Lal Chand and Another vs State of Punjab

Jasbir Singh, J.—This order will dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 428-DB of 2008 ( Lal Chand and Another v. State of Punjab) and Criminal Revision No. 2304 of 2008 (Prem Kumar v. State of Punjab and Another), as both these cases arise from a judgment dated May 20, 2008 and order dated May 24, 2008, passed by the Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. For facility of dictating order, facts are being taken from Criminal Appeal No. 428 -DB of 2008.

Appellants Lal Chand and Inder Sain have filed this appeal against the above judgment vide which they were convicted for commission of an offence u/s 302 IPC. Further challenge has been laid to an order dated May 24, 2008, imposing the following sentence upon them:

Name of convict

offence

sentence

Lal Chand

u/s 302 IPC

Imprisonment for life , fine to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further RI for one year.

Inder Sen @ Inderia

u/S 302 IPC

Imprisonment for life, fine to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further RI for one year.

Period already undergone by the appellants during enquiry, investigation, trial was ordered to be set off against substantive period of sentence as per the provisions of Section 428 Cr.P.C.

It was allegation against the above appellants that in the intervening night of 23rd / 24th November, 2005, they along with Krishan Lal son of Hari Ram had committed murder of Bhajan Lal by giving him beatings with the help of sticks and a brick bat.

It is necessary to mention here that the above Krishan Lal was as an accused in FIR No. 132 dated November 24, 2005, however, during investigation, he was found innocent and his name was put in column No. 2 in the final report prepared u/s 173 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, by invoking the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C., he was summoned to face trial and acquitted vide the judgment under challenge. His acquittal has also been challenged by the complainant, namely, Prem Kumar by filing Criminal Revision No. 2304 of 2008.

The process of law was set in motion on a statement Ex. P1 made by PW1 Prem Kumar, brother-in-law of the deceased, at 11.30 AM on November 24, 2005. His statement was recorded by S.I. Gurcharan Singh (PW11), which led to the registration of an FIR Ex. P1/B, at 12.30 PM in Police Station Khui Khera against the above named accused.

The trial Judge has noticed following facts regarding case of the prosecution:

Succintly, the case of the prosecution, as unfolded by Prem Kumar son of Mool Chand, resident of village Kheo Wali Dhab, is that his in-laws family resides in village Lakho Wali Dhab, which adjoins to his village. On 23.11.2005 at about 8 PM, he alongwith his brother-in-law Bhajan Lal went to bring liquor from the liquor vend situated on the Fazilka Road. He was standing on the bank of the road, whereas Bhajan Lal went to bring liquor. After some time, he (Bhajan Lal) came to him with half bottle of liquor and told that Lal Chand, Krishan Lal and Inder Sen @ Inderia who were consuming liquor at Kheo Wali Dhab liquor vend had started arguing with him. In the meantime, the aforesaid persons came on the road and they started quarrelling with Bhajan Lal. He (Prem Kumar) rushed to his house in order to call his son Bhim Sen. They both returned near the liquor vend to save Bhajan Lal, but neither Bhajan Lal nor Krishan Lal etc. were found present there. On enquiry, Kashmir Singh who was working as servant on the liquor vend, disclosed that he had heard the noise of quarrel, but he did not come out of his room. Then he (Prem Kumar) and his son Bhim Sen traced out the whereabouts of Bhajan Lal, but in vain. On the next day in the morning, when he alongwith his son Bhim Sen reached near the liquor vend in search of Bhajan Lal, they found a person lying on the eastern side of the road towards Fazilka side and ultimately found Bhajan Lal lying dead there due to sustaining of injuries. His clothes were also smeared with blood. While leaving his son Bhim Sen to guard the dead body of Bhajan Lal, he was going to Police Station Khui Khera after informing the family members of Bhajan Lal and SI Gurcharan Singh met him on the way and he got recorded the statement with him. It has further been unfolded in the statement that the aforesaid persons Lal Chand, Inder Sen @ Inderia and Krishan Lal have eliminated his brother-in-law Bhajan Lal by causing injuries to him. He also unfolded that the accused were nursing grudge against the deceased due to animosity, as a year prior to the instant occurrence, his brother-in-law Bhajan Lal etc. had caused injuries to Lal Chand regarding which a criminal case was registered.

After recording statement of PW1 Prem Kumar, the Investigating Officer put endorsement Ex. P1/A upon the same and sent it for registration of an FIR. He went to the place of occurrence, prepared inquest proceedings on the dead body of Bhajan Lal and sent it for post-mortem examination. The dead body was found lying in between a seepage drain and the road. The Investigating Officer also got clicked photographs of the dead body and the place of occurrence. He took into his possession one plastic nip containing small quantity of liquor. It was stained with blood. Sample earth stained with blood was also taken into possession. Nearby bushes were smeared with blood. Those were cut and two pieces of wood were also taken into possession. One brick stained with blood was also lifted from the spot. One shoe of left foot, which as per PW1 belongs to the appellant No. 2, was also taken into possession. The Investigating Officer also got prepared a rough site plan with correct marginal notes. He also recorded statements of the witnesses. The appellants - accused along with Krishan Lal were arrested on November 26, 2005. Before that, on December 24, 2005, the Investigating Officer recorded statement of Mangtu Ram (PW2), who allegedly saw the accused giving beatings to the deceased in the intervening night of 23rd and 24th November, 2005. The Investigating Officer also recorded statement of Hanuman (PW7) on November 28, 2005, stating therein that all the accused made extra judicial confession, admitting commission of the crime, before the above witness, on November 25, 2005.

After completion of investigation, final report was put in Court only against the appellants. Krishan Lal was declared innocent. Copies of the documents as per provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were supplied to the appellants. They were charge-sheeted, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution produced 11 witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence to prove its case. In the meantime, Krishan Lal was also summoned to face trial on an application moved by the prosecution u/s 319 Cr.P.C. On completion of prosecution''s evidence, statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating material existing on record was put to them, which they denied, claimed innocence and false implication. They also led evidence in defence.

The trial Judge, on appraisal of evidence, found both the appellants guilty. Accordingly, they were convicted and sentenced as found mentioned in the earlier part of this order. However, Krishan Lal was acquitted. Hence this appeal and the revision.

Shri A.P.S. Deol, Senior Advocate, counsel for the appellants, by making reference to the statements made by PW1 Prem Kumar, PW2 Mangtu Ram, PW7 Hanuman argued that the deposition made by the above witnesses is not trust-worthy. After making reference to the facts of this case, he argued that it was a case of blind murder, which, after manipulation has been termed as an eye witness account. It was further stated that the presence of PW1 at the spot is most unnatural. This witness has acted in an unreasonable manner in reporting the matter to the police. Presence of PW2 Mangtu Ram at the spot is also not believable. His statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded on December 24, 2005. Explanation given for delay by this witness is not acceptable. As per evidence on record, this witness was brought to the Investigating Officer by a close relative of the deceased. By making reference to the deposition made by Hanuman (PW7), counsel argued that this witness belongs to inlaws'' village of the deceased, situated at a distance of more than 20 KMs. He did not have any special relation with the accused and as such there was no occasion for the accused to make any confessional statement before him. He did not produce the accused before the police. It is contended that the investigation is tainted as the Investigating Officer has failed to explain the delay in recording the FIR, failed to bring in Court the employee of the liquor vend and associating other independent witnesses available near to the place of occurrence. He prayed that the appeal be allowed, conviction and sentence of the appellants be set aside and they be acquitted of the charge framed against them.

Prayer made has vehemently been opposed by the State counsel and the counsel for the complainant. They have taken us through the statements made by PW1, PW2, PW7 and the Investigating Officer to state that the prosecution was successful in bringing home guilt of the appellants - accused. It is stated that for causing injury to appellant No. 1, an FIR was got recorded against the deceased and his relations. The accused were in a look out to get revenge. When they met the deceased at a liquor vend, at night, they utilised that opportunity to cause injuries to the deceased, which resulted into his death. It is also stated that a vivid eye witness account has been given by PW1 and PW2 regarding mode and manner, in which occurrence had taken place, it is further averred that the extra-judicial confession made by all the accused before PW7 is proved on record and deposition of PW7 inspires confidence. By alleging that the investigation was very fair, it is prayed that the appeal having no substance be dismissed. It is further prayed that participation of Krishan Lal, in the crime, is also proved on record. His acquittal ordered by the trial Judge was not justified.

It is prayed that the revision petition be allowed and Krishan Lal be convicted and sentenced for the offence with which he was charged.

After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court feels that the present is a case in which prosecution has miserably failed to prove guilt of the appellants - accused beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt, benefit of which will go to them.

As per case of the prosecution, in the intervening night of 23rd and 24th November, 2005, PW1 and the deceased had gone to a liquor shop, situated on the outskirts of the village. PW1 waited at the road and deceased went to bring liquor from the vend. After some time, deceased came back with a half bottle of liquor and told PW1 that the accused, namely, Lal Chand, Krishan Lal and Inder Sen were taking liquor at the shop and had an altercation with him. In the sight of PW1, above named accused also came at the road and grappled with the deceased. After narrating as above, the PW1 has given a very strange version. In the FIR, it is nowhere stated that the accused were armed with any weapon. Instead of helping the deceased when the accused were grappling with him, PW1 rushed to his village to call his son. He came back after about 10 -15 minutes. Deceased and the accused were not found present at the place of occurrence. On enquiry, Kashmir Singh, Manager of the Liquor vend, told him that he had heard noise of their quarrel. The complainant and his son continued to search for the deceased but failed to trace him on account of darkness. In the morning, they again searched for the deceased near to the liquor vend. Then they came to know that a dead body was lying on the roadside, at a road leading to Fazilka. PW1 left his son near to the dead body and went to inform family members of the deceased and then went to inform the police along with his son on a motor-cycle.

The sequence of events given by this witness clearly depicts that when occurrence had taken place, he was not available at the spot. In the first instance, it was expected that this witness would have tried to save the deceased when he was grappling with the accused, who were not armed at that time. This witness never sought help from Kashmir Singh, who was available at the liquor vend, rather he rushed to his house situated nearby and came back after 15 minutes. Dead body of Bhajan Lal was found at a short distance of the liquor vend on the road side. At night, this witness failed to locate the same. Family members of the deceased were not informed regarding the above incident. Dead body was spotted in the morning. Even then police was not informed. Telephone and motor cycles were available in the village. Nobody was sent to the Police Station, situated at a distance of 12 - 15 KMs. This witness appears to be a made up witness. As per admitted facts on record in FIR Ex. P64 dated December 22, 2004, deceased along with two sons of PW1 were shown as accused at the instance of the appellants. PW1 has a motive to falsely implicate the appellants in this case. Kashmir Singh, Manager of the liquor vend, whose presence is admitted, was not produced in the witness-box.

Post-mortem on the dead body was conducted by Dr. Sandeep Kumar (PW9) on November 24, 2005 at 5 PM. This witness has stated that semi-digested food was detected in the stomach of the deceased. It was further stated that the deceased might have taken his meal three hours before his death. It is nobody''s case that the deceased and PW1 had already enjoyed their dinner before going to get the liquor. This witness has further stated that the time gap between post-mortem and the death was 12 to 24 hours. If we rotate the clock back, the death appears to have occurred at about 5 PM on November 22, 2005, as such, the deposition made by PW1 also is not in consonance with the medical evidence on record. PW9 has also stated that the injuries to the deceased were also possible in an accident. At the time of post-mortem examination, following injuries were found on the person of the deceased:

Left side of scrotum contused. On dissection underneath sub-cutaneous tissues were congested. Clotted blood was present around testicles and vasdeferness.

Both the buttocks found to be contused.Dark reddish in colour with multiple linear abrasions over it.

Multiple lenier abrasions measuring 5 cm x 1 cm on left thigh, antero medially and laterally.

Lacerated wound 4 cm x 2 cm on left knee joint anteriorly. Patella was found to be exposed and fractured.

Four abrasions varying from 2 cm x 0.5 cm to 3.5 cm on left leg anteriorily on its upper half. Right leg deformed in its lower half. Multiple abrasions varying from 3 x.5 cm to 4 x 2 cm present on right leg. On dissection both bones of leg were found to be fractured.

Contusion from 5 cm x 2 cm on right knee joint laterally.

Contusion 6 cm x 4 cm on right knee joint anterio medially.

Multiple contusions of varying sizes inter-mingling witheach other on right thigh anterior laterally in an area of 20cm x 10 cm.

Contusion 7 cm x.7 cm on right typo chondrion. Ondissection abdominal cavity contained blood. There was laceration of right lobe of liver, 12th rib was found to befractured. Sub-cutaneous tissues was congested.

An abrasion 4 cm x.75 cm in supra-pubic area.

Swelling over dorsum of left hand, extending overproximal phalnx of left ring finger, pharanx was found to befractured. There was an abrasion overlying the swelling 2 cmx 1 cm.

An abrasion 4 cm x.75 cm on left fore-arm posteriorly inits lower half on ulnar aspect.

An abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm on right fore-arm on its ulnar aspect in its lower 1/3rd.

An abrasion 5 cm x 2 cm on left sub-mandibular area.

An abrasion 10 cm x 1 cm over left supra-clavical area.

Both lower eye-lids were found swollen and blackened.

An abrasion 1 cm x.75 cm on right side of neck.

Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm interiorly over front of neck. Sub-cutaneous tissues underneath all the injuries were found to becongested.

Most of the injuries are in the shape of abrasions. Death was declared to have been caused by injuries No. 1 and 10. The nature of the injuries clearly indicates that those do not appear to have been caused with the sticks and a brick bat by the appellants - accused as alleged.

PW2 Mangtu Ram, whose statement was recorded on December 24, 2005, was projected as an eye witness when beatings were being given by the accused to the deceased. The deposition made by this witness is also not believable. PW2 is a resident of village Khui Khera, at a distance of about 9 -10 KMs. He is a labourer. He has stated that in the intervening night of 22nd / 23rd November, 2005, he was going on a cycle to get payment from Ganesha Ram for the work done by him. At about 9 PM, when he was coming back to his village, in the light of a passing truck, he saw the three accused giving beatings to the deceased. He did nothing and made no attempt to intimate employees of the liquor vend, situated nearby. As per version of this witness, thereafter he went to Rajasthan to meet his daughter. He came back after about 10 -12 days, even then he did not make any statement, which was recorded only on December 24, 2005. This witness has stated that he came to know about death of Bhajan Lal from his close relation, namely, Krishan Lal of his village and after getting that information, he got his statement recorded. As per facts on record, he along with above Krishan Lal, went to the Investigating Officer for making his statement. The presence of this witness at the spot is very doubtful. Conduct of this witness in not raising an alarm and also not intimating anybody about the alleged occurrence makes his testimony doubtful. This witness has failed to give any explanation for delay in reporting the matter to the police.

PW7 Hanuman is a resident of in-laws'' village of the deceased. His village Amarpura is situated at a distnce of about 20 KMs from village of the accused. He does not have any special relationship with them. He is also not a man of authority. It is his case that on November 25, 2005, all the three accused came to him and confessed their guilt. It was further stated by them that he should take up the matter with the family of the deceased so that Krishan Lal may not be arraigned as an accused. All the three accused went away making a promise that they would come back after some days. The statement of this witness was recorded on November 28, 2005. In between, he did not go to the police and informed regarding factum of confessional statement made by the accused. Accused were arrested on November 26, 2005. This witness is not a Sarpanch or Panch and was not in a position to save the accused from highhandedness of the police. The version given by this witness appears to be doubtful.

PW11 SI Gurcharan Singh had deposed that the dead body was found lying between the metalled road and a seepage Nala. It was not hidden and was visible to all the persons who passed from that place. The alleged story of disclosure statement made by the accused and recovery effected thereon also does not inspire any confidence. No independent corroboration to the same exists on record. No attempt was made to get the foot prints of appellant No. 2 and to compare those foot prints with the shoe allegedly recovered from the spot.

By now the appellants have undergone more than six years of sentence. This Court feels that the evidence led by the prosecution appears to be doubtful.

In view of above, this appeal is allowed, conviction and sentence of the appellants is set aside and they are acquitted of the charge framed against them.

As per facts stated above, Criminal Revision No. 2304 of 2008 also fails and the same is dismissed.