Jit Singh and anr. vs State of Punjab

D.S.Tewatia, J. (Oral)

Jit Singh and his servant Mohinder Singh appellants, stand convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ each under section 302/34, Indian Penal Code. They were also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ each under section 201, Indian Penal Code. Both the substantive sentences were, however, order to run concurrently.

The prosecution case, shortly put, is that on 10th January, 1985, Balbir Singh (P.W. 2), brother of Darshan Singh (deceased) accompanied by another Balbir Singh son of Bakhtawar Singh of his village (i.e.village Lasara) was returning home after a round fields and noticed Darshan Singh, and the two accused Jeet Singh and Mohinder Singh, taking drinks near the Focal point of village Lasara. Balbir Singh (P.W. 2) asked the deceased to accompany him to the house, whereupon the latter said that the would be returning later on. In their presence, the deceased and the two accused proceeded from that place towards the well of Jeet Singh. When during the night the deceased did not return, Balbir Singh (P.W. 2) went to enquire about him from Jeet Singh on the next day. Jeet Singh, accused told him that the deceased had left the well that very night for the village, Balbir Singh (P.W. 2) then talked to Rattan Chand, Member Panchayat (P.W. 4), who advised the former to search for the deceased amongst the relations and in case he was not found anywhere, then he should report the matter to the police. When the search for the deceased at the place of relations and elsewhere was of no avail, Balbir Singh P.W. 2) proceeded to lodge the first information report, when Assistant SubInspector Gopal Singh (P.W. 11) met him at busstand of village Lasara. He made a statement (Exhibit PE) before him on 16th January, 1986, at 5 p.m. on the basis of which formal FIR. (Exhibit P.E./2) was reduced into writing under section 364, Indian Penal Code. The Special Report thereof was sent to the IIaqa Magistrate, at Phillaur, at 7.30 p.m. on the 16th of January, 1985.

On 17th January, 1985, both the accused approached Harbans Singh, Lamberdar of village Moron (P.W. 3) and Jeet Singh, accused, made a cleanbreast of the whole thing to him and requested him to produce them before the police. On that very day, Harbans Singh (P.W. 3) produced them before Assistant SubInspector Gopal Singh (P.W. 11) at busstand, Lasara. Assistant SubInspector Gopal Singh interrogated them in the presence of Yash Pal (P.W. 5) and Satnam Singh, HeadConstable. In pursuance of their disclosure statements, both the accused got recovered trunk of dead body. They also got recovered certain parts of the dead body and blood stained hair, grass and a Seiko watch in pursuance of the said disclosure statement. The investigating officer sent intimation (Exhibit PV) for changing the offence from under section 364, Indian Penal Code to one under section 302, Indian Penal Code.

On 20th January, 1985 Baldev Singh (P.W. 10) further interrogated the accused and in pursuance of disclosure statements, Jeet Singh, accused, got recovered Kirpan (Exhibit P1) and Mohinder Singh, accused, got recovered cycle (Exhibit P2).

Post mortem on the dead body was carried out by Dr.Tarsem Singh (P.W. 1) on the 18th of January, 1985, at 9 a.m., who found the following injuries thereon :

(1) Head was decapitated from the rest of the body. Corresponding wound was present over the rest of the neck. Deep infiltration stating of the wound edges was present. Clotted blood was present over the wound.

(2) Left upper arm was chopped off at about its middle. Deep infiltration staining of the would edges was present. Rest of the Upper limb was missing.

(3) Left foot was chopped off at the ankle joint with corresponding wounds present at both ends. Deep infiltration staining of the wounds were present. The skin of the foot was sodden, bleached was wrinkled.

(4) 3" x 11/2" incised gaping wound over the back of the left shoulder and it was muscle deep. Deep infiltration staining was present. The wound was lying obliquely.

(5) 31/2" x 3/4" incised gaping wound over the left side of the back, over the upper margin of the left buttock lying obliquely was present. Deep infiltration staining of the wound was present. The wound was muscle deep.

(6) 4" x 11/2" incised gaping wound over the left side of the back 3" above the wound No. 5, was present. It was muscle deep. Deep infiltration of the wound was present. The wound was lying obliquely.

(7) 6" x 3" incised gaping wound lying almost horizontally over the back of the junction of the left buttock and left thigh. Deep infiltration staining and clotted blood present in the depth of the wound. The wound was bone deep.

(8) Right upper arm was chopped off at the shoulder and right forearm was chopped off at 4" above the wrist. The intervening portion of the right upper limb was missing. The wounds of the wrist and upper arm showed deep infiltration staining. The hand showed sooden, bleached and wrinkling.

(9) Right leg was chopped off," below the right knee. The distal portion was missing. The wound showed deep infiltration staining.

(10) 3" x 1/4" incised gaping wound over the right temporal region of head cutting a portion of the right ear was present. It was bone deep. Deep staining infiltration of the wound was present.

(11) Right leg was chopped off, 5" below the right knee, staining of the wound was present.

(12) 61/2" x 2" gaping incised wound over the lower part of the front of the abdomen,lying almost transversally. Deep infiltration staining present. The intestines were coming out and the portion outside was bleached and gangrenous, peritoneum was torn.

According to the doctor, all injuries were antemortem and could be caused by Kirpan (Exhibit P1). In his opinion, the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature of cause death. Semidigested food was found in the stomach and the intestines. Rigor mortise was present.

The prosecution case primarily rests, besides the evidence of Dr Tarsem Singh (P.W. 1), on the evidence of extrajudicial confession, furnished by Harbans Singh (P.W. 3); evidence of the accused and the deceased last seen together, furnished by Balbir Singh (P.W. 2); the evidence of recovery of the dead body, furnished by Yash Pal (P.W. 5) and the evidence regarding recovery of Kirpan and cycle, given by Baldev Singh (P.W. 10).

The accused, when examined under section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure denied the prosecution allegations. Jeet Singh in answer to the last question stated :

"I am innocent. I along with many other persons of the village whose fields are near the canal were called on 16.1.1985 after the recovery of the dead body from the canal whereafter I was falsely challenged on account of unfounded suspicion."

Same was the reply of Mohinder Singh accused. Both the accused led no evidence in support of their version.

The trial court did not place any reliance on the testimony of Yash Pal(P.W. 5), nor did it place reliance regarding the recovery of cycle (Exhibit P2) and rightly so. However, the rest of the evidence was accepted as trustworthy and the accused were convicted and sentenced as already mentioned.

Mr. H.S.Sandhu, the learned counsel for the appellants, has canvassed that the prosecution case primarily rests on the evidence of extrajudicial confession, furnished by Harbans Singh (P.W. 3) which evidence is unworthy of credence.

We find merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the appellants.

It may be observed that whosoever was the culprit, he or they had taken all steps to conceal the crime. The deceased had been murdered without anybody having seen it. After committing the murder, the dead body was dismembered and then thrown into the canal, which act again was not seen by anybody. For days together nobody had the inkling as to who had done it. It has also been admitted by Balbir Singh (P.W. 2) that Sital Singh and his relations had trespassed into their house in order to beat the deceased. He, of course tried of suppress the reason why they had done so. A suggestion was put to him that the (deceased) had misbehaved with the womenfolk and so Sital Singh and his relations were out to settle scores with him. Balbir Singh (P.W. 2) admitted that twothree times, they visited their houses in search of the deceased.

Such being the circumstances of the case, it appears unbelievable that the accused would virtually go mad and put their neck, so to say, in the noose, by disclosing their horrendous crime to a person with whom they had no connection and who could afford them no protection.

It was argued by Mr. Bachittar Singh, counsel for the State that if the accused had not been the real culprit then why Balbir Singh (P.W. 2) would name them as the accused, when there was no enmity between Balbir Singh (P.W. 2) and the accused of any kind. The explanation put forth was that Balbir Singh (P.W. 2) had last seen the deceased and the accused together, consuming liquor on 10th January, 1985, and when the deceased did not return home during that night and he (Balbir Singh, P.W. 2) may have plausibly concluded that the accused could be behind his disappearance.

Mr. Bachittar Singh had also argued that Harbans Singh (P.W. 3) was again not inimical towards the accused. He too would not have got them falsely implicated, if in fact they had no confessed the crime before him. In this regard, it may be observed that at best Harbans Singh (P.W. 3) is said to have casually know the accused having been them at busAdda, while boarding the bus. Harbans Singh (P.W. 3) had never gone to the house of the accused, nor the accused have been visited his house. He knew nothing about the accused, their family members or even about their house. Harbans Singh (P.W. 3) belonged to an adjoining village (i.e. Village Moron). He stated that he knew only Bakhtawar Singh of that village,who used to meet him in the Tehsil where the latter used to come to deposit the land revenue.

There is, in our view, no earthly reason as to why the accused who committed the crime in secrecy would disclose the said fact to Harbans Singh, Lamberdar of adjoining village (P.W. 3), with who, they had no social connection. The police was already in the village from 16th January, 1985. It appears likely that the police had convinced itself, as was the case with Balbir Singh (P.W. 2),that the accused may have been the culprit. In a blind murder of this kind, there is great temptation on the part of the Investigating Officer to secure the evidence of extrajudicial confession. So the circumstances of the case must point to its naturalness and spontaneity before being accepted as worthy of credence.

In the circumstances of the case, it is difficult to place reliance on the testimony of Harbans Singh (P.W. 3). What Balbir Singh (P.W. 2) said even if that was assumed to be correct, does not held the prosecution case in any manner, nor the evidence regarding recovery of Kirpan (Exhibit P1) is of any help, as this is a weapon which Sikhs normally possess and there is no evidence that it was smeared with human blood as Serologist''s report, if any, has not been placed on record.

For the reasons aforementioned, giving the accused benefit of doubt, we acquit them of all the charges and quash their convictions and sentences and allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial Court.