Balbir Kaur vs State of Haryana

S.S. Dewan, J.

Balbir Kaur and Pinder Singh appellants were brought to trial before the Court of Session a Jind. By the impugned judgment dated May 17, 1986, they have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code and each of them has been sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/ or in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. They have challenged their conviction and sentence by filing two separate Criminal Appeals (Nos. 365 DB and 606DB of 1986) through jail.

The victim of the crime was Dalip Singh deceased, resident of village Rohar. Balbir Kaur is the widow of Dalip Singh. Dalip Singh was a religious man and he used to perform `Path'' of Shri Guru Granth Sahib. He was also incharge of the village Gurdwara. Pinder Singh alias Bagga aged 17/18 years, resident of Dera Nihang Bahadrakba Urlana Kalan started learning recitation of Shri Guru Granth Sahib from Dalip Singh He developed illicit intimacy with Smt. Balbir Kaur aged 36 years, wife of Dalip Singh Dalip Singh saw them in a compromising position and he held told Gurdeep Singh, his sister''s husband that he had seen his wife Balbir Kaur and Pinder Singh together on one cot and that when he rebuked them, they threatened to kill him. It is alleged that the accused wanted to remove obstacle from their way by doing away with Dalip Singh.

The prosecution case is that on 10. 11. 1985, Dalip Singh deceased was sleeping on a cot while Balbir Kaur and her children allegedly slept on the other cot. At about11 P.M. Balbir Kaur went to the village Gurdwara and approached her son Shamsher Singh and told him that his father was being killed by some persons and they were also planning to kill him. Then Shamsher Singh accompanied by Balbir Kaur and one Kashmir Singh went to the residential house and found Dalip Singh lying murdered with a sharpedged weapon. On hearing the alarm raised by Shamsher Singh, several persons were collected at the house of the deceased. Pinder Singh accused was searched in the village but he was not available. Shamsher Singh informed his relatives who were then living at Panipat and Malikpur. Leaving Assa and Jagir Singh near the dead body, Shamsher Singh accompanied by Piara Singh and Jagtar Singh Sarpanch went to Police Station, Safidon and lodged the F.I.R. Ex. PD with Sub Inspector Nand Kishore at 8.15 A.M. on 11.11.1985.

Sub Inspector Nand Kishore went to the place of occurrence, held inquest and sent the dead body of Dalip Singh to mortuary for autopsy. The accused were searched but they were not traceable. It is alleged that on 18.11 1985 Balbir Kaur accused accompanied by one Piara Singh went to the Dera of Santokh Singh Sarpanch and she confessed before the latter that she along with Pinder Singh accused had murdered Dalip Singh on the fateful night. Santokh Singh produced Balbir Kaur before Sub Inspector and Kishore who formally arrested her. Pinder Singh was arrested on 21.11.1985 and on interrogation by the Investigating Officer, he suffered disclosure statement leading to the recovery of bloodstained kirpan Ex. P. I from the specified place of concealment.

Dr. Subhash Sharma PW I conducted autopsy on the dead body of Dalip Singh on 11.11.1985 at 3 P.M. and found the following :

"Face below the level of anterior head line was having multiple deep cut wounds.Cuts were so many that face was beyond recognition.Eyes, nose, mouth, could not be made out definitely. Four loose teeth were present in wounded areas. Wounds started 11/2" below anterior hair line and was 6" in width across forehead, was 3" deep cutting orbital bones also. Lower limit of the area was just below the chin, i.e. (11/2 inches) below the chin.

Deep cut across the left side of chest placed obliquely starting in the midline going up to the anterior axillary fold 10" x 3" in size. Left clavicle was cut at medial end. Second and 3rd rib were also cut at cesto chondral juncion.

Cut wound 3" x 2" on the dorsal aspect of right hand 3rd and 4th metacorpal bones were cut in the middle.

Deep cut wound on dorsal lateral aspect of left hand 41/2" x I in dimensions, 2nd, 3rd and 4th material bones were cut, Middle finger was cut at the base.

Death was opined to be due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of Injury No. 1 which was individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was stated to be instantaneous and between death and Postmortem within 6 to 36 hours. After necessary investigation, the accused were challaned and committed.

The ocular account consists of Jaswinder Kaur PW 8, daughter of, the deceased. Shamsher Singh PW 2 who is the son of the deceased was the first informant. Santokh Singh PW 3 deposed that Balbir Kaur had confessed before him that she and her coaccused Pinder Singh had murdered Dalip Singh deceased. Mehar Singh PW 4 deposed to have seen Pinder Singh accused coming out of the house of the deceased while carrying the bloodstained kirpan in his hand. Mohinder Singh PW 5 deposed that he had seen the said accused going inside the house of the deceased with a kirpan in his hand. Gurdeep Singh PW 7 deposed that on 9.11.1985 Dalip Singh deceased told him that Pinder Singh accused had illicit relations with his wife Balbir Kaur and that when he (Dalip Singh) rebuked them, they threatened to kill him. Sub Inspector Nand Kishore PW 9 investigated the case. When examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. both the accused denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication in the case but led no evidence in defence.

In this judgment of affirmance, it appears to us as more than wasteful to traverse the same ground again to arrive at findings which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has recorded so lucidly and which we are wholly inclined to uphold and confirm. The attack of Mr J.S. Dhillon against the convictionof the appellant on merits appears to be both half hearted and tenuous. No serious challenge was laid either to the time or to the place of occurrence. The main plank of the argument on behalf of the appellants is that the crime was committed unseen and that in any case Jaswinder Kaur PW did not witness the same. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record with their help, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeals filed by the appellants.

There is hardly anything in dispute that the occurrence took place in the house of Dalip Singh deceased. Jaswinder Kaur PW 8. being thedaughter of the deceased was a natural witness to the occurrence. This witness has given a very cogent and consistent account of the occurrence. The testimony of Jaswinder Kaur finds further corroboration from the statemerits of Mehar Singh PW 4 and Mohinder Singh PW 5. Mohinder Singh deposed that he had seen Pinder Singh appellant entering the house of the deceased with a kirpan in his hand at about 10 P.M. on the fateful night and Mehar Singh deposed that he had seen the said appellant coming out of the house of the deceased at about 11 P.M. with a bloodstained kirpan. The significant thing, however, is that not a hint of any animus or interestedness against the appellants could even be suggested to these witness. The medical evidence in the present case is also entirely consistent with the ocular account given by Jaswinder Kaur. The injuries found on the body of the deceased are entirely corroborative of an attack with a kirpan EA. P. I and the seats of the injuries are also in line with that deposed to by the said eyewitness.

Unable to offer any meaningful criticism against the testimony of Jasvinder Kaur PW, the solitary argument raised against her was that she being a child of 9 years, no reliance should be placed on her testimony. This witness gave full account of the occurrence. She was subjected to a lengthy and rambling crossexamination in chief and she stood the rigour of crossexamination well. The learned defence counsel however, urged that the very tact that she was able to give such through answeres showed that she had been well prepared to give evidence in the case. We do not agree with this submission of the learned counsel most of the particulars and details which she gave in her evidence were elicited from her in crossexamination. Having put her through a gruelling crossexamination and having failed to elicit anything to favour the appellants, we do not think that the appellants can now turn round and say that she must have been well prepared for the crossexamination also. Her evidence reveals a remarkable capacity for observation a keen eye for minute detail and a photographic memory. The trial Court was right in holding that she had given evidence in a very natural and convincing manner and that her evidence was straight forward and not tutored.

One can now appraise the extrajudicial confession brought on the record against Balbir Kaur appellant in the testimony of PW 3 Santokh Singh. After all Balbir Kaur could see the noose tightening around her neck with the matter having been reported to police by her son Shamsher Singh and the investigation already afoot, In this context, her going to Santokh Singh Sarpanch and confessing about the crime appears to be wholly natural. It has to be borne in mind that apart from other evidence, the motive of this appellant was to avoid any rigorous interrogation or use of third degree methods against her and Santokh Singh PW apparently had some rapport with the police authorities. The version given by Santokh Singh regarding his extrajudicial confession made to him and the subsequent productoin of Balbir Kaur appellant before the police on that day, appears to be worthy of acceptance. No animus could even be suggested to this witness. There is no reason, therefore, to doubt the forthright testimony of Santokh Singh PW regarding the confession made to him by Balbir Kaur appellant. There are other reassuring circumstances regarding the guilt of the appellants, They had apparently absconded and were unavailable to the police for about ten days after the incident. Soon after the apprehension of Pinder Singh appellant, he led to the recovery of bloodstained weapon of offence which is again a corroborative factor in the case.

For the aforesaid reason the conviction of the appellants for the mruder must necessarily be upheld. The sentence imposed upon them is the minimum provided by law. The appeals are patently without merit.