Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1204 (RAJ)

Raj Kaur W/o Gurdeep Singh v. Gurjeet Singh S/o Sh. Sucha Singh

2021-07-26

MANOJ KUMAR GARG, SANDEEP MEHTA

body2021
JUDGMENT : MEHTA, J. The instant appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant complainant Raj Kaur for assailing the Judgment dated 25.10.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisingnagar, District Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No.20/2017 (19/14 Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur) whereby, the respondents were acquitted from the charges under Sections 302, 201 and 120B IPC by giving them the benefit of doubt. 2. Detailed arguments were heard on the question of admission of this appeal. The case pertains to murder of Buta Singh son of present appellant. An unidentified dead body was seen trapped in the mesh of the R.B. Minor Canal on 30.06.2013. Shri Rajendra Kumar lodged a report (Ex.P/1) at the Police Station Ghamoodwali regarding this discovery on which, the police reached there and brought out the unknown male dead body with the assistance of the villagers. A blue coloured jeans was found on the dead body. The hands and legs were trussed by a rope. A driving license and a Voter ID card were present in the trouser pocket of the dead body and from these identifying documents, it was established that the dead man was Buta Singh son of Sucha Singh, date of birth 03.01.1989, resident of House No.430, village Kariwala, Tehsil Raniya, District Sirsa. It was thereby concluded that some unknown assailants had murdered and thrown the dead body in the canal about 8-10 days ago. On the basis of this report, an FIR No.112/2013 (Ex.P/27) came to be registered at the Police Station Ghamoodwali for the offence under Sections 302, 201 and 34 IPC and investigation was commenced. After thorough investigation, a charge-sheet came to be submitted against the respondents Gurjeet Singh, Sucha Singh and Harpal Kaur in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Padampur for the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 120B IPC. The case was committed to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar where, charges were framed against the accused for these very offences. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 34 witnesses and exhibited 72 documents to prove its case. The accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and were confronted with the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence which they denied and claimed to be innocent. However, no evidence was led in defence. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 34 witnesses and exhibited 72 documents to prove its case. The accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and were confronted with the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence which they denied and claimed to be innocent. However, no evidence was led in defence. Upon conclusion of the trial, learned trial court heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel representing the parties, appreciated the evidence available on record and proceeded to acquit the accused persons by the impugned Judgment dated 25.10.2018 which is assailed in this victim’s appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. 3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have carefully re-appreciated the evidence available on record. 4. At the outset, it may be stated that there is no eye-witness of the incident and the prosecution case is based totally on circumstantial evidence. We briefly proceed to consider the evidence of material prosecution witnesses. The witness Surjeet Singh (PW-6) claimed that a case of attempted murder of Buta Singh by gunfire was filed against Sucha Singh and Gurjeet Singh. Buta Singh took 6 Bighas of land belonging to Sucha Singh and came to a compromise in the case. The witness also stated that Sucha Singh had previously parted with a sum of Rs.26,00,000/- and gave it to Buta Singh. These preceding events were portrayed to be the motive behind murder of Buta Singh. 5. Naseeb Singh (PW-7) stated that Buta Singh was the son of his aunt (Bua) Raj Kaur. His aunt was married to Sucha Singh, who was previously married to Harpal Kaur and because of Court order, he had to resume the matrimonial relationship with Harpal Kaur and thus, Rajkaur was turned out of the house. Buta Singh demanded his share in the property from Sucha Singh and being annoyed thereby, Sucha Singh and his son from Harpal Kaur namely Gurjeet Singh conspired together and tried to kill Buta Singh by firing gunshots. A case was registered at the Police Station Raniya in relation to this incident. For compromising the matter, Sucha Singh gave 6 acres land to Buta Singh in the village Kariwala. The witness further claimed that he and Buta Singh had gone to Sirsa for watching a film. After watching the film, Buta Singh went to meet his father at Fajilka. For compromising the matter, Sucha Singh gave 6 acres land to Buta Singh in the village Kariwala. The witness further claimed that he and Buta Singh had gone to Sirsa for watching a film. After watching the film, Buta Singh went to meet his father at Fajilka. Buta Singh allegedly called the witness and told him that he had reached his father’s home. The following day, Buta Singh’s phone went unanswered and seemed to be switched off. On 30.06.2013, he received an information that Buta Singh’s dead body had been found at Ghamoodwali. He went there and identified the dead body. Sukhdarshan Singh (PW-9) stated that there was a conflict between Buta Singh and Sucha Singh which was later on resolved. Sucha Singh gave 6 acres land and Rs.5,00,000/- to his son. Gurmel Singh (PW-10) and Gurjinder Singh (PW-11) did not support the prosecution story and were declared hostile. 6. Raj Kaur (PW-12), the appellant herein, stated that she was married to Sucha Singh in the year 1988. Seven months after her marriage to Sucha Singh, she was turned out of the matrimonial home. At that time, she was pregnant and started living at her father’s house at Kariwala where, Buta Singh was born to her in the year 1989. Buta Singh pressed his father Sucha Singh for a share of the property on which, a dispute arose and an attempt was made to murder Buta Singh by firing gunshots. The parties compromised the dispute and by way of settlement, Sucha Singh gave 6 Kilas of land in the village Kariwala to Buta Singh. However, Buta Singh persisted by exhibiting further demands upon which, he was murdered. The evidence of the witnesses Baldev Singh (PW-13), Surender Kumar (PW-14) and Harvel Singh (PW-15) is formal and inconsequential for proving the case against the accused. Gurdeep Singh (PW-16), Sohan Lal (PW-17), Deepak Sachdeva (PW-18) and Vipin Puri (PW-19) did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. 7. Satnam Singh (PW-20) stated that Buta Singh was related to him. On 27.06.2013, Sucha Singh, Gurjeet Singh and Buta Singh met him at the Bus stand. Right there and then, Buta Singh called the witness and asked him about his well being. He informed him that he had come there to meet his father. Thereafter, Buta Singh left with Sucha Singh and Gurjeet Singh. On 27.06.2013, Sucha Singh, Gurjeet Singh and Buta Singh met him at the Bus stand. Right there and then, Buta Singh called the witness and asked him about his well being. He informed him that he had come there to meet his father. Thereafter, Buta Singh left with Sucha Singh and Gurjeet Singh. Some days later, he came to know that the dead body of Buta Singh had been found in a canal in Rajasthan. The witness admitted that Surjeet Singh and Kuldeep Singh were his nephews. In cross-examination, the witness was confronted with his police statement (Ex.D/9) which was recorded on 16.09.2013, i.e. after nearly two and a half months of the incident. In this statement, the witness did not state that he met Buta Singh “at the Bus Stand”. This witness was portrayed to be a witness of circumstance of last seen but, considering the fact that the witness is closely related to the deceased but despite that he chose to remain silent regarding the incident of having seen the deceased with the accused persons for almost two and a half months, makes his testimony totally unreliable and unworthy of credence. Manish Kumar son of Prem Kumar (PW-21) and Manish Kumar son of Bhupendra Das (PW-22) did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. 8. Kailash Chand (PW-23) was posted as the Officer-In-Charge of the police outpost Kariwala. He gave information regarding the recovery of the dead body and the previous case lodged by Buta Singh against Sucha Singh at the Police Station for the offence under Section 307 IPC. Maniram (PW-24) was a formal witness regarding the transmission of the Maalkhana articles. Bhoopram (PW-25) was posted as a constable at Police Station Ghamoodwali and his evidence is formal in nature. Sahiram (PW-26) was posted as a Circle Officer, Karanpur. He conducted a part of investigation and his evidence is also inconsequential to the case. Vinod Kumar (PW-27) was posted as SHO Police Station Ghamoodwali. He received the investigation of the case at an advanced stage and recorded the statement of the witnesses. He did not state anything implicating the accused in this case. Mahaveer Prasad (PW-28) was posted as Head Constable at the Police Station Ghamoodwali and was a formal witness regarding arrest of the accused Sandeep. Naseeb Singh (PW-29) was declared hostile. 9. He received the investigation of the case at an advanced stage and recorded the statement of the witnesses. He did not state anything implicating the accused in this case. Mahaveer Prasad (PW-28) was posted as Head Constable at the Police Station Ghamoodwali and was a formal witness regarding arrest of the accused Sandeep. Naseeb Singh (PW-29) was declared hostile. 9. Manoj Kumar (PW-30) was posted as the Additional Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar. He conducted further investigation in the case and found the case proved against the accused Sucha Singh, Gurjeet Singh and Harpal Kaur and recommended a charge-sheet against them for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120B IPC. 10. Devendra Kumar Bishnoi (PW-31) was posted as Additional Superintendent of Police, Raisinghnagar. He also conducted a part of investigation and during the course thereof, he collected the call detail records and the tower locations of the mobile phones of Buta Singh (the deceased) and the accused persons (Gurjeet Singh and Harpal Kaur) and concluded that the offences were proved against the accused. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that the certificate (Ex.P/45) which he had received from the Superintendent of Police, was pertaining only to one mobile phone that of Buta Singh. He admitted that no certificate was procured from the department. 11. Dalip Singh (PW-32) was the Officer-In-Charge of the Police Station Ghamoodwali. He conducted the initial investigation including registration of the FIR, taking out the dead body, getting the postmortem carried out, etc. He did not state anything against the accused. Bhadar Ram (PW-33) was also posted as a Constable at the Police Station Ghamoodwali. He gave evidence regarding carrying the Maalkhana articles/samples of the case to the FSL. 12. Laxman Singh (PW-34) was posted as SHO at Police Station Ghamoodwali. He arrested the accused Sucha Singh, Harpal Kaur and Gurjeet Singh. He claimed that acting in furtherance of the information provided by these accused persons under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, certain places viz. where the murder was allegedly committed; where the dead body was allegedly thrown, were verified at the instance of the accused. However, suffice it to say that no incriminating fact whatsoever was discovered during this process. 13. where the murder was allegedly committed; where the dead body was allegedly thrown, were verified at the instance of the accused. However, suffice it to say that no incriminating fact whatsoever was discovered during this process. 13. After considering the evidence of all material prosecution witnesses, it becomes clear that theory of motive portrayed by the prosecution regarding Buta Singh staking a claim for his rights in the properties of Sucha Singh and the accused persons being annoyed thereby, is unsubstantiated because admittedly, the dispute had been settled after lodging of the FIR No.104/2011 (Ex.D/1) for the offence under Section 307 IPC against the accused persons in the year 2011. Buta Singh had already been given his share of property and apparently, no significant differences prevailed between the accused and the deceased thereafter. If the evidence of the star prosecution witness Satnam Singh (PW-20) is seen, he met Sucha Singh, Buta Singh and Gurjeet Singh at the Bus Stand. Buta Singh told him that he had come to meet his father. Nothing untoward was noticed by the witness in the conduct/demeanor of Buta Singh. If at all, the accused and the deceased were not on good terms then, there was no reason for Buta Singh to have come down to meet his father. Manifestly, thus, the theory of motive portrayed by the prosecution witnesses is flimsy and unacceptable. On a perusal of the cross-examination conducted from witness who was examined to prove the circumstance of last seen together, it is clear that he came to know regarding murder of Buta Singh 3-4 days after 27.06.2013. He claims to have informed Surjeet Singh and Kuldeep Singh that he had seen the accused persons with Buta Singh immediately after coming to know about the recovery of the dead body. He stated that he came to Police Station Kariwala 15-20 days after the ‘Bhog’ and his statement was recorded at that time. However, as is evident, the police statement of the witness (Ex.D/9), the statement was recorded as late as on 16.09.2013 i.e. after about 2 months and 17 days of incident. The absolute indifference of the witness in not divulging this important fact to the police or even the close relatives of the deceased, makes his testimony doubtful. However, as is evident, the police statement of the witness (Ex.D/9), the statement was recorded as late as on 16.09.2013 i.e. after about 2 months and 17 days of incident. The absolute indifference of the witness in not divulging this important fact to the police or even the close relatives of the deceased, makes his testimony doubtful. Thus, the evidence of witness Satnam Singh (PW-20) regarding the circumstance of last seen together is totally unacceptable and was rightly discarded by the trial court. The information allegedly supplied by the accused persons to the IO (PW-34) Laxman Singh did not result into recovery of any incriminating material fact. Thus, the only semblance of evidence which remains on record so as to connect the accused with the crime would be in form of the call details records. Suffice it to say that on a perusal of the evidence of Devendra Kumar Bishnoi (PW- 31) the Additional S.P., who collected the call detail records, it is clear that he did not analyse the calls exchanged between the accused and the deceased. The trial court analysed the call detail records and found that the last call which was made by Buta Singh was of 16.06.2013 i.e. about 10-12 days before the incident. The presentation of the certificate issued by the service provider under Section 65B of the Evidence Act is mandatory to prove electronic record i.e. call details. However, the witness Shri Devendra Singh Bishnoi, admitted in his cross-examination that the certificate which he procured (Ex.P/45) only pertained to the call details of the mobile phone allegedly in the use of the deceased. No witness from the service providers concerned was examined to prove the call details. Thus, the call detail records are also of no avail of the prosecution and cannot be relied upon. Law in this regard is well settled by the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal reported in AIR 2020 SC 4908 . 14. In this background, we are of the firm opinion that the prosecution could not lead any evidence whatsoever so as to prove the charges against the accused respondents. Law in this regard is well settled by the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal reported in AIR 2020 SC 4908 . 14. In this background, we are of the firm opinion that the prosecution could not lead any evidence whatsoever so as to prove the charges against the accused respondents. The analysis and the discussion of evidence undertaken by the trial court for reaching to a finding that the prosecution could not prove its case against the accused beyond all manner of doubt, is unimpeachable and does not warrant any interference therein. 15. Hence, the appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merit.