Balwinder Kaur and Others vs State of Punjab

Lisa Gill, J.

Appellants Balwinder Kaur, Jaswinder Kaur and Baldev Singh have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC by the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life vide impugned judgment and order dated 09.04.2003.

Appellants aggrieved of the abovesaid judgment have preferred the instant appeal. In the interregnum appellant No. 3 - Baldev Singh son of Avtar Singh has passed away on 10.08.2014. Affidavit of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Sunam verifying the abovesaid fact has been filed. As none has sought to pursue the appeal on his behalf, the instant appeal abates qua Baldev Singh and survives qua Balwinder Kaur and Jaswinder Kaur only.

Brief facts of the case are that, FIR No. 67 dated 15.11.2001 (Ex. PJ/2) was registered on the basis of a statement (Ex. PJ) by Joginder Singh. Joginder Singh complainant is the father of deceased Gurcharan Singh. As per Joginder Singh''s version, he has four sons one of them being Gurcharan Singh who was married with accused Jaswinder Kaur daughter of late Avtar Singh about 11 years prior to the incident. There is a son aged about 7/8 years out of this wedlock. Gurcharan Singh deceased was living separately from Joginder Singh and was engaged as an agriculturist. On 14.11.2001, his son Gurcharan Singh went to village Dhadrian from Sunam in the morning to his in-laws'' house. A phone call was received on 15.11.2001 at about 7.00 a.m. in the house of complainant''s neighbour Paramjit Singh and one Manjit Singh from village Dhadrian informed that his son Gurcharan Singh had died last night and they should come to village Dhadrian alongwith other persons. On this information, he alongwith his other family members went to village Dhadrian and saw his son Gurcharan Singh lying in a room on a cot. He suspected his death to be due to consumption of some poisonous substance. He raised a suspicion that his son was killed by his daughter-in-law Jaswinder Kaur, her mother Balwinder Kaur wife of Avtar Singh and Baldev Singh son of Avtar Singh i.e., brother of his daughter-in-law. Motive behind killing his son is that his daughter-in-law''s mother and brother had remarried Jaswinder Kaur with one Dara Singh son of Kartar Singh and it was only on their raising alarm that she was brought back by them. It is due to this reason that they have killed his son by giving him some poisonous substance.

On receipt of this information, SI Satpal PW10 alongwith other police officials reached the spot. On inspection, the police took in possession the mashed wheat flour, three baked Chapatis and a bowl stained with vegetable i.e., Ex. P5, Ex. P6 and Ex. P7 One jug, a steel tumbler and a glass bottle containing a little quantity of liquor (Ex. P8) were also taken in possession. Rough site plan, Ex. PQ of the place of occurrence was prepared.

Inquest report (Ex. PC) was prepared and body sent for postmortem to Civil Hospital, Sangrur. Post-mortem was conducted by Dr. Karam Singh PW1 on 15.11.2001 at 03.30 p.m. According to the post-mortem report (Ex. PA), no mark of injury was detected on the body of the deceased. Viscera was sent for chemical examination.

As per the Chemical Examiner''s report (Ex. PD) a group of insecticides i.e., organo phosphorus compound was detected in the viscera i.e., in the liver, spleen, kidney, Kidney, lung, heart, blood taken from the heart, small and large intestines. On the basis of said report Ex. PD, Dr. Karam Singh PW1 opined in his report (Ex. PE) that cause of death in this case was poisoning due to insecticide i.e., organo phosphorus compound. As per report (Ex. PR) by the Deputy Director (Toxicology), Forensic Science Laboratory Punjab, Chandigarh ethyl alcohol was found in the bottle (Ex. P8). No poison was detected in the recovered mashed wheat flour, chapatis etc.

As per the prosecution version, all the three accused approached Malook Singh PW9 on 10.03.2002. PW9 Malook Singh revealed that Anokh Singh was present with Malook Singh at his residence at that time. Balwinder Kaur asked Malook Singh to come aside alone and listen to her. She confessed to having murdered Gurcharan Singh alongwith other accused as Jaswinder Kaur and Gurcharan Singh had strained relations and Gurcharan Singh was objecting to remarriage of Jaswinder Kaur. She revealed that on 14.11.2001 when Gurcharan Singh came to their house, he was dead drunk. She herself, her daughter Jaswinder Kaur and son Baldev Singh hatched a conspiracy and administered pesticide to Gurcharan Singh in liquor. He died during the night. Thereafter, Jaswinder Kaur came into the room and revealed the same set of facts while alone with Malook Singh. Lastly, Baldev Singh also revealed the facts as stated above to Malook Singh in the absence of anyone else subsequent to Jaswinder Kaur''s confession. Malook Singh allegedly took all the accused towards the police station but a police party headed by SI Satpal met them at the Bus Stand of village Dhadrian where all the accused were formally arrested on 10.03.2002.

On completion of investigation challan/report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. Charge was framed against the accused for having committed the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC on 03.06.2002 to which all the accused pleaded innocence and claimed trial.

Prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses to prove its case.

All the evidence and incriminating material when put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was denied by them. They claimed innocence and false implication. It is the specific case of the accused that Jaswinder Kaur never remarried anyone. On 14.11.2001 in the evening, Gurcharan Singh was found lying in the street in front of their house after having consumed excessive liquor. He being their son-in-law/husband was shifted inside the house. He was creating a commotion as he wanted to take Jaswinder Kaur with him. It is denied that any poison was administered by them to Gurcharan Singh. Two witnesses, namely Avtar Singh DW1 and Mehanga Singh DW2 were examined by the defence. DW1 Avtar Singh a retired Subedar from the Indian Army is a neighbour of the accused. He used to serve the Indian Army alongwith the late father of accused Jaswinder Kaur. He stated that deceased Gurcharan Singh was habitual of consuming intoxicants to such an extent that he could not even look after his own affairs. He could not provide any maintenance to his wife and child who were residing at their parental home for the last about seven years. Gurcharan Singh''s parents had also turned him out of their house. On 14.11.2001 Gurcharan Singh had met him at the Bus Stand of village Dhadrian at about 8.00 p.m. He was under influence of intoxicants and was saying that in case Jaswinder Kaur did not accompany him, he would die. He was creating a commotion in the street in front of the house of the accused.

Learned trial court on appreciation of the evidence, facts and circumstances of the case concluded that the accused were guilty of the offence as charged. Consequently, accused were convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. Hence the present appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contends that the prosecution has miserably failed to complete the link in the chain of events which points only and solely to the guilt of the accused. Circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution does not link the accused with the commission of the offence as alleged in any manner. It is contended that the alleged extra-judicial confession before Malook Singh PW9 or the statement of PW6 Jasbir Singh are not sufficient to link the accused with the alleged offence. There was no occasion for the accused to have made an extra-judicial confession before Malook Singh who admittedly belongs to another village. He was neither a Panch, Sarpanch or Lambardar of his village. He is not related to the accused. There was no occasion for the accused to approach Malook Singh. It is further argued that a perusal of his statement specifically the manner in which he states that all the accused came to him and thereafter confessed to the crime separately one after the other displays that he is a witness who has been falsely introduced. Jasbir Singh''s statement that he had come to village Dhadrian for purchasing cattle on 14.11.2001 and overheard the accused consulting each other for killing Gurcharan Singh is not credible at all. In his statement (Ex. DA) he states that he was in village Dhadrian for some domestic affairs whereas, in his testimony before the court he states that he had come for purchasing cattle. There is no evidence to show that there was a cattle fair in the village on the said date. Furthermore, it is admitted by this witness that he did not know any of the accused on the day of the occurrence. No identification parade was conducted. He admits that he did not know anybody in village Dhadrian. Jasbir Singh has admitted that he came to village on the next day alongwith Joginder Singh thereby showing his proximity to him. In this situation, credibility of this witness is completely shattered.

Learned counsel for the appellants further argues that as per the Chemical Examiner''s report an insecticide i.e., an organo phosphorus compound has been detected in the viscera of the deceased. It is a settled position that it is impossible to administer an organo phosphorus compound by masking it in any edible foodstuff or liquid. Furthermore no such poisonous substance was recovered from the residence of the accused or on their pointing out. Still further, no poison was detected in the recovered mashed wheat flour, Chapatis and the container having the vegetable stains. Prosecution therefore, it is urged, has miserably failed to connect the appellants with the commission of the offence.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State while supporting the impugned judgment submits that there is overwhelming and sufficient evidence on record to uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellants. She submits that dead-body of Gurcharan Singh has been found in the house of the accused persons. They have failed to furnish any plausible explanation in this respect. Prosecution has produced sufficient evidence to show that Gurcharan Singh was indeed done to death by the accused persons as he was having strained relations with his wife Jaswinder Kaur. Therefore, conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused deserves to be upheld.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record with their able assistance.

Dr. Karam Singh PW1, Medical Officer Civil Hospital, Sangrur has specifically opined vide Ex. PE that cause of death of Gurcharan Singh was poisoning due to organo phosphorus compound, a group of insecticides. As per the post-mortem report (Ex. PA) no mark of any kind of external or internal injury nor any sign of violence was detected on the body of deceased. Dr. Karam Singh has categorically stated that no external or internal injury mark nor any sign of violence was noticed. Blood stained froth was found present in the nostrils and the mouth. Dried blood-stained saliva was found present around the left angle of mouth. As per Modi''s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology it is almost impossible to mask the odour of an organo phosphorus compound. Such compounds have an extremely pungent and distinct odour which cannot be masked in edible substances.

It is a matter of record that no poison was detected in the Chapatis/mashed wheat flour or the vegetable stained bowl recovered from the spot. A bottle containing ethyl alcohol was recovered which also did not contain any organo phosphorus compound. No poisonous substance was recovered from the house of the accused or anywhere else on their pointing out. In this situation a doubt is indeed cast on the prosecution version because it is impossible to administer an organo phosphorus compound in any edible substance by masking its presence. In the present case, there is no mark of injury on the person of the deceased which may point to forcible administration of this poison by the accused persons.

Indeed reliance on the alleged extra-judicial confession by all the accused, one after the other, before Malook Singh PW9 is not justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. PW9 Malook Singh has stated that all the accused came to his house at his village Hariaue. One Anokh Singh was present in his house at that time. Accused Balwinder Kaur at the first instance asked Malook Singh to come out and to listen her all alone. She then disclosed the commission of the offence. Thereafter Jaswinder Kaur and thereafter Baldev Singh come one after the other and revealed the same story to him all alone. Thereafter, he took them to Bus Stand of village Dhadrian to produce them before the police when the police met them on the way. The version put forth appears to be improbable. It is admitted by him that he is neither the Lambardar, Sarpanch or Panch of his village. He has no relations at village Dhadrian which is 25 kilometers away from his village. He is a worker owing allegiance to the Akali Dal party. He admits that he has no function which requires him to visit any police station. It is unnatural and improbable in the peculiar conspectus of facts that accused would go to him for revealing the offence allegedly committed by them. It is not the case that this witness is close to any of the accused or that he had any particular influence either in village Dhadrian i.e., the village of the accused or any influence with the police officials which may have driven the accused to confess before him. Simply because he had been on duty on behalf of his party during elections cannot be reason enough moreso, in the face of lack of any proximity with the accused. He admits that he had never produced any accused before the police on any earlier occasion. Anokh Singh allegedly present at Malook Singh''s house when the accused came to confess has been given up by the prosecution. It would thus not be safe to rely on Malook Singh''s testimony to convict the accused.

Another circumstance pressed into service to connect the accused with the crime is the testimony of PW6 Jasbir Singh. Jasbir Singh in his testimony states that he had gone to village Dhadrian to purchase buffaloes on the day of Diwali. He admits that he has no relations in village Dhadrian. He has stated that on 14.11.2001 he remained in village Dhadrian for 1-1/2 hours only. He had come there on a scooter. When he was passing through the street, he over-heard all the three accused talking to each other. Balwinder Kaur was saying that Gurcharan Singh was harassing Jaswinder Kaur and that he should not be spared. When he reached near them they all stopped talking. On the next day i.e., 15.11.2001 he again came to village Dhadrian and on seeing the people gathered together, he came to know that Gurcharan Singh had been killed. There is nothing on record to prove that said Jasbir Singh was indeed in village Dhadrian on 14.11.2001. Credibility of this witness is suspect. In his statement (Ex. DA) he has stated that he had come to village Dhadrian for some domestic work. He states that he had stayed in village Dhadrian on that night and on coming to know that Gurcharan Singh had died, he reached the house of the accused persons. Whereas, in his testimony before the court he states that he came again to village Dhadrian on the next day and came to know about Gurcharan Singh''s death on seeing the gathering. Inconsistencies and discrepancies in his statement are material, rendering his testimony untrustworthy and unreliable. Credibility of this witness i.e., PW6 Jasbir Singh is also suspect.

Father of deceased Joginder Singh (PW5) in his version states that his son was killed by the accused persons by administering some poisonous substance for the reason that appellant Jaswinder Kaur and his son had strained relations. It is alleged that Jaswinder Kaur was remarried with Dara Singh but they had protested and brought her back. Joginder Singh however admits that Gurcharan Singh was separate in mess. One acre of land had been given by him to Balwinder Singh and another to his deceased son Gurcharan Singh. He admits that there is no land in the name of Gurcharan Singh in the revenue record. He candidly admits that he never convened any Panchayat neither raised any protest on the alleged remarriage of Jaswinder Kaur. There is not a shred of evidence on record to indicate the alleged remarriage of Jaswinder Kaur. Deceased was married to Jaswinder Kaur about eleven years prior to the incident and a son aged 7/8 years was also borne out of this wedlock. In the absence of any positive evidence of the alleged remarriage, no reliance can be placed on the bald statement of Joginder Singh.

It is pertinent to note that Manjit Singh, the person from whom information was received regarding Gurcharan Singh''s death has not been examined by the prosecution. Joginder Singh, in fact, says that he never made any effort or even enquire as to who Manjit Singh was. He could not even reveal the date, month or year of the birth of his grandson or of the marriage of his deceased son. A close scrutiny of his testimony does not inspire confidence raising a specific doubt thereon.

Evidence on record is indeed lacking in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Chain of events is not complete so as to exclude any other hypothesis except the guilt of the appellants. Prosecution has not been able to prove that the appellants in conspiracy with each other administered any insecticide, an organo phosphorus compound to deceased Gurcharan Singh which led to his death. There is no corroboration of the version set forth by the prosecution which is not free from suspicion. In this situation, the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt and it would be unjustified and inexpedient to uphold the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants vide impugned judgment and order dated 09.04.2003 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur.

Consequently, this appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 09.04.2003 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur is set aside. Appellants are acquitted of the charges against them.