Daya Singh vs State of Punjab

S.S. Dewan, J.

Daya Singh appellant was brought to trial before the Court of session at Ferozepur, for the offences under Sections 302, 449 and 392/397, Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge found him guilty of the said offences and convicted and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/ or in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months under the first count seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ or in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months under the second count and seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ or in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months under the third count. He has challenged his convictions and sentences in this appeal.

The suggested motive for the crime is stated to be that the accused had supported Bhagwan Kaur in a civil suit pending between her and Inder Singh PW and he also appeared as a witness for Bhagwan Kaur. That suit was decided in favour of Inder Singh by the SubJudge, Zira on 18th February, 1985, vide his judgment and decree, copies Exs.PD and PE respectively.

A few facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that Jasbir Kaur daughter of Inder Singh PW is married to Sukhdarshan Singh PW of village Kappooro. On 24th January, 1985, Inder Singh went to the Civil Court at Zira in a case filed by Bhagwan Kaur against him in respect of the land situated in village Fatehgarh Korotana. After attending the hearing at Zira, Inder Singh got down from the bus at Fatehgarh Korotana bus stop at about 6 p.m. At that time, his daughter Jasbir Kaur and her husband Sukhdarshan Singh met him at the bus stop as they came to the village to meet him. Surjit Kaur since deceased wife of Inder Singh was present in the house when the latter went to Zira, Jasbir Kaur and Sukhdarshan Singh accompanied Inder Singh to his house and on reaching the courtyard of the house, they saw Daya Singh accused giving two datar blows on the face of Surjit Kaur. When Surjit Kaur fell down, the accused pulled her earrings. When Inder Singh, Jasbir Kaur and Sukhdarshan Singh raised alarm, then the accused ran away from the spot with his weapon and the earrings. Surjit Kaur succumbed to her injuries at the spot. Leaving the aforesaid witnesses at the spot, Inder Singh set out for the Police Section and on his way he met SubInspector Mithan Singh near the grain Market, Dharamkot, where he made statement Ex.PE before him on the basis of which formal F.I.R. Ex.PF/2 was recorded at the police station. Mithan Singh accompanied by Inder Singh went to the place of occurrence, held inquest Ex.PC and sent the dead body to the mortuary for autopsy. He also prepared the visual plan Ex.PK and recovered bloodstained earth from the spot. The accused was arrested and on interrogation by the Sub Inspector, he suffered disclosure statement leading to the recovery of earrings Exs.P.1 and P.2, from the specified place of concealment.

Dr.J.S.Gujral P.W.1 conducted autopsy on the dead body of Surjit Kaur on 25th January, 1985 at 9.30 A.M. and found the following injuries :

Incised wound 4cm x 3/4 cm x muscle cut present between the lower lip and chin.

An incised wound 2.5 cm x 1/2 cm present on the lower lip. Wound going through and through to the mucuous membranes of the lower lip.

An incised wound 3 cm x 3/4 cm on the left cheek prominence. The underlying bone was cut.

An abrasion 4 cm x 1 cm present on the right supra clavicular region.

Both the right and left ear holes were torn.

Death was opined to be due to haemorrhage shock and asphyxia as a result of the injuries which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The probable time that elapsed between the injury and death was stated to be immediate and between death and postmortem within 24 hours.

The ocular account is that of the husband of the deceased PW.2 Inder Singh and PW. 3 Sukhdarshan Singh, her soninlaw. Budh Singh PW.5 deposed to the recovery of earrings Exs.P.1 and P.2 of the deceased at the instance of the accused. Sub Inspector Mithan Singh PW.6 is the Investigating Officer in the case. The remaining evidence is of formal nature. When examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. the accused denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication in the case but led no evidence in defence.

From the above resume of evidence, it would emerge that besides the evidence of Inder Singh husband and Sukhdarshan Singh PW soninlaw of Surjit Kaur deceased, there is no other material on the record to connect the accused with the murder of the deceased. Both these witnesses have given the description and the manner in which the assault was made on the deceased immediately after their arrival in the house of Inder Singh PW.

On behalf of the accused, it is vehemently argued that the presence of the alleged two eyewitnesses was doubtful; that the Special Report in this case was received by the Illaqa Magistrate after three hours of the recording of the F.I.R. at the Police Station and that both the eye witnesses bore serious hostility against the accused and were closely related to the deceased. It was even suggested that the incident had taken place when nobody was around and that the medical evidence was in direct conflict with the ocular evidence.

At the very outset, the presence of both Inder Singh PW.2 and Sukhdarshan singh PW.3 in the house of Surjit Kaur deceased in village Fatehgarh Korotana has been rightly made the subject of pointed criticism, it has to be viewed in the peculiar context that, in fact, their reaching the house of Surjit Kaur deceased at the alleged time of occurrence was per chance. The presence and arrival of these witnesses in the house of occurrence appears to be particularly curious because the only alleged reason given by Inder Singh is that after attending the Court at Zira in the civil suit filed by Bhagwan Kaur against him when he got down from the bus at the village bus stand at about 6 P.M. Sukhdarshan Singh PW along with his wife met him at the bus stand and that as soon as they entered the house of Inder Singh, they saw the accused assaulting Surjit Kaur with datar and pulling her ear rings. It is an admitted fact that during the days of this occurrence, Sukhdarshan Singh was working as a Compounder in a private hospital at Moga. On the fateful day, he along with his wife is stated to have come to village Fatehgarh Korotana by bus just to meet his fatherinlaw Inder Singh and for no other particular reason. The reason for the presence of this witness at the busstand at village Fatehgarh Korotana appears to have a hollow air about it at the very outset apart from the intrinsic fatal defects in his testimony. It is significant to note that neither of the two alleged eyewitnesses raised alarm at the alleged time of occurrence nor did they tried to chase the accused to apprehend him. This 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. They also kept their lips sealed till the time their statements were recorded by the police. The conduct of these witnesses at the alleged time of occurrence and thereafter is, therefore, (Censurable). The aforesaid unsavoury features of the case and the gross improbabilities of the prosecution version are perhaps by themselves sufficient to throw away the prosecution case. A version of this kind could only be accepted if supported by absolutely and totally impartial evidence. That is indeed wholly lacking in the present case.

The alleged two eyewitnesses have also made deliberate improvement at the trial. They both claimed to have stated before the police that Surjit Kaur deceased was in a sitting posture when datsa blows were given to her by the accused. They were confronted with their police statements Ext.PF and PG where such assertion was found conspicuous by its absence. If this improvement is considered, it would appear that these witnesses are clever enough to make improvement on a point which they thought material and that is very 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 Inder Singh and Sukhdarshan Singh, the two eyewitnesses whose presence at the spot seems to by very doubtful.

The time and the manner of recording of the First Information Report in the present case are again matters which are not above suspicion. The occurrence took place at 6.15 P.M. on 24th January, 1985, whereas the First Information Report was registered at Police Station, Dharamkot at 8.40 P.M. The Special Report was delivered to the Illaqa Magistrate at 11.45 P.M. on the same day. The case of the accused was that the present case was framed in the village after enquiries by the Police. Whatever may be said regarding that stance, it appears to be plain that the First Information Report in the present case does not rule out the possibility of considerable delay and the opportunity of consultation and confabulation before the investigating agency may have found itself compelled to name the assailant in the village itself.

It is in the evidence of the two eyewitnesses that when they entered the house of Inder Singh PW at the alleged time of occurrence, they saw the accused giving two datar blows to Surjit Kaur while she was in sitting posture. Dr.G.S.Gujral, who conducted autospy on the dead body of Surjit Kaur found injuries besides a ligature mark around her neck. According to the Doctor, death was due to shock, haemorrhage and asphyxia as a result of the injuries which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He has further opined that the ligature mark and fracture of larynx, trachea and hyoid bone could be due to the strangulation and that strangulation itself is sufficient to cause death. The doctor has categorically stated that after strangulation the deceased/victim could not remain standing. This circumstantial factor has a fatal effect on the prosecution case and it belies the eyewitnesses account totally. It raised an obvious doubt that, in fact, the eyewitnesses were not there at all and have apparently concocted the story of the crime from the number and nature of the injuries found on the body of the victim. The evidence of the recovery of earrings Exs P.1 and P.2 at the instance of the accused is also on no better footing. According to the Sub Inspector Mithan Singh PW6, the accused was arrested on 28th January, 1985 whereas Sukhdarshan Singh PW has stated that the accused was arrested on 25th January, 1985. The investigating Officer had stated that he had interrogated the accused on 28th January, 1985 for about 11/2 hours and on 31st January 1985 for about 21/2 hours. The persistent interrogation of the accused during the aforesaid period constitutes compulsion, nay be indirect and as such the disclosure statement attributed to him is hit by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and the same is not available to the prosecution. If this follows from the above that in the circumstances it cannot be maintained safely that the earrings had, in fact, been recovered in consequence of the disclosure statement attributed to the accused. Therefore, the item of circumstantial evidence regarding the recovery of earrings is not available to the prosecution.

Therefore, on a careful consideration of the entire evidence and the circumstances, we find that the statements of the alleged eyewitnesses do not stand the necessary test of judicial scrutiny and they have not appeared to us to be reliable witnesses and we are not satisfied that the version stated by them in credible. The aforesaid circumstances speak sufficiently in favour of the defence version of the accused that he was falsely implicated in this case.

Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences awarded to the accused and giving him the benefit of doubt, acquit him. He shall be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not wanted in any other case.