Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 47 (PNJ)

Sohan Singh v. State of Haryana

2025-01-23

GURVINDER SINGH GILL, JASJIT SINGH BEDI

body2025
JUDGMENT : JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06/09.10.2004 passed Sessions Judge, Sirsa. 2. The FIR was registered on 07.08.1991, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Session Judge, Sirsa is dated 06/09.10.2004, the appeal was filed on 04.01.2005 and the matter is being taken up for hearing now i.e. after a period of 33 years from the date of registration of the FIR. 3. The facts of the prosecution case as revealed from the statement of the complainant-Bhagwan Singh, PW-7 and other prosecution witnesses examined during the course of trial are as under:- PW7-Bhagwan Singh had two other brothers namely deceased Lachhman Singh and PW8-Ram Singh. Ram Singh was the elder brother and all the three brothers used to reside in one house in separate portions at village Kuttabadh, District Sirsa. Deceased Lachhman Singh was married with Smt. Vidya Bai, sister of the accused, 5-6 years prior to the occurrence. However, Smt. Vidya Bai had expired about 2-1/2-3 years prior to the occurrence due to illness and after her death, the deceased Lachhman Singh had developed illicit relations with the Bhabi of the accused. However, the deceased and the accused visited the houses of each other frequently. On the intervening night of 06/07.08.1991 PW7-Bhagwan Singh, his parents and other family members were sleeping in the court-yard of their house whereas his brother Lachhman Singh deceased was sleeping on the roof of his kotha and Ram Singh was sleeping in front of his kotha in the house. At about 11.30 p.m. PW7-Bhagwan Singh and PW8-Ram Singh heard the voice of their brother Lachhman Singh shouting "Maar Diya-Maar Diya". Thereupon they both rushed to the roof of the kotha of deceased Lachhman Singh. There was an electricity light in front of the kotha of Ram Singh (PW8) which was on at that time and thus PW7-Bhagwan Singh and PW8-Ram Singh saw that the accused Sohan Singh was standing on the roof armed with a Kulhara and on seeing them he jumped in the street from the roof alongwith the Kulhara. PW-7 Bhagwan Singh and PW8-Ram Singh then saw that there was a deep wound on the right side of the neck of deceased Lachhman Singh which was bleeding profusely and Sh. Lachhman Singh had died. PW-7 Bhagwan Singh and PW8-Ram Singh then saw that there was a deep wound on the right side of the neck of deceased Lachhman Singh which was bleeding profusely and Sh. Lachhman Singh had died. The The motive behind the crime was that the accused had caused the murder of deceased Lachhman Singh because of his illicit relations with the Bhabi of the accused. PW8-Ram Singh and other family members remained with the dead body and PW7-Bhagwan Singh proceeded for the Police Station at about 4.00 a.m. Sarpanch Swaran Singh also accompanied him to the Police Station. PW7-Bhagwan Singh then lodged a FIR EX.PI at Police Station Rania with respect to the occurrence, the contents of which were read over to him and he signed the same after admitting its contents to be correct. The First Information Report was recorded by ASI Vinod Kumar, PW-11. After lodging the FIR PW7-Bhagwan Singh returned to the place of occurrence. 4. ASI Vinod Kumar took up the investigation of the case and reached the place of occurrence after recording the FIR. ASI Vinod Kumar then prepared a rough site plan of the place of occurrence Ex. PL with correct marginal notes and prepared an inquest report Ex. PB/1 with respect to the dead body of deceased Lachhman Singh. He then sent the dead body to Civil Hospital, Sirsa for post-mortem examination through Head Constable Subhash and Constable Raj Singh with his application Ex.PB. ASI Vinod Kumar also lifted a bloodstained Gadda (Cushion), blood stained pillow, a blood stained V-shaped rubber chappal from the spot and sealed all the articles in a parcel with the seal of VK. The cot on which deceased Lachhman Singh was sleeping was also stained with blood and hence the same was also sealed into a parcel with the same seal. He also lifted bloodstained earth from the spot and sealed into a parcel with the same seal. All the articles in sealed parcels were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PJ by ASI Vinod Kumar, which was attested by PWs Bhagwan Singh and Ram Singh. The scene of occurrence was also got photographed. ASI Vinod Kumar then searched for the accused but he was not traceable. All the articles in sealed parcels were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PJ by ASI Vinod Kumar, which was attested by PWs Bhagwan Singh and Ram Singh. The scene of occurrence was also got photographed. ASI Vinod Kumar then searched for the accused but he was not traceable. Thereafter, ASI Vinod Kumar proceeded for the Police Station but near Ottu, a Head Constable Dilbag Singh, who had gone with the special report met him and ASI Vinod Kumar then recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Head Constable Subhash Chander and Constable Raj Singh, who had gone with the dead body for post-mortem examination, had also reached Ottu head in the meantime and produced a sealed parcel before ASI Vinod Kumar which was handed over to them by the Medical Officer after post-mortem examination containing a Paijama of the deceased. ASI Vinod Kumar put his seal on the said parcel as well and took the parcel into possession vide memo Ex.PM attested by PW7-Bhagwan Singh and HC Subhash Chander. 5. Dr. C.P.Dadhich, PW-1 conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Lachhman Singh on 7.8.1991 at 2.00 p.m. and found the following injury on the right side of his neck: 1. "Obliquely placed incised wound of size 8cms x 4.5 cms, bone deep was present on the middle of right side of neck. It was 9 cms. below left right ear lobule. Underlying blood vessels and muscles were cut and vertebra fractured. Spinal cord was opened. Clotted blood was present around the wound. Effusion of blood in sub-cutaneous tissue was present." It was opined by Dr.C.P. Dadhich after post-mortem examination that the death of deceased Lachhman Singh occurred on account of shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injury which was ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. After the post- mortem examination Dr. C.P. Dadhich handed over to the police a well stitched dead body of deceased Lachhman Singh, carbon copy of the post- mortem report Ex. PA with diagram Ex. PA/1 showing the seat of the injury and the application of the police Ex. PB making a request for post-mortem examination. He also initialed the inquest report Ex.PB/1 and returned it to the police. Later on, after the arrest of the accused and the recovery of a Kulhara from him, Dr.C.P. Dadhich gave his opinion Ex. PA with diagram Ex. PA/1 showing the seat of the injury and the application of the police Ex. PB making a request for post-mortem examination. He also initialed the inquest report Ex.PB/1 and returned it to the police. Later on, after the arrest of the accused and the recovery of a Kulhara from him, Dr.C.P. Dadhich gave his opinion Ex. PC/1 dated 29.11.2002 on the police request to the effect that injury on the person of deceased Lachhman Singh could be caused with the Kulhara Ex.P1. On return to the Police Station ASI Vinod Kumar deposited all the sealed parcels with the MHC with seals intact on the same day. 6. On 18.08.1991 ASI Vinod Kumar recorded the statement of Sh. Inderjit, Draftsman and on 16.09.1991 he recorded the statements of MHC Rajbir and Constable Rajbir under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He was then transferred from Police Station Rania and the case file was handed over to the then SHO, Police Station Rania for entrusting the investigation to some other Investigating Officer. However, during the investigation of the case the accused could not be arrested and he was ultimately declared to be a Proclaimed Offender by the court of the Illaqa Magistrate on 20.02.1992. The sealed parcels of bloodstained earth, bloodstained pillow, blood stained Gadella and Hawai Chappal were sent to FSL for test and all the articles were found stained with blood and the report of the Serologist revealed that it was a human blood. Since the accused could not be arrested, the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted against the accused on 06.03.1992 for recording the proceedings under Section 299 Cr.P.C. and after recording the proceedings under Section 299 Cr.P.C. the file was consigned to the record room by the then Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Sirsa vide order dated 02.07.1992. 7. Subsequently, the investigation of the case was again revived and the same was entrusted to Inspector Jaipal Singh (PW6) on 25.10.2002 who was posted as Incharge of CIA Staff, Sirsa. 7. Subsequently, the investigation of the case was again revived and the same was entrusted to Inspector Jaipal Singh (PW6) on 25.10.2002 who was posted as Incharge of CIA Staff, Sirsa. It was learnt by Inspector Jaipal Singh (PW6) on 25.10.2002 itself that the accused was lodged in the jail at Hanumangarh and accordingly he visited Hanumangarh but it was found that the accused was to be released on that day and as such Inspector Jaipal Singh immediately arrested the accused in this case when he came out of the jail and brought him to CIA Staff, Sirsa on 25.10.2002. Inspector Jaipal Singh then interrogated the accused at CIA Staff, Sirsa on 26.10.2002 in the presence of ASI Krishan Chander and HC Satpal Singh. The accused disclosed that he had kept buried a Kulhara under the earth in the western side of village Kuttabadh near the canal bank and that he could get the same recovered. His disclosure statement Ex.PH was recorded which was thumb marked by the accused and signed by ASI Krishan Chander and HC Satpal. The accused then led the police party and got recovered a Kulhara Ex. P1 in pursuance of his disclosure statement after digging the earth. A rough sketch Ex.PH/1 of the Kulhara was prepared and the same was sealed into a parcel with the seal of KC and was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PH/2. The rough sketch and the recovery memo were attested by the above-said witnesses. The seal after its use was handed over to ASI Krishan Chander. Inspector Jaipal Singh also prepared a rough site plan of the place of recovery of Kulhara Ex.PH/3 with correct marginal notes and recorded the statements of the relevant witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On return to the Police Station Rania he deposited the sealed parcel with the MHC with seals intact and produced the accused before the Illaqa Magistrate on the same day who sent the accused to judicial lockup. 8. On 29.11.2002 ASI Mahinder Singh, PW10 produced the sealed parcel containing the Kulhara Ex. P1 before the Medical Officer, General Hospital, Sirsa, to obtain the opinion of the Medical Officer whether the injury on the person of deceased Lachhman Singh could be caused with the said Kulhara and Dr. 8. On 29.11.2002 ASI Mahinder Singh, PW10 produced the sealed parcel containing the Kulhara Ex. P1 before the Medical Officer, General Hospital, Sirsa, to obtain the opinion of the Medical Officer whether the injury on the person of deceased Lachhman Singh could be caused with the said Kulhara and Dr. C.P. Dadhich then broke open the parcel and on seeing the Kulhara gave his opinion Ex.PC/1 to the effect that the injury on the person of deceased Lachhman Singh could be caused by the Kulhara Ex.P1. After obtaining the opinion the Kulhara was resealed by the Medical Officer and the sealed parcel was handed over to ASI Mahinder Singh, who deposited the same with the MHC with seals intact. The report of FSL/Serologist Ex.PN was received to the effect that blood was detected on the bloodstained earth, pillow, Gadela, chappals and charpai and the same was human blood. After completion of the necessary investigation the supplementary report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared against the accused by Hawa Singh, SI/SHO, Police Station Rania on 30.11.2002 and hence the case was committed to the Court of Sessions by the learned Illaqa Magistrate for trial of the accused. 9. After hearing the Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel a charge for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. was framed against the accused on 07.02.2003. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. 10. To substantiate the allegations against the accused, the prosecution examined the following witnesses:- PW1-Dr.C.P. Dadhich deposed about conducting of the post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Lachhman Singh and also about his opinion Ex.PC/1 given after seeing the Kulhara Ex.P1. PW2-ASI Raj Singh, PW3-Rajbir Singh HC and PW4-HC Raja Ram were the formal witnesses and they tendered in evidence their affidavits Ex.PD, Ex.PE and Ex. PF respectively. PW5-Shri Inderjit was the Draftsman and he deposed that on 18.08.1991 he prepared a scaled plan Ex.PG on the pointing out of PW7- Bhagwan Singh and PW8-Ram Singh with correct marginal notes. PW6- Inspector Jaipal Singh was the Investigating Officer who arrested the accused and effected the recovery of the Kulhara Ex. P1 in pursuance of the disclosure statement of the accused. PW7-Bhagwan Singh was the complainant as well as eye-witness of the occurrence and he fully supported the prosecution case on all the material particulars. His version has also been detailed above. P1 in pursuance of the disclosure statement of the accused. PW7-Bhagwan Singh was the complainant as well as eye-witness of the occurrence and he fully supported the prosecution case on all the material particulars. His version has also been detailed above. PW8-Ram Singh was also an eye-witness of the occurrence and fully supported the prosecution case by giving all the details of the prosecution version in his statement. His statement was similar to that of PW7-Bhagwan Singh on material particulars. PW9-ASI Subhash Chander was a formal witness and tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PK. PW10 ASI Mahinder Singh deposed that on 29.11.2002 while being posted as an ASI at Police Station Rania he produced a sealed parcel containing a Kulhara before the Medical Officer Dr. C.P. Dadhich for obtaining his opinion as to whether the injury on the person of the deceased Lachhman Singh could be caused with the said Kulhara, Dr. C.P. Dadhich then broke open the parcel and on seeing the Kulhara he gave his opinion Ex.PC/1 and re-sealed the Kulhara in the said parcel and handed over the sealed parcel to him which he deposited with the MHC on return to the Police Station. PW11-Inspector Vinod Kumar, the then ASI conducted the entire initial investigation and gave the details of the various aspects of investigations conducted by him in this case. PW12 Constable Dilbag Singh deposed that on 07.08.1991 while being posted at Police Station Rania he was handed over a special report of this case by ASI Vinod Kumar at 07.30 a.m. for delivering to the Illaqa Magistrate and other senior police officers. He delivered the special report of this case to the Illaqa Magistrate at 9.30 a.m. and that the same was the FIR Ex.PI. PW13-Ashok Kumar was a Photographer and deposed that on 07.08.1991 he visited the place of occurrence and took the photographs Ex.P2 to Ex.P5 of the dead body and that the negatives of the same were Ex. P6 to Ex.P9 which were developed by him without any re-touching. The report of the FSL Ex.PH was tendered in evidence and the prosecution evidence was closed. 11. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded innocence. It was stated by the accused that it was a blind murder. P6 to Ex.P9 which were developed by him without any re-touching. The report of the FSL Ex.PH was tendered in evidence and the prosecution evidence was closed. 11. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded innocence. It was stated by the accused that it was a blind murder. PWs Ram Singh and Bhagwan Singh were suspecting that he and the deceased both were having illicit relations with Smt. Chhindro wife of PW8-Ram Singh and on that account the aforesaid witnesses either themselves murdered the deceased or got him murdered from someone else and that he was falsely involved in this case. He also stated that he did not make any disclosure statement nor got effected the recovery of any Kulhara. 12. After hearing the Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel it was found that no case of acquittal of the accused under Section 232 Cr.P.C. was made out at that stage and therefore the accused was asked to enter upon his defence. However, no defence evidence was adduced by the accused despite the fact that an opportunity was granted to him. 13. Based on the evidence led, the accused/appellant came to be convicted and sentenced by the Court of Sessions Judge, Sirsa vide judgment and order of sentence dated 06/09.10.2004 as under:- Offence under Section Sentence RI/SI Fine RI/SI in default of payment of fine 302 IPC Imprisonment for life Rs.5000/- RI for 03 Months 14. It is the aforementioned judgment, which is under challenge, in the present appeal. 15. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that there was a significant delay in the registration of the FIR. The occurrence took place at 11.30 PM on 06/07.08.1991. The matter was reported to the police at 04.00 AM on 07.08.1991 and the special report reached the Illaqa Magistrate at 11.30 AM. This delay was fatal to the prosecution case and has been used to falsely implicate the accused. PW7-Bhagwan Singh and PW8-Ram Singh were interested prosecution witnesses. None of them saw the accused assaulting the deceased. There was darkness all-around and therefore, in the absence of proper identification, the false implication of the accused could not be ruled out. The conduct of the prosecution witnesses would go to show that they had not witnessed the occurrence. PW7-Bhagwan Singh and PW8-Ram Singh were interested prosecution witnesses. None of them saw the accused assaulting the deceased. There was darkness all-around and therefore, in the absence of proper identification, the false implication of the accused could not be ruled out. The conduct of the prosecution witnesses would go to show that they had not witnessed the occurrence. PW7-Bhagwan Singh and PW8-Ram Singh were the brothers of the deceased and saw the accused fleeing away from the spot. However, no attempt was made by them to nab the accused. This conduct of the prosecution witnesses castes a doubt on their presence at the spot. She, therefore, contends that the judgment was liable to be set aside and the accused/appellant be acquitted of the charges framed against him. 16. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that the offence stands established beyond reasonable doubt. PW7-Bhagwan Singh and PW8-Ram Singh saw the accused/appellant standing over the deceased and on seeing the witnesses, he fled away from the spot. The delay in the registration of the FIR stands satisfactorily explained. Merely because these witnesses did not chase the accused does not detract from the veracity of their statements as every witness behaves in a different manner. He, therefore, contends that no fault could be found with the well-reasoned judgment of conviction passed by the Sessions Judge, Sirsa and the present appeal was liable to be dismissed. 17. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 18. Each criminal case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. If we examine the prosecution evidence carefully, it would be apparent that there was no delay in lodging the FIR and hardly any chance for fabrication and concoction in this case. The witnesses of the prosecution, who had witnessed the occurrence, namely PW7-Bhagwan Singh and PW8-Ram Singh have a rural background and are illiterate persons. The occurrence had taken place at about 11.30 p.m. at village Kuttabadh which is at a distance of about 15 KMS from the Police Station. It has been stated by PW8-Ram Singh that in the night they could not arrange for a conveyance and secondly that they could not report the matter to the police during the night out of fear. It has been stated by PW8-Ram Singh that in the night they could not arrange for a conveyance and secondly that they could not report the matter to the police during the night out of fear. When the murder had taken place in the night, it was natural for the family members that they developed an inherent fear in their minds from the accused and they could not report the matter to the police in the night itself when the Police Station was at a distance of 15 KMs particularly when there was no proper conveyance. The help of the village Sarpanch namely Sh. Swaran Singh was taken by the witnesses and PW7-Bhagwan Singh accompanied by Sarpanch Swaran Singh then proceeded for the Police Station at about 4.00 a.m. and thus the First Information Report was lodged at the Police Station, Rania at 7 a.m. as is clear from the FIR EX.PI. A special report was also dispatched to the Illaqa Magistrate immediately and the FIR was received by the Illaqa Magistrate at 11.30 AM as is clear from the endorsement of the Illaqa Magistrate on FIR Ex.PI itself. It is nowhere the case of the accused that the police had already arrived at the place of occurrence and therefore there was an opportunity for the prosecution witnesses to concoct a false version in connivance with the police. There is nothing on the record to say if any prejudice has been caused to the accused on account of delay. Thus, the delay, if any stands explained and in any case does not affect the prosecution case. Even otherwise, it must be borne in mind that the occurrence took place in the year 1991 i.e. 33 years ago and the village Kuttabadh were not as developed as they are today. 19. No doubt PW7-Bhagwan Singh and PW8-Ram Singh did not see the accused while inflicting a Kulhara blow on the right side neck of the deceased which proved fatal and the deceased died on the spot. However, both these witnesses have deposed in clear terms that when they reached the roof of the Kotha of the deceased on his cries they saw that the accused was standing there armed with a Kulhara and on seeing them he jumped in the street from the roof alongwith the Kulhara. However, both these witnesses have deposed in clear terms that when they reached the roof of the Kotha of the deceased on his cries they saw that the accused was standing there armed with a Kulhara and on seeing them he jumped in the street from the roof alongwith the Kulhara. It has also come in evidence that there was an electricity bulb in front of the Kotha of PW8-Ram Singh and it was on at that time. Thus there was some light also in the house when the occurrence had taken place. In addition PW8-Ram Singh has stated that it was a moon-lit night. No doubt, the Investigating Officer Inspector Vinod Kumar has stated that it was a dark night but in the circumstances it cannot be said with certainty whether it was moon-lit night or dark night. But since there is positive evidence on the record that a bulb in front of the kotha of PW8-Ram Singh was on at the time of occurrence it can be said there was sufficient light to recognize the accused. It would also not be out of place to mention that the accused is not a stranger but is a close relation of the witnesses being a real brother-in- law (wife's brother) of deceased Lachhman Singh. It has also come in evidence that the accused had frequent visits at the house of the deceased and therefore PW7-Bhagwan Singh and PW8-Ram Singh also had ample opportunity to see and interact with the accused because the deceased and both the witnesses used to reside in the same house in separate portions. Thus, there could hardly be any dispute about the identity of the accused in this case. No doubt the witnesses did not actually see the accused causing Kulhara blow on the neck of the deceased but when the accused was standing on the roof with Kulhara and on seeing the witnesses he jumped in the street and ran away and the deceased was lying on a cot with a deep wound on his neck and died immediately, all these facts give an irresistible conclusion that it was the accused and none else who caused the murder of the deceased. In this regard, Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 may be examined and the same is reproduced below:- “6. In this regard, Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 may be examined and the same is reproduced below:- “6. Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction - Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places. Illustrations (a) A is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by A or B or the by-standers at the beating, or so shortly before or after it as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact.” 20. Thus apparently, the statement of these witnesses would fall within the domain of ‘Res Gestae’ evidence. From a close and careful consideration of statements of PW7-Bhagwan Singh and PW8-Ram Singh, who are no doubt real brothers of the deceased, We do not find any infirmity in their deposition. They were cross-examined by the defence counsel at length but they emerged unshaken despite the fact that they appeared in the witness box on 16.09.2003 after a period of more than 12 years of the occurrence. Minor variations in their deposition from their statements made before the police after such a long duration cannot affect their reliability and truthfulness. It is rather creditable for these witnesses that they could remember the occurrence and could depose in a systematic way in the court after such a long duration. The deposition of the aforesaid two eye-witnesses have been fully corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. C.P. Dadhich (PW-1). Similarly the evidence of the Investigating Officer and other relevant witnesses, discussed above, support the prosecution case fully and on all material particulars. The report of FSL also supports the prosecution case as human blood was detected on all the exhibits lifted from the spot immediately after the occurrence. 21. Further, merely because the PW7-Bhagwan Singh and PW8- Ram Singh did not chase the accused or attempt to catch him does not affect the prosecution case. The conduct of every witness is different. When these PWs saw the accused running away from the spot after assaulting the deceased who was none other than their real brother, it was but natural for them to be stunned into temporary inaction. 22. The conduct of every witness is different. When these PWs saw the accused running away from the spot after assaulting the deceased who was none other than their real brother, it was but natural for them to be stunned into temporary inaction. 22. Another important fact in the instant case is that the occurrence had taken place on the intervening night of 06/07.08.1991 and the accused had run away from the spot immediately after causing the murder. The police failed to apprehend the accused and ultimately he was declared a Proclaimed Officer and a charge-sheet was submitted in the Court of the Illaqa Magistrate without arresting the accused on 06.03.1992 for recording the proceedings under Section 299 Cr.P.C. against the accused. The Illaqa Magistrate after recording the prosecution evidence under Section 299 Cr.P.C. consigned the case to the record room. However, the accused was later on arrested by Inspector Jaipal Singh of CIA Staff, Sirsa on 25.10.2002 after a period of more than 11 years. This long absconding of the accused after committing the offence also goes to show his conduct and points towards his guilty. 23. In view of the aforementioned discussion, We find no merit in the present appeal. Therefore, the same stands dismissed.