Inderbir Singh vs State of Punjab

V.K. Bali, J.—Challenge herein is to order of conviction and sentenced recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, dated September 30, 1997. Appellants Inderbir Singh and Baljit Singh have been held guilty u/s 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, or in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for four months.

Dead body of Balwant Singh, a taxi driver, was recovered on January 31, 1996 and as per the prosecution case, appellants herein had hired the said taxi on January 20, 1996 at 11 a.m. Concededly, there is no eye witness to the occurrence and, therefore, the prosecution, in order to secure conviction against the appellants, depends upon the circumstantial evidence alone. The said evidence consists of deceased having been last seen with the appellants, extra judicial confession and recovery of car from the appellants.

Brief facts, resulting into conviction of the appellants need a necessary mention. The FIR with regard to incident came to be lodged on 26-1-1996 by one Chattar Singh. He stated that he had a Maruti car of biscuit colour bearing registration No. DBC-1030. On January 20, 1996 driver of his car Balwinder Singh went to village Telianwala and brought a marriage party of Vijay Kumar to Hathi Gate from Telianwala. After dropping the marriage party, his driver Balwinder Singh came to taxi stand Batala. He had come to know that a person, whose appearance was as aged about 22/23 years, height about 5''-6" fair complexion, trimmed beard and hair, wearing black jacket and black pant, had taken away his car somewhere after taking the same from his driver. Neither his driver had returned nor he had dropped the Doli of marriage from Hathi Gate to village Telianwala. He along with his brother Amrik Singh and other persons kept on searching for the car and driver but in vain. He further stated that he had also come to know that the said car was seen moving in the area of Fatehgarh Churia and Kalanaur. It is in these circumstances that he lodged the report of his missing car and driver.

The prosecution in its endeavour to bring home the offence against the appellants, examined Dr. Kulwant Kumar Singh, Medical Official, Civil Hospital, Batala as PW 1. He stated that on February 1, 1996 he conducted post mortem on the dead body of Balwinder Singh and found following injuries on his deal body :-

"1. Reddish abrasion on the whole of right side of face and nose. Bleeding from the nose was present.

Lacerated wound 3 cm x 1 cm on the right side of fore arm just above the right eye brow outer part. On dissection the underlying skull bone was fractured. Membranes were ruptured and skull cavity was full of blood.

There was dislocation of left shoulder joint and fracture of left clavical.

There were multiple reddish contusions on the whole of right upper arm and lower forearm.

All nails were blue.

Reddish contusions 4 cms x 3 cms on the right side and front of chest round nipple. On dissection there were haemorrhages in underlying muscles."

In the opinion of the doctor the time that elapsed between death and post mortem was within 12 hours and the cause of death was multiple injuries.

Chatter Singh, first informant, who was examined as PW 2, deposed in tune with the FIR lodged by him. In his cross-examination, he denied knowledge if his car was taken into possession by the police station of Kalanaur on January 21, 1996 from Goraya Rice. Gulshan Singh, who appeared as PW 3 stated that on January 31, 1996 he, Sulakhan Singh and Sukhdev Singh Bhatti went to the eucalyptus trees of Nanak Singh, ahead of Kalanaur. The dead body of Balwinder Singh was found tied with eucalyptus tree. Sulakhan Singh left them near the dead body and went to the police station. The dead body was thereafter tied and identified by him to be that of Balwinder Singh. In this cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the dead body was lying on the road from Kalanaur to Dera Baba Nanak near the eucalyptus tree. PW 4 Naranjan Singh stated that about a year back, he had gone to village Gaggowali. He was standing on the road near the bohar tree ahead of village Bhagowal. He saw Balwidner Singh in the car. He was driving it. Inderbir alias Rainku and Baljit Singh, appellants herein, were also in the car. He identified the appellants in Court. Balwinder Singh told him that he should wait and that he would come again after alighting the appellants at Batala. He told him that he was in hurry. Thereafter, Balwinder Singh and appellants went towards Kalanaur. In his cross-examination, he stated that he had seen the appellants for the first time on that day. PW 5 Malkiat Singh stated that on January 20, 1996 he had gone to village Bhagowal. His mother''s sister was married there. After seeing her, he had gone to Kalanaur. Balwinder Singh met him in Car No. DBC 1030. Two other persons were sitting in the car. He identified the appellants in the Court. Balwinder Singh told him that he was to go to Batala and that if he was to go, he could give him lift after 10/15 minutes. He further told him that he was to go to village Sarja Chack to alight the appellants. The his cross-examination, he stated that Balwinder Singh was related to him. He further stated that the appellants were not related to him but he was their class fellow. However, in the very next sentence he stated that he had seen them on that day for the first time. Baldev Singh, who appeared as PW 6, stated that on January, 20, 1996 he was standing at Bus Stand, Batala with Van No. PCO 39. One person came to him for hiring the van in order to go to Kalanaur. He asked him the rate. He was clean shaven. He was aged about 22/23 years. He demanded Rs. 400/- as hire charges. He did not accept that amount. Thereafter, he was standing on the turning of the taxi stand, Batala. In the meantime, Balwinder Singh driver came there with Car No. DBC 1030. He demanded Rs. 250/- from that person as hire charges. He accepted that amount and went with Balwinder Singh in the car. On February 5, 1996 he had gone to Police Station City Batala where he had identified one person who met him at bus stand for hiring the taxi. He pointed towards Inderbir appellant in the Court, as the person who had contacted him at the bus stand, Batala for hiring the car. In his cross-examination, he stated that he never made any statement to the police and that the police had called him in the police station to identify the person. He did not remember the date when police sent a message for him for coming to the police station. He admitted that he was not called in the jail for identification of any person before the Magistrate. He denied the suggestion that car of Balwinder Singh was not hired by Inderbir and that he was deposing falsely. PW 7 Sukakhan Singh stated that on January 20, 1996 Balwinder Singh had gone out of the house with car. He told them that he was to bring the marriage party from village Telianwala to Hathi Gate, Batala. He did not come to the house in the evening. On the next day he made enquiries about him from the owner of the car. He told him that the car was brought by Balwinder Singh to him. Thereafter, he, Gulshan Singh and Sukhdev Singh went to search Balwinder Singh. Someone told them that the car was seen in the area of Dera Baba Nanak and Kalanaur. On January 31, 1996 he went on Kalanaur-Dera Baba Nanak road. On suspicion, they went to the eucalyptus trees where they found the dead body of Balwinder Singh tied with eucalyptus tree. In his cross-examination, he stated that Balwinder Singh was his brother in law. Tilak Raj, who appeared as PW 8, stated that he was Municipal Commissioner of Municipal Council, Batala. On January 31, 1996 the appellants came to him and told that they had taken Balwinder Singh to Kalanaur. They further told him that number of Balwinder Singh''s car was DBC 1030. The appellants confessed before him that they had administered sulphas to Balwinder Singh after putting it in liquor and that after administering liquor in which sulphas was mixed, Balwinder Singh was tied with eucalyptus trees. They further told him that they should be produced before the police. In his cross-examination he admitted that the appellants had met him for the first time on that date. PW 9 ASI Sarup Singh and PW 10 Tilak Raj, Sub Inspector, detailed the steps that they had taken while investigating the case.

Appellant Inderbir Singh, when examined u/s 313, Cr.P.C. besides denying the incriminating material put to him, further stated that he was taken into custody by the police of Kalanaur on February 1, 1996 and was detained at Beco Interrogation Centre where Biara and Pappa, of his village, were already detained in this case. They were got released by the Sarpanch Kulwant Singh of his village, who was police informer and later, after illegally detaining him till February 5, 1996, he was implicated in this case. Appellant Baljit Singh also denied his involvement in the case and further stated that on January 21, 1996 car No. DBC 1030 was standing near Goraya Rice Mill, Kalanaur, having been abandoned. Police of Kalanaur was informed and in the presence of many people including Ajit Singh Member Panchayat, Gurkirpal Singh etc. the said car was taken into possession by the Kalanaur Police where it remained till February 3, 1996. On that date SHO Tilak Raj came to Police Station Kalanaur along with other police officials and took the said car to Batala and on the same date i.e. February 3, 1996 at about 8.30 p.m., a police party headed by SHO Tilak Raj raided his house. He and his family members raised hue and cry which attracted many people of the village including Mohinder Singh etc., who asked from the police reason of their visit and to take him to police station. SHO Tilak Raj replied that the SSP had summoned them for interrogation and identification of some person. The police kept him in illegal custody. Next day, his father and respectable persons visited police station Batala but the police promised to set him free after one or two days and later he was implicated in this case. Appellants led evidence in defence but as, nothing based upon the defence evidence, has been urged before us, there is no need to give details of the said evidence. Suffice it, however, to say that whereas Captain Ajit Singh was examined as DW 1, Gurkirpal Singh was examined as DW 2.

We have heard Mr. P. S. Hundal, learned counsel for the appellants as also Mr. S. S. Dhaliwal, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and with their assistance gone through the records of the case. After giving our anxious thoughts to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the prosecution in this case has miserably failed to link the appellants with murder of Balwinder Singh. As mentioned above, there is no eye witness and the prosecution is depending upon circumstantial evidence alone. It is too well settled by now that conviction can be based upon circumstantial evidence but the chain of circumstances has to be complete. If there are chinks in the chain of circumstances, the accused has to be given benefit of doubt. In the present case, we find only chinks in the so called chain of circumstances, brought on records by the prosecution. It is significant to note that the occurrence is stated to be of January 20, 1996. It is on that day that the appellants were seen in the taxi with driver Balwinder Singh. As mentioned above, dead body of Balwinder Singh was recovered on January 31, 1996. The doctor, who conducted post mortem on the dead body of Balwinder Singh clearly stated that the time that elapsed between the death and post mortem was only 12 hours. If the statement of doctor is to be accepted, and which has to be all evidence led by the prosecution with regard to deceased having been last seen with the appellants, has to be straightway rejected. A period of about ten days had elapsed between the time when deceased was seen with the appellants and death of Balwinder Singh. This gap in itself is sufficient to conclusively hold that the time, i.e. January 20, 1996, when Balwinder Singh was seen with the appellants, can not partake the character of last seen evidence. The prosecution is, thus, left with the evidence of PW 8 Tilak Raj, before whom the appellants are stated to have confessed their guilt. The less talked of this witness the better. He candidly admits that the appellants had come to him for the first time. It does not appear to us to be probable that the appellants would confess their guilt before a person, whom they had never seen earlier and from whom, naturally they could not expect any help. That part, what really, clinches the issue and completely nails the prosecution case is the statement made by the doctor that death in this case was due to multiple injuries and that as per the report of Chemical Examiner, who was asked to give his report, no poison was found in the viscera. It may be recalled at this stage that PW-8 Tilak Raj, while giving narration of facts regarding confession made by the appellants before him, stated that the appellants had told him that they had administered liquor which was mixed with sulphas to Balwinder Singh. The death in this case is not because of poisoning and, therefore, it cannot be said with certainty that the appellants ever confessed their guilt before PW 8 Tilak Raj. There is hardly any evidence of recovery of car from the appellants and in any case that alone could not be sufficient to connect them with the charge of murder.

For the reasons recorded above, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to bring home the offence against the appellants and, therefore, they deserve to be acquitted of the charges framed against them. So ordered. Consequently, this appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence dated September 30, 1997 recorded against the appellants by learned trial Judge is set aside. Appellants be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.

Appeal allowed.