Chuhar Singh vs State of Punjab

V.K. Bali, J.

Appellant Chuhar Singh, even though charged for double murder inclusive of his own daughter, appears to us to have been convicted only on conjectures and surmises and not on the basis of evidence that was led by the Prosecution. Vide order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Patiala, dated October 6, 1994 he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/, or in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for a period of one year, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

The occurrence leading to death of Karamjit Singh son of Dhanna Singh and Ranjit Kaur daughter of the appellant, was reported by Dhanna Singh. His statement was recorded by Manjit Singh, SI, on the basis of which formal FIR came into being at 10.30 a.m. on September 27, 1993. The occurrence took place at 10.30 a.m. on the intervening night of September 2627, 1993 at village Banera Kalan, stated to be at a distance of six kms. from the Police Station Sadar Nabha. The special report with regard to incident reached the concerned Magistrate at Nabha at 12.30 p.m. on September 27, 1993. Dhanna Singh stated before SI Manjit Singh that he was resident of village Banera Kalan and was engated in labour work. He had five sons and two daughters. His one son, Karamjit Singh, aged 2021 years, was studying at Patiala and used to return to village daily. That night, as usual, he after taking meals with his family, went to sleep. His son Karamjit Singh slept on the roof. In the morning he woke up and saw that Karamjit Singh was not present on his cot. He thought that he might have gone out but when he did not return home uptil 88O''clock, he enquired from his friends but he did not find him anywhere. Then he became somewhat worried as to where the boy had gone. He along with his elder son, Hakam Singh started making search of Karamjit Singh. He came to know from the village that his son Karamjit Singh way lying murdered in the house of Chuhar Singh son of Kartar Singh, appellant herein. Thereupon, he went to the house of Chuhar Singh and saw that the dead bodies of Karamjit Singh and Ranjit Kaur @ Middi daughter of Chuhar Singh were lying smeared with blood in outer Baithak (drawing room) of Chuhar Singh. Injuries had been caused on their persons with sharp edged weapon. Chuhar Singh was not present at his house. The cause of grudge was that his son Karamjit Singh had illicit relations with Ranjit Kaur, daughter of the appellant. His son went near Ranjit Kaur at the house of Chuhar Singh at night and Chuhar Singh on seeing both of them lying in compromising condition in the room, murdered them by causing injuries with some sharp edged weapon. After leaving his son Hakam Singh at the spot, he along with Sarpanch Major Singh was going to the Police Station to lodge the report that SI Manjit Singh met him.

With a view to substantiate its case, the prosecution relied upon the statements of two doctors, namely, I.D. Goel, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Nabha and Pamila Chopra, another Medical Officer at Civil Hospital Nabha. Dr. I.D. Goel, who was examined as PW 1 stated that he had conducted post mortem on the dead body of Karamjit Singh and found following injuries on his person :

"1. An incised wound 10 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on right side of scalp, 10 cm above the pinna of right ear, lying anterior posteriorily in the partal region. Clotted blood was present in and around the wound.

An incised wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep, 6 cm below pinna of right ear. Clotted blood was present.

An incised wound 13 cm x 5 cm on the right side of the neck, placed horizontally, at the level of thyroid cartilage. Underlying muscles large vessels, nerves, vertebral columns, spinal cord were cut completely. Clotted blood was present in and around the wound.

An incised wound 6 cm x 3 cm x bone deep on the posterior aspect of right forearm, obliquely placed, 3 cm above thyroid styloid process of ulna, going upward and laterly. Underlying bone, muscles, vessels were cut. Clotted blood was present in and around the wound.

An incised wound 10 x 2.5 cms x muscle deep. Wound was obliquely placed on the flexor aspect of left forearm, 4 cm proximal to the wrist joint going towards the thenar eminence. Clotted blood was present in and around the wound.

An incised wound 5 cm x 2.5 cm x muscle deep vertically placed on the antero lateral aspect of left forearm, 5 cm below elbow joint. Clotted blood was present in and around the wound.

An incised wound 9 cm x 2.5 cm parallel to and 2 cm distal to injury No. 5 cutting the underlying muscles, vessels and bones of wrist and hand.

An abrasion 12 cm lehiar parallel to iliac crest, 2 cm above the iliac crest."

This very doctor also conducted post mortem on the dead body of Ranjit Kaur and found following eleven injuries on her person :

"1. An incised wound 10 cm x 2.5 cm placed horizontally on left side of neck, 5 cm from the tragus of left ear pinna. Wound was deep upto the level of veribal column posteriorily. Muscles, nerves and vessels were cut upto that level. There was clotted blood in and around the wound.

An incised wound 8 cm x 4 cm on the back of neck, horizontally placed at the level of 7th vical vertebra. It was cutting the vertebral columns, spinal cord at the level of 7th scervical vertebra. Vessels muscles and nerves were also cut. Clotted blood was present in and around the wound.

An incised wound 8 x 5 cms and bone deep vertically placed on left shoulder and upper part of left arm. Underlying bone was cut. Clotted blood was present in and around the wound.

An incised wound 8 cm x 3 cm x bone deep placed horizontally on the postero lateral aspect of left upper arm, 5 cm above the elbow. Underlying muscles, vessels, nerves were cut. Clotted blood was present around the wound.

An incised wound 3 cm x 3 cm x muscle deep on dorsal aspect of left arm, 6 cm above the wrist. Clotted blood was present in and around the wound.

An incised wound 7 cm x 1 cm x bone deep placed vertically on dorsum of middle finger of left hand. Clotted blood was present on the wound.

A leniar abrasion 11 cm long vertically placed on left side of front of abdomen, 4 cm from umbilicus.

An abrasion 8 cm x 1.5 cm on the front of upper part of the left thigh.

An incised wound 2 cm x 1.5 cm on front of left region. A bone chip was coming out of the wound. Clotted blood was present in the wound.

An incised wound 6 cm x 3 cm bone deep on the anterio lateral aspect of right forearm above the wrist joint. Clotted blood was present in the wound.

An incised wound 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm, skin deep on the lateral surface of right thigh in upper part. Clotted blood was present in the wound".

The doctor opined that cause of death in the case of Karamjit Singh was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries described above which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was immediate and between death and post mortem within 24 hours. Likewise, the doctor further opined that death in the case of Ranjit Kaur was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of injuries found on her person which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were antemortem in nature and probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was immediate and between death and post mortem within 24 hours. PW 2 Dr. Pamila Chopra stated that on September 27, 1993 under the directions of the Senior Medical Officer, she jointly conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Ranjit Kaur. She agreed with the post mortem report, Ex. PD and further agreed with the observations made by Dr. I.D. Goel. On December 1, 1993, on an application made before her by the police, she gave an opinion, on the basis of report of the Chemical Examiner, that there was every likelihood that Ranjit Kaur was subjected to sexual intercourse before her death. Constable Balwinder Singh, who appeared as PW3, only tendered his statement by way of affidavit, Ex. PW3/A. So is the position with regard to PW4 Constable Gurjit Singh and PW 7 HC Manjit Singh, who, by way of statement, tendered their affidavits Ex. PW4/A and PW7/A respectively. Learned Public Prosecutor, vide his statement dated April 12, 1994, gave up Ranjit Singh and Ajaib Singh as having been won over and Bhupinder Singh, Draftsman as unnecessary. He also gave up Constable Sohan Singh as unnecessary. PW5 Dhanna Singh, father of deceased Karamjit Singh, is the only witness who supported the prosecution version. He deposed in tune with the FIR lodged by him. He also stated that dead body of Ranjit Kaur was lying on the cot whereas that of his son was lying on the ground. He also stated that Chuhar Singh was not present in the house at that time. He also stated that he did not know as to what was the motive to murder his son. In his crossexamination, he denied that the police had recorded his supplementary statement to the effect that deadbody of Karamjit Singh and Ranjit Kaur were lying in the same condition in which he had left. He also stated that Chuhar Singh had two sons, namely, Karamjit Singh and Jit Singh, and both of them were adults. The age of eldest son of Chuhar Singh was 22 years and that of other son 20 years. Both were unmarried and were residing jointly with their father Chuhar Singh. Nothing else is required to be mentioned from the statement made by him either in his examinationinchief or in his crossexamination. SI Manjit Singh appeared as PW6 and detailed the steps taken by him while investigating this case. Learned Public Prosecutor tendered into evidence Ex. PY report of the Chemical Examiner and closed the evidence. It may, however, be mentioned that vide statement made by him he gave up Major Singh, Piara Singh and Jagir Singh as having been won over by the accused, on May 10, 1994. Report of Serologist was also tendered into evidence.

The appellant, who was aged 73 years on the relevant date, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. besides denying the incriminating material put to him, further stated that he was innocent. He along with his sons Karamjit Singh and Jit Singh, aged 22 and 20 years respectively and his wife was residing in his house in the village. On the intervening night of September 2627, 1993 he slept at his tubewell in order to guard his electric motor, pumping set and other expensive agricultural equipments. On the morning of September 27, 1993 when he returned to his house, so many people including Karnail Singh Lamberdar and Ranjit Singh, Ex. Sarpanch were present in the Guhiras in the shamilat deh land. On reaching there, he saw the dead bodies of his daughter Ranjit Kaur and Karamjit Singh. He informed the police. Police came to his village at about 8 a.m. and took away the dead bodies in a tractor trolley to the police station and he was detained by the police same day and his arrest was fabricated subsequently. He further stated that he had been falsely implicated in this case.

Before we might proceed any further in this matter, we would like to mention here that PW5 was also not appearing in the Court for his statement and vide an interim order dated April 2, 1994 his presence was ordered to be secured by issuing nonbailable warrants. On that very day, for non appearance of Major Singh, Jagir Singh and Piara Singh, nonbailable warrants were issued for their arrest. PW Hakam Singh was, however, present but the learned Public Prosecutor made a statement that he would examine him after the statement of Dhanna Singh was recorded. In the earlier portion of the order, learned Sessions Judge held, even though prima facie, that slip produced by the doctor showing that PW5 was not well, was fictitious. All that we like to emphasise at this stage is that even PW5, who alone appeared to support the prosecution version, was not a willing witness, even though his son had died. As mentioned above, no other witness appeared or even if attended the Court was given up by the learned Public Prosecutor either as having been won over or unnecessary. Therefore, the prosecution version entirely rests upon the statement of PW5 Dhanna Singh.

Learned counsel representing the appellant vehemently contends that there is no legal or admissible evidence by which the appellant may be connected with the crime resulting into two deaths, inclusive of that of his daughter, and that the order of conviction and sentence recorded by learned Sessions Judge is based upon mere conjectures and surmises. He, thus, prays that the appellant be acquitted of the charges framed against him. In alternative, the counsel contends that from the prosecution version itself, as given in the FIR, even if the appellant is to be held responsible for causing death of Karamjit Singh and Ranjit Kaur, he had caused these deaths because of grave and sudden provocation. The appellant had seen Karamjit Singh in compromising position with his daughter in his own house. Ranjit Kaur was an unmarried daughter of the appellant. If we accept the first contention of the learned counsel, concededly, there will be no necessity to go into the alternative contention raised by the learned counsel.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and, with their assistance, going through the records of the case, we are convinced that the first contention of the learned counsel deserves to be accepted. The only incriminating material against the appellant is that two dead bodies were found in his house and that there was some motive with him that provoked him to commit the crime. The motive, as suggested in the FIR, is that he had seen his daughter Ranjit Kaur in a compromising position with the son of first informant, namely, Karamjit Singh. It may be recalled at this stage that insofar as motive part of the prosecution version is concerned, Dhanna Singh, when he appeared as PW5, did not stick to the version mentioned in the FIR and he clearly stated that he did not know about the motive which actuated the appellant to commit the crime. Insofar as recovery of two dead bodies from the house of appellant is concerned, suffice it to say that it is proved on the records of the case that the appellant was not the only person who was living in his house. His two sons, who were young and unmarried, were also residing with him. His wife too was staying in the same very house. When Dhanna Singh went to the house of appellant after learning in the village that his son was lying dead in the house of the appellant, he did not find him there. In fact, he found none in the house, be it the appellant or his sons. It is, thus, clear that whereas the appellant had also an opportunity to do away with his erring daughter and Karamjit Singh, same opportunity was also available to his two sons, if not his wife. Appellant, at the time of commission of the crime, as mentioned above, was 73 years of age and in all, 19 injuries were found on the persons of Karamjit Singh and Ranjit Kaur, possibility of killing these two persons, namely, Karamjit Singh and Ranjit Kaur by either of sons or both of sons together of Chuhar Singh cannot be ruled out. May be, there was a strong suspicion on the appellant to commit the crime but it is well settled that suspicion howsoever strong may be, it cannot take the place of proof. As mentioned above, there is no other evidence whatsoever to support the prosecution version that might link the appellant with the commission of crime. We are, thus, of the considered view that the Prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and that being so, he deserves to be acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt. So ordered. Consequently, order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is set aside.