Manmohan Singh vs State of Punjab

S.S. Grewal, J.—Vide order of Sessions Judge, Amritsar, dated 15-6-1993, Manmohan Singh appellant was convicted u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay of a fine of Rs. 5000/-; in default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year: He was further convicted u/s 120B of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. He was also convicted u/s 454 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. He was further convicted u/s 380 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -; in default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. All the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. Paramjit Singh appellant was convicted u/s 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-; in default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. He was further convicted u/s 120B of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-; in default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. He was also convicted u/s 454 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. He was further convicted u/s 380 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -; in default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of two months. All the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. Vide order of Sessions Judge, Amritsar, dated 15-6-1993, Manmohan Singh appellant was also convicted u/s 25 of the Arms Act and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months.

Aggrieved against the orders of his conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court Manmohan Singh appellant has filed Crl. A. 247-DB of 1993 in the main case and Cr. A. 277-SB of 1993 of 1993 concerning his conviction and sentence u/s 25 of the Arms Act in a separate trial whereas Paramjit Singh appellant filed Crl. A. No. 266-DB of T/1993. As common questions of law and fact are involved in all the aforesaid appeals these shall be disposed of by one order.

In brief facts of the prosecution case as emerge from the first information report recorded on the basis of the statement of Amarjit Singh PW are that he had installed a flour mill and resides on the Chaubara i.e. on the first floor of the said Flour Mill along with his father Dewan Singh and mother Rattan Kaur. On 22-4-1989, Dewan Singh father of Amarjit Singh PW had gone to his village in order to harvest wheat crop and his mother Rattan Kaur alone was present in the house. Manmohan Singh appellant who is distantly related to Amarjit Singh and was on visiting terms with him came twice on 22-4-1989 and asked Amarji Singh PW that he was in need of cooking gas connection and asked that he should accompany him to the gas store situated in the back side of Sangam Cinema for arranging cooking gas for him. Amarjit Singh PW could not accompany Manmohan Singh as he was busy in his own work. At about 3 p.m. Manmohan Singh came and met Amarjit Singh PW for the third time that day and asked him to arrange cooking gas connection for him. Amarjit Singh PW asked Manmohan Singh (present appellant) to leave for B.S. Gas Agency and promised that he would reach there shortly. Manmohan Singh appellant then went away and after sometime Amarjit Singh PW went to the aforesaid Gas Agency and waited there for more than an hour or so for Manmohan Singh appellant but the latter did not come. Amanit Singh PW :hen returned to his house. As he reached nor the staircase he found Manmohan Singh appellant closing the door on the first floor facing the stair-case. Manmohan Singh appellant came down immediately on seeing Amarjit Singh PW and felt nervous. At that time Manmohan Singh was carrying something wrapped in white bed sheet in his right hand which was stained with blood. Amarjit Singh PW told Manmohan Singh appellant that he waited for him at the Gas Agency for quite a long time and that he went back to his house at about 4.15 p.m. On enquiry by Amarjit Singh PW as to what Manmohan Singh appellant was carrying wrapped in bed sheet, and why he had not reached the Gas Agency, Manmohan Singh appellant slipped away saying that the bed sheet contains a bottle and some etables. Then Amarjit Singh PW went up-stairs and found that his mother Rattan Kaur lying dead on a mattress on the floor of the room of Chaubara and blood in sufficient quantity had oozed from her head. There was a big wound on the head just above the right ear and the same was. bleeding. After putting the head-gear round the neck, the knots have been tightened. Amarjit Singh PW observed that the Petti (Iron box) was sufficiently found stained with human blood. Besides lock of Petti which was found stained with human blood articles of Petti were lying scattered outside. On further search .32 bore revolver bearing No. A61515 together with 15 cartridges of .32 bore were found missing. Along with Rs. 7000/-, two jewellery sets weighing about 9 Tolas were found missing.According to Amarjit Singh PW Manmohan Singh appellant sent him away on the pretext for getting gas connection committed the murder of his mother Smt. Rattan Kaur and also committed theft in respect of the aforesaid articles. On 29-4-1989, Manmohan Singh appellant was arrested and one revolver of .32 bore No. A 61515 was recovered from him along others articles. A separate case was registered at the Police Station against the said appellant under the Arms Act. After completion of the investigation, both the appellants were challaned, tried, convicted and sentenced as stated earlier.

The learned counsel for the parties were heard.

The prosecution case admittedly rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that there is no legal, cogent or reliable evidence on the record against the appellants that they ever entered into criminal conspiracy and that they committed the murder of Rattan Kaur in pursuance of such criminal conspiracy.

There is considerable merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. Perusal of the evidence by the prosecution does not reveal that any criminal conspiracy was hatched up between the appellants to commit the murder of Rattan Kaur. Nor there is any other legal, cogent or reliable material on the record that the murder of Rattan Kaur was committed in pursuance of any such conspiracy.

It is also significant to note that evidence relating to alleged conspiracy between the appellants is sought to be proved from the extra judicial confession said to have been made by Paramjit Singh appellant before Narinder Singh PW 3 who deposed that he has read up to 5th class only; that he is a political worker and supporter of S. Kirpal Singh M.P. and that Paramjit Singh (appellant) was. known to him for the last 4/ 5 years. These facts are conspicious by their absence from the statement of Narinder Singh PW recorded before the police Under Section. 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with which he has been duly confronted. Narinder Singh PW resides in a different locality. There is no reliable evidence on the record that Narinder Singh PW 3 had good relations with Paramjit Singh appellant. From the circumstances referred to above, it cannot be reasonably inferred that Paramjit Singh appellant would go and repose confidence in Narinder Singh PW so as to blurt out confession in his guilt before Narinder Singh PW 3. Regarding allegations of criminal conspiracy Paramjit Singh appellant in his extra-judicial confession only stated that he along with Manmohan Singh had conspired with each other to extract money or other articles provided they are in possession of some revolver. After Manmohan Singh appellant gave the information that his uncle Dewan Singh is in possession of revolver, cash and gold ornaments and only part attributed to Paramjit Singh appellant is that he told Manmohan Singh (his co-appellant) that finding an appropriate opportunity one way or the other he could get the revolver and ornaments besides cash by sending Dewan Singh and Amarjit Singh away from the house and he should also kill Rattan Kaur.

Another important aspect of the case is that in his extra-judicial confession Paramjit Singh appellant had passed on the entire blamed for committing the murder of Rattan Kaur and stealing jewellery and other articles on Manmohan Singh his co-appellant and has entirely exonerated himself as far as the commission of murder of Rattan Kaur or taking revolver, cash and ornaments from the house of Amarjit Singh PW or his parents is concerned. It is thus difficult to place implicit reliance on the testimony of Narinder Singh PW as far as the allegation''s that both the appellants entered into a criminal conspiracy for the purpose of getting revolver, ornament is and cash from'' the house of Amarjit Singh PW and his parents and to kill Rattan Kaur. We are thus of the considered view that there is no legal, cogent or reliable evidence on the record as far as charge u/s 120B of the Indian Penal Code concerning hatching of criminal conspiracy against both the appellants and the extra-judicial confession said to have been made by Paramjit Singh appellant is concerned.

The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution relates to the testimony of Amarjit Singh PW whose mother Rattan Kaur was strangulated to death. Manmohan Singh appellant is distantly related to Amarjit Singh PW and very well knew that Dewan Singh father of Amarjit Singh PW was away to his village for harvesting the wheat crop. According to the prosecution in order to facilitate the execution of his evil designs Manmohan Singh appellant wanted Amarjit Singh PW the only other male member of his family to remain away from his house, Manmohan Singh appellant approached Amarjit Singh PW to accompany him to B.S. Gas Agency in order to able him to get cooking gas connection. For this purpose Manmohan Singh approached Amarjit Singh PW first at 10 a.m. and subsequently at 1 p.m. and at 3 p.m. On first two occasions Amarjit Singh PW was busy and was not in a position to leave his Flour Mill located in the same building on the ground floor. Manmohan Singh appellant persisted and again approached Amarjit Singh PW at 3 p.m. when the latter asked Manmohan Singh appellant to go to the Gas Agency and that he would join him soon after finishing his work. The Gas Agency is at a distance of about 4 k.ms. from the residence of Amarjit Singh PW. After closing his business premises he left on his scooter in order to go to the Gas Agency. There he waited for about an hour but Manmohan Singh appellant did not reach there. So naturally Amarjit Singh PW came back to his house, He was climbing the stairs when he noticed Manmohan Singh appellant closing the door of His house on the first floor. On'' seeing Amarjit Singh PW, Manmohan Singh appellant was baffled and hurriedly went down stairs. Amarjit Singh PW asked Manmohan Singh as to why he did not come to the Gas Agency. Manmohan Singh appellant gave a lame excuse that he met some friends and got busy in eating and drinking with them. At that time Manmohan Singh appellant was carrying a bundle wrapped in a white sheet in his right hand. Amarjit Singh PW enquired from Manmohan Singh about the contents of that bundle who replied that these were eatables. Amarjit Singh PW also did observe some blood stains on the bed sheet. After this conversation Manmohan Singh appellant left the spot carrying that bundle with him. Since there was only one stair-case in view of the nature of conversation which took place between Manmohan Singh appellant and Amarjit Singh PW and in view of the fact that the time was about 4.15 p.m., it is quite evident that Amarjit Singh PW had ample opportunity to identify Manmohan Singh appellant who was his close relation and also to watch his behaviour which was quite unusual and consistently points towards his guilt. It is true that Vikram DW-4 deposed that Gas connection in favour of Tarlok Singh (father of Manmohan Singh appellant) was given on 27-2-1984 and there after no gas connection was issued in favour of aforesaid person.

From the testimony of Amarjit Singh PW it is quite clear that Manmohan Singh appellant approached him for getting a cooking gas connection. Even if father of the appellant had one gas connection in his own name there was no bar for Manmohan Singh appellant to get another gas connection in his own name. At any rate the case of the prosecution is that the object of Manmohan Singh appellant was to keep Amarjit Singh PW away from his house on one pretext or the other in order to get a free hand to the said accused for commission of the crime. Testimony of Vikaram DW-4 does not in any manner help the defence plea set up by Manmohan'' Singh appellant concerning the credibility of Amarjit Singh PW on this point. No other legal infirmity worth the name has been pointed out by the learned counsel for Manmohan Singh appellant concerning the testimony of Amarjit Singh PW referred to above.

After Manmohan Singh had hurriedly left the place of occurrence and the premises of Amarjit Singh PW, the latter went up stairs opened the door and found that household articles were lying scattered and his mother Rattan Kaur was lying dead on a mattress lying on the floor. The blood was lying near the dead body. A Dupta was tied around the neck of Rattan Kaur and the said Dupta had nots. The medical evidence reveals the following injuries on the dead body :-

1) A lacerated wound 5 c.m. x 3 cm. on the right side of the head, 4 cm. vertically above the right ear.

On dissection the bone underneath was fractured. On further dissection blood and blood clots were present over the surface of the brain.

2) A faint reddish contusion with swelling 7x5 c.m. on the left tempor-parietal region. On dissection a big haemotoma was present under the scalp.

3) A reddish contusion present all around the neck in its upper part with width 3 cm. and abrasion 14 cm. x 2 cm. in it. It was lying horizontally all around the neck. The sub cutaneous tissues were ecchymosed. The muscles of the neck were lacerated. The carotied vessels were reptured on both the sides. On further dissection the hyoid bone was found fractured. All the injuries were ante-mortem, and caused by blunt weapon. Death in the opinion of the doctor was due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation accompanied with injuries to head. Death was immediate and time that elapsed Between death and post-mortem was abotlt 24 hours (as per post-mortem report Ex. PA), Injury No. 3 could be the result of strahgulation with" Chuni The medical evidence referred to above coupled with the fact that fresh bleeding was there from the head injury of the deceased as observed by Amarjit Singh PW, it is quite apparent that murder of Rattan Kaur had been committed shortly before Amarjit Singh PW returned to his house on that fateful evening and saw that Manmohan Singh was baffled. He left the premises where the murder had been committed hurriedly and in a unusual manner which as already discussed earlier strongly points towards the guilt of Manmohan Singh appellant.

On 29-4-1989, Manmohan Singh appellant was arrested by the police party headed by S. I. Onkar Nath including Parshota, -Lal P. W. 14. From the personal search of Manmohan Singh appellant one revolver Ex. P 15 of 32 bore bearing No. 61515 Webley Scott was recovered from the bag which he was carrying in his right hand. Two live cartridges were recovered from unloading the revolver. Manmohan Singn appellant could not produce any valid licence for retaining the arms and ammunition. Besides arms and ammunition, one Camera Ex. P. 20, wrist watch Ex. P 21, purse Ex. P 22 containing currency notes of the value of Rs. 1,600/- Ex. P 24/1 to 16 and small diary Ex. P 23 on which the name of Dewan Singh was written, were also recovered from the possession of Manmohan Singh appellant, which were duly taken into possession through seizure memo. It is true that no independent witness was associated with the police party when Manmohan Singh appellant was arrested. He met the police party per chance and there was no prior secret information against him with the police party headed by S.I. Onkar Nath. Thus mere non-association of any independent witness with the police party would not attach any taint to the testimony of AS1 Parshotam Lal whose testimony on this point is creditworthy and finds ample corroboration from the recovery of revolver, live cartridges, Camera, Wrist watch, purse containing Rs. 1,600/- and diary. According to Rattan Singh PW 12 a relax wrist watch was given to him lor repair; on 14-2-1989 and was returned to Dewar Singh on 18-2-1989 after repairs and as per receipt Rs. 65/- were received as repair-charges. Testimony of Mohinder Singh PW 8 shows that Camera Ex. P 20 was giver by Dewan Singh PW to him for repairs and after getting repair charges of Rs. 115/- he handed over the said Camera along with receipt Ex. PM to Dewan Singh, PW. the defence plea that these recoveries were foisted on Manmohan Singh appellant in order to strengthen the prosecution story is hardly tenable, in the absence of any animosity or the part of the Investigating agency against Manmohan Singh appellant.

Testimony of ASI Parshotam Lai PW 14 (who was examined twice first as PW 11 and then as PW 14) coupled with the testimony of Narinder Singh PW 3 shows that Paramjit Singh accused* was produced by Narinder Singh PW before ASI Parshotam. Lai and ASI Gian Singh on 1-5-1989 and he was taken into custody. Paramjit Singh appellant on interrogation made a disclosure statement in pursuance of which he got recovered gold ormaments wrapped in a white Chaddar from underneath the seat of his sofa lying in his baithak. These ornaments include two bangles Ex. P. 1,?. 12, necklace Ex. P. 6. two earrings Ex. P, 13 and P. 14, two rings Ex. P. 17 and P. 8 and pair of tops Ex. P. 9 and P. 10. Since Paramjit Singh appellant was in exclusive possession of the place of recovery he would be deemed to be in conscious possession of the ornaments recovered in this case. From the testimony of Dewan Singh PW and Kulwinder Singh PW, it is clear that necklace Ex. P. 6, bangles Ex. P. 11, P. 12, two ear rings Ex. P. 13, P. 14 two rings Ex. P. 7 and P. 8 a pair of tops Ex. P. 9 and P. 1C belonged to Rattan Kaur deceased and Dewan Singh PW, latter got repaired and polished the aforesaid gold ornaments. Testimony of Surinderjit Singh Naib Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate PW. 1 shows that identification parade of ornaments and other articles recovered in this case was conducted by him at the Police Station. All these articles were mixed with other similar articles and Dewan Singh PW (husband of Rattan Kaur deceased) had identified these articles in his presence. Testimony of this witness coupled with that of Dewan Singh goes a long way to show that ornaments, Camera, Watch, other articles including purse belonged to Dewan Singh PW or his wife Rattan Kaur (deceased). Thus the ornaments which were stolen on 22-4-1989 were recovered from the conscious possession of Paramjit Singh appellant on 2-5-1989. No plausible explanation worth the name has been furnished on behalf of the defence concerning the aforesaid recoveries.

The defence plea set up in this case which is mainly on the news items appearing in the Indian Express and Daily Ajit suggesting that Rattan Kaur was strangulated to death by some unknown person is a cock and bull story which hardly seems tenable in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case referred to above. It is also pertinent to note that from the evidence on the record the name of the correspondent who sent the news or the information on the basis of which the news items referred to by the defence were published in the news papers has not been brought on the record of his case. In the absence of any such evidence no reliance whatsoever can be legally placed on the news items published with regard to the murder of Rattan Kaur. We have thus not the least hesitation in rejecting the defence plea referred to above.

For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has only been able to bring home charge u/s 411 of the Indian Penal Code against Paramjit Singh appellant and setting aside his order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court under other charges he is convicted u/s 411 of the Indian Penal Code. In the interest of justice and the fact that the recovery relates to remote period and Paramjit Singh appellant had been undergoing agony of trial for over four years and his appeal also remained pending in this Court for a period of one year or so in our view interests of justice would be fully met in case Paramjit Singh appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment that he has already undergone. We order accordingly. The prosecution has not been able to bring home charge u/s 120B of the Indian Penal Code against Manmohan Singh appellant and he is acquitted of the said charge. However, the prosecution has been able to bring home charge under Sections. 302, 454 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code against Manmohan Singh appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court against Manmohan Singh appellant on these three charges is maintained. As already discussed at the time of his arrest .32 bore revolver Ex. P. 15 and two live cartridges were recovered from the possession of Manmohan Singh appellant. As Manmohan Singh appellant failed to produce any valid licence for retaining the arms and ammunition, recovered from him, the prosecution has been able to bring home charge u/s 25 of the Arms Act against him in a separate trial, and his conviction and sentence under the said offence is maintained. The learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced Manmohan Singh appellant u/s 25 of the Arms Act and his conviction and sentence under the said ofence is upheld. However, we direct that the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded by the learned trial Court to Manmohan Singh appellant u/s 25 of the Arms Act shall run concurrently with the substantive sentences of imprisonment awarded in the main case i.e. in Crl. A. No. 247-DB of 1993.

The appeals i.e. Crl. A. No. 247-DB of 1993, Manmohan Singh v. State of Punjab, Crl. A. No. 226-DB of 1993, Paramjit Singh v. State of Punjab and Crl. A. No. 277-SB of 1993, Manmohan Singh v. State of Punjab are disposed of accordingly.