Resham Singh S/o Gurmail Singh @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan

The instant criminal appeal lays a challenge to the judgment dated 02.09.2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangaria in Sessions

Case No.12/2007 whereby the accused appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo

imprisonment for life and pay fine in sum of ₹1,000/-, in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

Brief facts of the case are that a written report was filed by PW-2 Jagga Singh at the Police station, Sangaria, District Hanumangarh on 11.06.2007

stating therein that on 10.06.2007 he alongwith Ramandeep Kaur, daughter of his brother, aged about eight years, were grazing goats in the field of

Baldev Singh. At that time, accused Resham Singh and Bunty came there and asked for water. On this, he went to fetch water from the field of

Sadhu Singh. When he came back, he did not find Ramandeep Kaur. On asking, Bunty told him that she went back to village with her aunt. Later on,

when he returned to his house he found that Ramandeep Kaur had not returned home. He alongwith Ruldu Singh and Baljinder Singh searched for

Ramandeep Kaur and also informed the police. On the next day 11.06.2007, when he alongwith other persons started searching Ramandeep Kaur,

Paramjeet Singh told them that he has seen Ramandeep Kaur with Resham Singh and Bunty going towards Khala. On this, all went towards Khala

where they found marks of dragging and the dead body of Ramandeep Kaur. She had injury marks on her body. The clothes were also found to be

torn. Both the accused Resham Singh and Bunty committed rape with Ramandeep Kaur and killed her.

Upon aforesaid complaint, police registered a formal FIR Ex.P/5 and investigation commenced. The police arrested the appellant on 13.06.2007 and

after completion of investigation, challan was filed against the appellant before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangaria from where

the case was committed to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Sangaria.

The learned trial court after framing charge under Section 302 and Section 376(2) IPC, proceeded to record the prosecution evidence. In support of

prosecution case, 17 witnesses were examined in all and various documents were exhibited. After recording evidence of prosecution, the statement of

the accused appellant were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. however, no witness was examined on defence side.

5.Upon conclusion of trial, the learned trial court acquitted the appellant for offence under Section 376(2) IPC but convicted and sentenced the

appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC vide judgment dated 02.09.2008.

In sustaining the verdict of guilt for the offence of having murdered the deceased, the learned Court of Sessions has believed the testimony of Jagga

Singh PW-2 and Paramjeet Singh Panch PW-5. As per the testimony of the two witnesses the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the

appellant and Bunty, who being a juvenile, was sent for trial before the Juvenile Court. The claim of the Investigating Officer that pursuant to

disclosure statement made by the appellant a stick on which human blood was detected has also been held to be incriminating evidence. The Pajama

which the appellant was wearing when he was arrested on 13.6.2007 has not been detected with any human blood thereon and thus the same does not

acquire any incriminating circumstance.

During arguments in the appeal learned counsel for the parties were in agreement that much turns upon testimony of Jagga Singh PW-2 and

Paramjeet Singh PW5.

Prior to Jagga Singh PW-2 lodging the written report in the morning of 11.6.2007, on 10.6.2007 at around 10.00 in the night a missing person

complaint regarding the deceased was received through telephone followed by further information received over the telephone has been recorded in

the rojnamcha and the three rojnamcha entries are Ex.P/45-A, Ex.P/46-A and Ex.P/47-A. The exhibited documents are photocopies of the rojnamcha

entries but with reference to the original produced the learned trial Judge hasnoted that as recorded in the rojnamcha entries the informant was Panch

Paramjeet Singh and the name was, by way of manipulation, changed to Shri Parabjhot Singh Maan.

The relevance and importance of said fact is that if Paramjeet Singh Panch PW-5 gave the telephonic information on the night of 9th June that the

deceased was missing, it would discredit him because the next day he claimed that he saw the deceased in the company of the appellant and Bunty

the previous evening; a fact which he never disclosed in the rojnamcha entries. Further, there is evidence that he searched for the deceased in the

night of 9th June, 2007 and did not inform anybody of said fact.

We have perused Ex.P/45-A, Ex.P/46-A and Ex.P/47-A. In Ex.P/45-A at point marked ‘A to B’, as read the name written iisjH ktksr flg

eku (Parabhjot Singh Maan). The letter ‘Hk’ in the word ijHk appears to be the result of an interpolation in the letter ‘e’. A careful

reading of the word shows that ije has been converted to read ijHk. Similarly, the word tksr ((Jot) appears to be the result of interpolation. thr (Jeet)

has been interpolated to read tksr (Jot). The last word eku (Maan) has a clear interpolation with two slanting lines touching the letter i (Pa), to read Jh

(Shri) and the last letter p (cha) to read u (Na). The interpolation in Ex.P/46-A results in the two words from the point ‘A to B’ being read as

Shri Parabhjot Singh. The interpolation in the word to read Jh (Shri) is the result of the word i being added with two parallel lines to read Jh (Shri) and

thus, the word panch to read Jh (Shri). Similarly, the thr (Jeet) has been converted to read tksr (Jot). Likewise is the interpolation in Ex.P/47-A. The

three rojnamcha entries clearly indicate that Panch Paramjeet Singh was the informant.

Jagga Singh PW-2 has deposed in sync. with his written report based whereon the FIR was registered. During cross-examination he admitted that

the previous night when the deceased did not return home the village people had searched for her. Pursuant to telephonic information given to the

police even the police had joined. The search party was armed with torches. He also admitted that Panch Paramjeet Singh was with the search party.

He admitted that at night Panch Paramjeet Singh did not inform that he had last seen the deceased in the company of the appellant and Bunty.

Thus, the testimony of PW-2 and in particular the admissions establishes Panch Paramjeet Singh being a member of the search party. At the first

opportunity i.e. the night of 10.6.2007 neither claimed that deceased was seen with the accused.

Panch Paramjeet Singh has appeared as PW5. In his testimony he deposes that he had seen the deceased in the company of the appellant and

Bunty. He claims that next day morning relatives of the deceased asked him about her and he informed that in the previous evening he had seen the

deceased in the company of the appellant and Bunty. He denied that he had given any telephonic information to the police.

In view of what is recorded in Ex.P/45-A, Ex.P/46-A and Ex.P/47A it is clear that when information was given to the police the previous night

PW5 name the appellant. Even if we look to the testimony of Jagga Singh PW-2 and his written report he claims to have seen the deceased in the

company of the appellant and Bunty late in evening of the previous day. He claims that he was led to bring water and when he returned he met Bunty

who told him that the deceased had left for her house.

Now, it assumes importance that this fact he never informed to anybody at night when the villagers alongwith the police personnel were searching

for the deceased. It is against human conduct, how so ever rustic or illiterate a person may be to not inform the villagers and the police personnel who

were searching for a young girl that she was seen in the company of the two men at around 6.00 PM, a few hours before the girl went missing.

On account of the manipulation made by the police and on account of the analysis of the testimony of the two witnesses of the last seen, we would

be compelled to grant benefit of doubt to the appellant. We disregard the evidence of last seen.

Pertaining to the recovery of the stick, the panch witnesses Pappu Ram PW-8 has stated that the stick was recovered about 2 killa from where

the dead body was lying i.e. the recovery is from an open field if we go by the testimony of this witness.

PW-11 Jogendra Singh claims that the stick was recovered on 14.6.2007, whereas the fact is that the stick was recovered on 15.6.2007.

The recovery being from an open space the incriminating value in any case would be very weak.

The FSL report records presence of blood on the stick with group being same as that of the deceased.

In the decision reported as (2018) 3 SCC (Cri.) 486 Sonvir alias Somvir Vs. State the Supreme Court has held that mere presence of blood on the

clothes got recovered by the accused and the fact that the group of the blood was the same as that of the deceased is no incriminating evidence.

For the reasons above, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangaria in Sessions Case

No.12/2007 vide judgment dated 02.09.2008 against the appellant for offence under 302 IPC, is quashed and set aside. The accused appellant is set at

liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.

Keeping in view, however, the provisions of Section 437A Cr.P.C. the accused appellant is directed to forthwith furnish personal bond in sum of

₹20,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount before the learned trial court, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the

event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the present judgment or for grant of leave, the appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear

before the Supreme Court.