Bidda alias Paramjit and anr. vs State of Punjab

S.S. Dewan, J.

Bidda alias Paramjit and Prabh Dayal appellants alongwith three other accused namely, Amarjit Singh, Gobind Ram and Ram Dial were brought to trial before the Court of Session at Patiala. On the charge of murder. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, acquitted the aforesaid three accused of the charge of murder. Bidda and Prabh Dayal appellants stand convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/ or in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months each. They appeal.

Harbhagwan was working as a servant with Shankar Dass PW, who is the father of Jeet Ram deceased. Shankar Dass''s brother Roshan Lal got Jeet Ram engaged to Bhagwanti grand daughter of Lal Chand. Bhagwanti developed illicit intimacy with Prabh Dayal accused. Jeet Ram somehow came to know of illicit intimacy with Prabh Dayal accused. Jeet Ram told Shankar Dass about the illicit intimacy of Bhagwanti and also told him that he would not marry Bhagwanti. Shankar Dass complained to Bhagwanti''s maternal uncle Jai Ram. The betrothal subsisted for some time and then it was broken. Thereafter, Bhagwanti was married to Prabh Dayal accused.

The prosecution case is that on 2151986 at about 3.00 p.m., Harbhagwan PW and Jeet Ram deceased went to see Karam Chand grandfather of Jeet Ram at Shutrana. At about 6.00 P.M. Jeet Ram and Harbhagwan were returning after seeing Karam Chand and when they came in front of the shop of Prabh Dayal accused, the latter on seeing feet Ram cut some filthy jokes with Jeet Ram, which led to exchange of abuses between them. Sabhna Ram, a member panchayat came there, intervened and separated them. Thereafter, Jeet Ram and Harbhagwan went to the house of feet Ram''s uncle Roshan Lal. After seeing, Roshan Lal, Jeet Ram and Harbhagwan set out for going to the dera of Jeet Ram/Shankar Dass at about 8.00 P.M. At about 9.30 P.M. when Harbhagwan, and feet Ram reached the dera of Prabh Dayal accused, Gobind Ram and Ram Dial accused raised raula. Catch hold Jeet Ram, he has come. Ram Dial and Gobind Ram were sitting near the passage towards the side of dera of Prabh Dayal. At that time, Bidda, Amarjit Singh, and Prabh Dial were sitting in the wheat crop of Teja Singh. Harbhagwan jumped down from the carrier of the cycle and Jeet Ram threw away that cycle and started running towards his dera. All the aforesaid accused variously armed started chasing Jeet Ram. Harbhagwan who was following the accused, implored them not to kill him. On hearing the alarm raised by Jeet Ram deceased, Shankar Dass, Narain Dass and Avtar Singh were attracted to the spot. Bidda accused opened the attack by giving a Kasaula blow on the head of feet Ram followed by Amarjit Singh accused who gave a dang blow on his left leg. When Jeet Ram fell down, Gobind Ram and Ram Dial accused gave some kick blows on his chest. When Jeet Ram tried to get up, Prabh Dayal gave a gandasa blow from its reverse side on his head.Thereafter all the accused ran away from the spot with their respective weapons towards the fields. After some time, the residents of village Shutrana came to know about this occurrence. Roshan Lal, Ram Krishan and Harbans Lal advised Shankar Dass PW to take Jeet Ram injured to the Police Post, Shutrana.

It is alleged that the Investigating Officer sent up Bidda, Prabh Dayal and Amarjit Singh accused for security proceedings under Sections 107/151, Criminal Procedure Code but they were released on bail The Investigating Officer also wanted Shankar Dass etc to be sent up for security proceedings and he had been visiting the dera of Shankar Dass in his absence. Shankar Dass learnt about the inaction or the police in the matter and he sent registered letters and telegrams to various high officers; Shankar Dass then moved an application in the Court about the inaction of the police in the matter.

The prosecution story goes that during the investigation Baldev Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector prepared the injury statement EX. PC of Jeet Ram deceased and sent it alongwith Jeet Ram to the Primary Health Centre, Shutrana for his medical examination. Dr. Kanwar Singh, Medical Officer of the Primary Health Centre, Shutrana medically examined Jeet Ram on 2251986 at 3.00 A.M. and found four injuries as detailed in the medicolegal report Ex. PB. On 2851986, on receipt of intimation Ex. PM regarding the death of Jeet Ram in Rajindera Hospital of Patiala on 2751986 at 8.20 P.M. Baldev Singh sent copy of the D.D.R. No. 21 dated 12 51986 to Police Station, Patran for the registration of the case, other basis of which formal FIR Ex. PD/2 was recorded by Gurbax Singh. Assistant Sub Inspector. Baldev Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector went to the said hospital, held inquest and sent the deadbody of Jeet Ram to the mortuary for autopsy.

Dr. Harish Tulli PW15 conducted autopsy on the deadbody of Jeet Ram on 2851986 and found the following injuries :

2 cm. long stitched wound on left side of scalp in its middle 7 cm away from midline.

10 cm x 3 cm. contusion on right temporal region. On dissection of scalp, lot of blood was present underneath the scalp and on opening the skull, lot of blood was there on the duramatter. Skull was fractured on left side and extradural haemorrhage was present. All organs of thorax and abdomen were healthy. Death was opined to be due to the head injuries which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was stated to be about, six days and between death and postmortem within 24 hours. Baldev Singh, Assistant Inspector went to the spot and lifted bloodstained earth from there. The accused were arrested on 3051986. After necessary investigation, the: accused were challaned and committed.

Shankar Dass PW4 and Harbhagwan PW5 furnished the ocular account of the event. Baldev Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector PW17 was the Investigating officer in the case. The remaining evidence was of formal nature. When examined under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, the accused denied the prosecution allegations in the case but led no evidence in defence.

At the very outset, the presence of Shankar Dass PW4 and Harbhagwan PW 5 at the alleged place of occurrence has been rightly made the subject of pointed criticism. The reason for the presence of these witnesses at the alleged place of occurrence appears to have a hollow air about it at the very outset apart from the intrinsically fatal defects in their testimony. It is significant to note that neither of these two alleged eyewitnesses raised alarm at the alleged place of occurrence. It seems unlikely and unacceptable that if they were present, they would not have attempted to intervene and protect the deceased from being butchered before their eyes in the manner alleged. It is in the evidence of these witnesses that this occurrence took place in the inhabited locality. Neither of these witnesses made any attempt to inform the inhabitants of the locality about this incident. The conduct of these witnesses at the alleged time of occurrence and thereafter is also censurable. The aforesaid unsavory features of the case and the gross improbabilities are perhaps by themselves sufficient to throw away the prosecution story. A version of this kind could only be (if at all) accepted if supported by absolute unimpeachable totally impartial evidence but that is indeed wholly lacking in the present case.

The alleged two eyewitnesses have also made deliberate improvements at the trial. Shankar Dass PW claimed to have stated before the police that on 2151986 at about 3 P. M. his son Jeet Ram deceased and Harbhagwan PW had gone to see his father at village Shutrana that Harbhagwan was working as a servant with Shankar Dass for the last about one month; that when Harbhagwan and Jeet Ram came in front of the shop of Prabh Dayal accused the latter cut some jokes with Jeet Ram and that led to an exchange of abuses between them and that some persons intervened and separated them; that on 2151986, Bidda armed with Kasaula, his brother Amarjit armed with Sota, Prabh Dayal, Gobind Ram and Ram Dial accused armed with gandasas went to the shop of Harbans Lal and asked the latter as to whether Jeet Ram had passed by the side of the shop or not; that the witness heard the alarm `Bachao. Bachao'' coming from the side of village Shutrana and that Avtar Singh and Narain Dass came running behind the witness when the latter was running towards the village side on hearing the voice. Shankar Dass was confronted with his statements Exs. PD, DD and DC where these assertions were found conspicuous by their absence. Harbhagwan PW claimed to have stated before the police that on 2151986, Jeet Ram deceased told his father Shankar Dass that he was going to Shutrana to see his grandfather and that Harbhagwan PW would also accompany him; that at about 6.00 P.M. after seeing Jeet Ram''s grandfather, the witness and Jeet Ram were coming back to the dera of Jeet Ram and that when they came in front of the shop of Prabh Dayal accused, the latter cut a joke with Jeet Ram; that there was exchange of abuses between Prabh Dayal and Jeet Ram and Sahbna Ram member panchayat intervened and separated them; that the witness jumped down from the carrier of the cycle and Jeet Ram threw away that cycle and started running towards the dera; that Ram Dial, Prabh Dayal and Gobind Ram accused were armed with gandasas and they all started running after Jeet Ram deceased and the witness followed them; that on hearing the alarm raised by Jeet Ram deceased. Shankar Dass, Narain Dass and Avtar Singh were attracted to the spot; that Gobind Ram and Ram Dial accused gave kick blows on the chest of Jeet Ram and that when the latter tried to get up, Prabh Dayal gave gandasa blow from its reverse side on the head of Jeet Ram that Roshan Lal and Ram Kishan asked the witnesses to arrange some tractortrolley so that Jeet Ram could be taken to police post, Shutrana. The witness was confronted with his statement Ex. DB where these assertions were not found mentioned therein. If these improvements are considered, it would appear that these witnesses are clever enough to make improvements on points which they thought material and that is very a serious infirmity particularly in a murder case.

In view of the above, we are firmly of the opinion that little trust can be placed intrinsically on the evidence of Shankar Dass and Harbhagwan PWs whose presence at the spot seems to be very doubtful.

Lastly, in this context there is a patent conflict betwixt the medical evidence and the oral account. The alleged two eyewitnesses had consistently stated that the appellant had caused Kasaula and gandasa blows on the head, chest and legs of the deceased. Dr. Harish Tulli who conducted autopsy on the deadbody of the deceased did not find any injury on the chest or legs of the deceased. In the injury statement prepared by the Investigating Officer, only one injury on the head was mentioned. There appears to be thus a vital circumstantial factor belying the ocular account.

The above discussion would show that false witnesses to the occurrence had been introduced in the case and there was an attempt to implicate innocent persons in the case. Once the investigation is found to be tainted, the whole of the prosecution case becomes open to serious doubts and challenges. All that can be said for the prosecution is that it may be that the appellants had committed the crime but as observed by Gajendragadkar, J., as he then was, in Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 637, there is a long way to travel `between may be true'' and must be true and this whole distance has to be travelled by the prosecution. In the view we have taken upon the evidence, we are of the opinion that the only safeguard for the Court would be to reject the prosecution case as not proved. Giving the appellants the benefit of doubt, we allow this appeal, set aside their conviction and sentence and acquit them. The result is unfortunate but it cannot be helped. It is a pity that a brutal murder is going unpunished.