Other organs were healthy. There was no other injury mark on external genitalia, hymen absent. Vagina patulous. Two swabs and two smear slides were taken from vagina for semen and spermatozoa examination. Uterus empty. 7. Cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. Injuries were found to be ante mortem in nature sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Doctor further stated that there was evidence of sexual activity. Injuries could be caused by datar Ex. P-1. PW-2, Hira Singh stated that Satpal and his wife were residing in his house as a tenant. Satpal was having cordial relations with his wife, Parkash Devi. Sometimes quarrel used to take place between them as usually happens in the family. Satpal was paying Rs.500/- as rent to him. Last time, Parkash Devi made payment on 2.11.2000. After that parkash Devi never met him nor she came to her house. Satpal requested him to pay some money to visit Ludhiana because he was suspecting that Parkash Devi might be in jail at Ludhiana. Satpal never took his luggage from the house. Satpal was paying Rs.500/- as rent to him. Last time, Parkash Devi made payment on 2.11.2000. After that parkash Devi never met him nor she came to her house. Satpal requested him to pay some money to visit Ludhiana because he was suspecting that Parkash Devi might be in jail at Ludhiana. Satpal never took his luggage from the house. Quarter was locked by the police. Hira Singh was declared hostile and did not support the prosecution story by saying that on 8.12.2000, Satpal had made extra judicial confession before him that on 4.11.2000, he had murdered his wife, Parkash Devi who was characterless and was preventing him from taking liquor. PW-3, Harbhajan Lakha stated that on 5.11.2000 at about 9:00 a. m, dead body of a female was noticed lying in the garden in the area of village Wadala belonging to Kuldip Singh. Intimation was given to the police. Statement Ex. PG was recorded by the police. PW-4, Constable Avtar Singh tendered his affidavit Ex. PH. PW-5, Head Constable, Ashok Kumar tendered his affidavit Ex. PJ. PW-6, Constable Surinder Pal had tendered his affidavit Ex. PK. PW-7, Dalip Singh, Draftsman stated that he had prepared scaled site plan Ex. PL. PW-8, Ganga Ram, exmployee of Child Development Project Officer, jalandhar stated that free pass (Ex. P2) was issued to Parkash Devi. PW-10, Tilak Raj stated that Satpal is known to him. He is not an addict. His wife, Parkash Devi was also known to him. Satpal never reported to him that Parkash Devi was stopping him from taking liquor and that he will finish her some day. Satpal did not disclose to him that Parkash Devi has gone to Ludhiana and is in jail but admitted that recovery memo Ex. PD bears his signatures. PW-11, ASI, Surjit Singh stated that on 12.12.2000, he was with SHO, Gurvinder singh. Party was holding a nakabandi. Then Satpal was sighted while coming from the side of BMC Chowk on a bicycle and was signalled to stop. Satpal was apprehended in this case and on his personal search, one purse, containing identity card was recovered. Purse along with identity card and cycle were taken into police possession vide different memos. PW-12, ASI, Gurdev Singh stated that on 14.12.2000, he was with the party of SI, Gurinder Singh. Accused was interrogated in his presence. Satpal was apprehended in this case and on his personal search, one purse, containing identity card was recovered. Purse along with identity card and cycle were taken into police possession vide different memos. PW-12, ASI, Gurdev Singh stated that on 14.12.2000, he was with the party of SI, Gurinder Singh. Accused was interrogated in his presence. Accused suffered disclosure statement to the effect that he has kept concealed datar in the area of village Deol Nagar. In pursuance of the disclosure statement, he got recovered datar from the specified place. Sketch of the datar was prepared and the same was taken into police possession after the same was made into a sealed parcel. PW-13, SI, Gurvinder Singh is the Investigating Officer. After close of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 Cr. P. C. Accused denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent. Opportunity was given to lead defence but no defence was led. 8. After hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State, learned defence counsel for the accused and from the perusal of the evidence on file, trial Court opined that the appellant committed an offence punishable under section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment as stated aforesaid. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the case is based on circumstantial evidence. There is no eye witness. First circumstance to connect the appellant with the crime is that appellant had made extra judicial confession before Hira Singh. But Hira Singh did not support the prosecution story. Second circumstance is that weapon was recovered in the presence of Tilak Raj, PW-10 but Tilak Raj also did not support the prosecution story. Appellant was convicted on the ground that he did not inform the police that his wife was missing w. e. f 2.11.2000, but this fact is not sufficient alone to connect the appellant with the crime. Evidence on file was not properly scrutinized. 10. Learned State counsel argued that deceased Parkash Devi was the wife of the appellant. Appellant along with his wife was occupying a room on rent owned by Hira Singh. Parkash Devi last time made payment to Hira Singh on 2.11.2000. Thereafter, she was not seen by Hira Singh. Petitioner being husband of Parkash Devi should have reported to the police either on 2.11.2000 or on the next date that his wife is missing. Appellant along with his wife was occupying a room on rent owned by Hira Singh. Parkash Devi last time made payment to Hira Singh on 2.11.2000. Thereafter, she was not seen by Hira Singh. Petitioner being husband of Parkash Devi should have reported to the police either on 2.11.2000 or on the next date that his wife is missing. Dead body was noticed in the area of village Wadala on 5.11.2001. Regarding this, news was also published in the newspaper. After seeing news in the newspaper, Hira Singh had gone to the police station. From the photographs and the clothes worn by the deceased, Hira singh reported that the photographs of the dead body are of Parkash Devi. After 8.12.2000, the appellant could report to the police that his wife was missing w. e. f 2.11.2000. Dead body recovered as per photographs is of his wife. But the appellant remained silent up to 8.12.2000. On 12.12.2000, appellant was arrested. As per disclosure statement, appellant got recovered datar from the specified place. Recovery was in the presence of Tilak Raj but Tilak Raj did not support the prosecution story but admitted that recovery memo Ex. PD bears his signatures. No complaint by Tilak raj as to how his signatures appeared on Ex. PD. Identity card of the deceased was also recovered on the personal search of the appellant. No explanation from the side of the appellant as to how identity card of the deceased was recovered from him when arrested on 12.12.2000 and why he did not report to the police when a news was published in the newspaper and from the photographs of the dead body published in the newspaper, the same were identified to be of Parkash Devi by his landlord. Deceased was residing with the appellant and appellant being husband was to explain under what circumstances, Parkash Devi was missing and why no report was not lodged with the police. First submission of the learned defence counsel for the appellant is that chain of circumstantial evidence is not complete. First circumstance to connect the appellant with the crime is the extra judicial concession before Hira Singh. But Hira Singh did not support the prosecution story. We have gone through the evidence on the file and are of the opinion that submission of the learned counsel for the appellant carries little weight. First circumstance to connect the appellant with the crime is the extra judicial concession before Hira Singh. But Hira Singh did not support the prosecution story. We have gone through the evidence on the file and are of the opinion that submission of the learned counsel for the appellant carries little weight. Parkash Devi deceased and her husband Sat Pal were occupying one room on rent. Hira Singh was the landlord. Hira Singh while appearing as PW-2 stated that petitioner and his wife are known to him. They were staying in a room on rent. Petitioner was having cordial relations with his wife. Sometimes, small quarrel used to take place between husband and wife as usually happens in the family. Last time on 2.11.2000, payment was made by Parkash Devi. Thereafter he had not seen her. Nor Parkash devi came to her rented premises. Satpal was searching for his wife. Satpal had taken payment from him to visit Ludhiana by saying that Parkash Devi might be in jail at Ludhiana. That means after 2.11.2000, Parkash Devi was not seen in her house. If Parkash Devi was missing then appellant being husband should have reported the matter to the police. If appellant was searching for his wife then after 2-3 days when he failed to locate his wife then matter should have been reported to the police but no explanation why appellant remained silent till his arrest on 12.12.2000. Hira Singh stated that money was borrowed from him by Satpal on the ground that he is to visit Ludhiana to enquire whether parkash Devi is in jail or not but appellant when examined under Sec.313 cr. P. C then did not state a word that his wife was missing w. e. f. 2.11.2000. After that he had searched for his wife. Money was also taken from Hira Singh to visit Ludhiana to enquire whether Parkash Devi is in jail at Ludhiana or not. It is evidence of Hira Singh that a news was published in the newspaper and after going through the newspaper he had gone to the police station. He had reported to the police that from the photographs of the dead body and the clothes, dead body was of Parkash Devi. Meaning thereby that on 8.12.2000, Hira singh was definite that dead body was of Parkash Devi. Petitioner was residing in the same house on rent. He had reported to the police that from the photographs of the dead body and the clothes, dead body was of Parkash Devi. Meaning thereby that on 8.12.2000, Hira singh was definite that dead body was of Parkash Devi. Petitioner was residing in the same house on rent. Wife of the petitioner was missing. Till 8.12.2000, no report was lodged with the police. On 8.12.2000, Hira Singh from the Crl. Appeal No.316-DB of 2002 [12] photographs had identified the dead body of parkash Devi. In that situation, appellant was expected to know that a news has been published in the newspaper. But despite publication of news in the newspaper, appellant had not gone to the police station to enquire whether the photographs are of his wife or some other lady. No case of the appellant that from 2.11.2000 to 8.12.2000, he was not in the house. So he cannot explain how hira Singh came to know about the news and had gone to police station to enquire about the missing lady. If landlord can visit the police station after going through the newspaper to identify as to whether the dead body was of parkash Devi or some other lady, then question is why the appellant had not gone to the police station. After Parkash Devi was missing w. e. f 2.11.2000, then the appellant being husband was expected to be more vigilant. He should have gone to the different police stations to enquire as to whether dead body of a female aged about 50 years was noticed anywhere or not. 11. According to the story, appellant had made extra judicial confession before Hira Singh that his wife used to quarrel by saying that he is taking liquor. Secondly she is characterless. Hira Singh did not support the prosecution story by supporting above said facts. But one thing is clear that money was taken from Hira Singh by the appellant to visit Ludhiana to enquire whether Parkahs Devi is in jail or not. After visiting Ludhiana if Parkash Devi was not found in any jail then Satpal should have reported the police or Hira singh that he had gone to Ludhiana but Parkash Devi was not found in any jail. Hira Singh is the landlord of the appellant. After the appellant was challened then there is possibility of some compromise amongst the appellant and Hira Singh. Hira Singh is the landlord of the appellant. After the appellant was challened then there is possibility of some compromise amongst the appellant and Hira Singh. In view of the compromise, Hira Singh halfheartedly supported the prosecution story. Next submission of the counsel for the appellant is that with the recovery of weapon, appellant cannot be held liable because weapon was not recovered in the presence of any independent witness. Secondly, no report of the Laboratory that human blood was noticed on the blade of datar. 12. No doubt, no report of the Laboratory on file to the effect that human blood was noticed on the blade of datar but datar was recovered in pursuance of the disclosure statement suffered by the petitioner in the presence of Tilak Raj and the second witness namely, ASI, Gurdev Singh. Tilak raj, one of the recovery witness appearing as PW-10 was declared hostile. But tilak Raj admitted his signatures on the recovery memo. Weapon was recovered in pursuance of the disclosure statement dated 14.12.2000, but Tilak Raj failed to explain as to how he had gone to the police station and signed recovery memo. No complaint by Tilak Raj that his signatures were obtained on blank papers. If signatures of Tilak Raj were obtained on blank papers then why no complaint to any authority. That means Tilak Raj did not support the prosecution story in view of the compromise affected later on. 13. Gurdev Singh, ASI is the second marginal witness of recovery of datar. Recovery of datar was by SI, Gurvinder Singh who was investigating this case. Police officials had no enmity with the appellant. Without enmity they are not expected to forge certain documents. Appellant was not financially sound. He had no enmity with anyone. Till his arrest, appellant remained silent. So recovery of datar as per disclosure statement suffered by the appellant shows that crime was committed by the appellant. 14. According to the Dr. Gurjit Kaur, 14 injuries were noticed on the person of the deceased. Some of the injuries were on the vital parts and some on the private parts of the body. Doctor stated that injuries noticed on the person of deceased could be by datar shown in the Court. Doctor did not state a word that injuries noted were not possible with a datar shown in the Court. Some of the injuries were on the vital parts and some on the private parts of the body. Doctor stated that injuries noticed on the person of deceased could be by datar shown in the Court. Doctor did not state a word that injuries noted were not possible with a datar shown in the Court. Room in which appellant and his wife, Parkash Devi (deceased) were staying on rent was owned by Hira Singh, PW-2. Parkash Devi was missing w. e. f 2.11.2000. On 5.11.2000, dead body of a female was recovered lying in the fields of kuldeep Singh. Intimation was given to the police by Harbhajan Lakha of village wadala. Photographs of the dead body were got clicked by the Investigating officer. A news was published in the newspaper to the effect that dead body of one unidentified lady was recovered. After seeing the photographs in the newspaper, landlord had gone to the police station and after going through the photographs reported that dead body was of Parkash Devi. From Hira Singh landlord, appellant had taken money to visit Ludhiana. But after visiting ludhiana, appellant did not lodge any report with any authority. Arrest of the appellant was on 12.12.2000 and in pursuance of the disclosure statement dated 14.12.2000, datar was got recovered. Appellant had special knowledge as to where his wife had gone whether she had been murdered or not and where the dead body was thrown. Sec.106 of the indian Evidence Act reproduced as under: 106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge-When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him appellant being husband had the special knowledge as to how his wife was missing from the house. Petitioner made extra judicial confession before the landlord that his wife is characterless and is objecting as to why he is taking liquor. Although Hira Singh did not support this part of story while appearing as PW-2. Tilak Raj in his statement under Sec.161 Cr. P. C stated that petitioner reported that his wife is objecting to his taking of liquor. Secondly appellant stated that he is going to Ludhiana because Parkash devi can be in jail. But Tilak raj while appearing in the Court did not support the prosecution on all these points but admitted his signatures on the recovery memo. P. C stated that petitioner reported that his wife is objecting to his taking of liquor. Secondly appellant stated that he is going to Ludhiana because Parkash devi can be in jail. But Tilak raj while appearing in the Court did not support the prosecution on all these points but admitted his signatures on the recovery memo. If Hira Singh and Tilak Raj did not support the prosecution story then one thing is clear from their statements that till arrest of the appellant, appellant did not report the matter to any authority. A weapon was recovered as per disclosure statement, injuries noted by the doctor could be with a datar shown in the Court. Number of injuries and the seats of injuries shows that the appellant was suspecting that his wife is characterless and is restraining him from taking liquor that is why appellant remained silent w. e. f. 2.11.2000 till his arrest on 12.12.2000. All discussed above shows that evidence on the file was rightly scrutinized by the trial Court. Circumstantial evidence unerringly points out towards the guilt of the appellant. No other submission was put forward. We are of the opinion that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and the same is upheld. Thus, the appeal without merit is hereby dismissed.