Achhay Lal vs State of Punjab

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.—Achhay Lal was tried for having committed offences punishable u/s 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur vide his judgment dated December 21, 1993 convicted the appellant on both the counts and sentenced him as under:

Under Section 302 To undergo life imprisonment of the Indian Penal and to pay a fine of Code Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.

Under Section 201 To undergo imprisonment of the Indian Penal for three years and to pay a Code fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous. imprisonment for three months.

Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment have been ordered to run concurrently.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that Bahadur Sharma deceased along with four or five other labourers from Bihar used to work as labourers in village Dhadogal and they used to reside at the room (Kotha) of the tubewell of Avtar Singh PW-5, situated in the fields of village Dhadogal. The appellant also used to reside with them. The appellant used to provide labour to the villagers and collect money. In the end of January, 1990 or in the beginning of February,. 1990, Bahadur Sharma died of the injuries received by him on his head. According to Avtar Singh, P. W., on the day of occurrence, while other labourers had gone to work in the village, both the appellant and the deceased remained at the Kotha of the tubewell. Bahadur Sharma deceased was not traceable. Avtar Singh P. W. asked the appellant about Bahadur Sharma deceased. The appellant replied that Bahadur Sharma deceased had gone back to Bihar.

According to Avtar Singh, Bahadur Sharma deceased used to quarrel with the appellant over the payment of Rs. 800/- or Rs. 900/-.

About a month prior to 29- 3 -1990, when the First Information Report was recorded, Jug Lal alias Jug Raj Sharma P. W. who is brother of the deceased went to village Dhadogal to meet Bahadur Sharma deceased. He did not find the deceased there. The appellant, on enquiry, told Jug Lal that Bahadur Sharma deceased had gone back to his native village in Bihar. Jug Raj went back to his village Ambgasi in Bihar State but he did not find Bahadur Sharma there also. Jug Lal came back to village Dhadogal and enquired from the appellant about Bahadur Sharma deceased but the appellant did not give any clue. Jug Lal stated that the deceased, during his life time, used to tell him that he (deceased) was to recover Rs. 3,0007 from the appellant. Jug Raj became suspicious and made his statement to AS I Amar Singh on the basis of which formal First Information Report Exhibit PK/2 was recorded. Sikandar Singh, Member Panchayat produced the appellant before the A. S. I. The appellant made statement to the A. S. I. in the presence of Sarabjit Singh and Sikandar Singh that he could get the dead body of Bahadur Shanna recovered from the well belonging to Dasauda Singh PW. The dead body was accordingly got recovered and postmortem examination on the same was conducted. The investigation in the case was conducted and the appellant was challaned, as noticed above.

All the incriminating circumstances were put to the appellant in his statement recorded u/s 313, Cr. P. C. He pleaded innocence. He took up the plea that he had been falsely involved merely on suspicion.

We have heard Mr. Ishwar Lal Advocate and Mr. Randhir Singh, Deputy A. G. Punjab and have perused the entire paper book.

This case hinges upon circumstantial evidence. In case where only circumstantial evidence is available, at the outset one normally starts looking for motive. Avtar, P. W. 5, has stated that the deceased used to quarrel with the appellant over the payment of Rs. 800/- or Rs. 900/-. Jug Lal, P. W. 2, also stated that Bahadur Sharma had told him that the appellant was to pay him Rs. 3,000/- and that he would return to his village after that amount was paid to him. These are bald assertions of the prosecution witnesses. There is no corroboration to their statements. If the appellant was not paying any sum to the deceased, the latter could have reported the matter to the village panchayat or to the police but the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the deceased ever made such a complaint. There is also no evidence on the record that the deceased ever asked any of these witnesses to get his money returned to him. We are of the considered view that this part of the story has been cooked up to give strength to the prosecution case. Prosecution, in this case, has not been able to prove that the appellant had any motive to commit murder of Bahadur Sharma deceased.

The other circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellant. On this aspect, there is only solitary statement of Avtar Singh P. W. 3 who has stated that on the day of occurrence, while other labourers had gone to work in the village, both Achhay Lal appellant and Bahadur Sharma deceased remained at the Kotha of his motor. Acchay Lal appellant met him on that day but Bahadur Sharma deceased did not meet him. On his enquiry, Achhay La told him that Bahadur Sharma had gone back to Bihar. In his statement recorded by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Malerkotla on 31-3-1990, he stated as under : --

I went there to attend the marriage of my relative on the day he killed Bahadur Sharma as stated by Achhay Lal. I found that Bahadur Sharma was missing from the motor for the last two months. About 4 or 5 days before this, Yog Raj, brother of deceased Bahadur Sharma told me that his brother Bahadur Sharma was killed and he is trying to locate the dead body of his brother. You try your best to find out the dead body of your brother. If my help is needed. I am also ready to give you help. I said to him if necessary, the information be given to the Police Station.

Both the statements, one recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Malerkotla and the other recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge run counter with each other. Both are contradictory. Avtar Singh has made improvements in his statement recorded in the Court. Had the version given by Avtar Singh been true, he would have made a mention about it in his statement recorded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Malerkotla. We are of the considered view that he has deliberately changed his statement in the Court in connivance with the complainant party and A. S. I. Amar Singh P.W. 8 in order to give strength to the prosecution case. Moreover, in his statement recorded in the Court, he has merely stated that while other labourers had gone to work in the village, both Achhary Lal appellant and Bahadur Sharma remained at the Kotha of the room of his motor. He did not state in clear terms that he had seen both of them together. He has only assumed so. Apart from that, he did not report the matter to the police for such long time when Bahadur Sharma was missing. Had there been any truth in his statement, he would have immediately reported the matter to the village panchayat or to the police. When Bahadur Sharma was not traceable but he did not do so which raises a suspicion about the truthfulness of his statement. We are of the considered view that this part of the prosecution story has been cooked up in order to falsely implicate the appellant in this case.

The next circumstance is regarding the recovery of dead body from the deserted well at the instance of the appellant. On this aspect, the statement of Mr. K.B.S. Sidhu, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur who, at the relevant time, was the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Malerkotla is very relevant. He has stated as under: --

I visited the spot on 31 -3-1990. Two Medical Officers Doctor R. N. Sharma and Doctor K. M. Sharma were present in the area of village Dhadogal near a well situated along the fields of Dasaunda Singh. Some villagers from that area were also present including Avtar Singh, Dasaunda Singh. Accused Achhay Lal, and Yog Raj, who was brother of the deceased were present there. A.S.I. Amar Singh along with police officials was also present there. It was an abandoned well and small part of piece of cloth was visible from inside the well. This well was pointed out by A. S. I. Amar Singh and Yog Raj. I then asked A.S.I. Amar Singh to get the dead body taken out from the well. Accordingly, some police men with the help of villagers, after making arrangements, by way of a platform and ropes etc. brought out the dead body from the well.

Mr. Sidhu, who is a respectable witness, no where stated that it was the appellant who had pointed out the well or it was the appellant who, with the help of others, had taken out the dead body from the deserted well. This witness has further admitted that when he arrived at the spot, he did not know if Achhay Lal was accused. It was A.S.I. Amar Singh who had told him that Achhay Lai was the accused in the case. On the other hand, S. I. Amar Singh (then A. S. I.) made a contradictory statement by stating that the Sub Divisional Magistrate asked Achhay Lal appellant to get the dead body out from the well. Achhay Lal then went inside the well and brought the dead body by putting the same in the basket. It is discernible from the facts of this case that the Investigating Officer knew that the dead body was lying in the well which was situated in the open accessible to all and sundry. Later on, to falsely implicate the appellant, he has fabricated the entire evidence regarding the alleged confessional statement of the appellant recorded u/s 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and consequent recovery of dead body from the deserted well. He has not done fair investigation in the case and rather has made every endeavour to falsely implicate the appellant. We are of the considered view that the prosecution has not been able to prove even this circumstance against the appellant.

We are aware of the well settled principle of law that in a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances put forward must be satisfactorily proved and those circumstances should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again these circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis, but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused.

None of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution has been proved in this case and it is highly unsafe to act upon them.

Resultantly, we hold that the evidence which has been adduced in this case is far from satisfactory and it suffers from a number of infirmities. The appeal is accepted and the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur convicting the apellant is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him.