Santokh Singh vs State of Punjab

Mahavir Singh Chauhan, J.—Tarsem Singh, the deceased went missing on 31.03.2000. His father, Gurbachan Singh (PW14) after having failed to trace him out, lodged a missing report (Exhibit PN) on 26.04.2000. On coming to know that appellant Gurvinder Kaur, wife of the deceased, was illicitly entangled with appellant Santokh Singh and accused Amrik Singh (since acquitted) and on being satisfied that the two appellants, in league with their co-accused, had done the deceased to death, Shivdev Singh (PW3), brother-in-law (sister''s husband), of deceased lodged First Information Report (FIR, for short), Exhibit PE/2, on 30.04.2000. On 01.05.2000, after being arrested by the police, appellant Gurvinder Kaur suffered a disclosure statement, Exhibit PQ, and pursuant to that, indicated the spot, by the side of western wall of a room on the western side in the house of appellant Santokh Singh, where dead body of the deceased was buried by them (the accused). Consequently, in the presence of Executive Magistrate Joginder Pal Singh (PW7) and the police officials, as also a number of villagers, the indicated place was dug by Rajwant Singh (PW8), Surjit Singh (PW) and Jaswinder Singh (PW) and decomposed dead body of the deceased was recovered vide memorandum, Exhibit PJ. The process of recovery of the dead body was photographed and videographed by Janak Raj Sharma (PW9). Investigating Officer, Sub Inspector Ramandeep Singh (PW13) prepared Injury Report, Exhibit PR, rough site plan, Exhibit PS, of the place of recovery, Inquest report, Exhibit PC, took in police possession copy of a compromise, Exhibit PF, stated to be arrived at between the deceased and appellant Santokh Singh, arrested appellant Santokh Singh and accused Amrik Singh and his wife Chhindo (since acquitted) on 04.05.2000 and recorded statements of witnesses, including that of a real aunt of the deceased, namely Harbhajan Kaur (PW10), to the effect that she had seen the accused killing the deceased and that of Kulwant Singh (PW4) to the effect that all the four accused had confessed their crime before him. Dr. Gurmanjit Rai (PW1) conducted post mortem on the dead body of the deceased on 02.05.2000, found eight injuries on it and opined, vide post mortem report, Exhibit PA, that injuries were ante mortem in nature and deceased died of asphyxia caused by strangulation due to injuries No. 1 to 4, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He also opined that the time that elapsed between death and post mortem was 3 to 5 weeks. On these allegations, court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar charged the appellants under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short) and their co-accused Amrik Singh and Chhindo under Sections 302/34 and 201, IPC, but after trial acquitted Amrik Singh and Chhindo and convicted and sentenced appellant Santokh Singh to imprisonment for life with fine amounting to Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment for six months u/s 302, IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for five years u/s 201, IPC, and appellant Gurvinder Kaur to imprisonment for life with fine amounting to Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment for six months u/s 302 read with Section 34, IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for five years u/s 201, IPC, vide judgment/order dated 21.02.2002, which are under challenge in this appeal.

During the trial, in view of the plea of not guilty and claim to be tried put up by the accused, prosecution examined as many as fourteen witnesses besides proving a number of documents. All the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution were put to the accused while examining them u/s 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC, for short) but the accused denied all these circumstances. They, however, neither offered any explanation with regard to recovery of dead body from within the house of appellant Santokh Singh at the instance of appellant Gurvinder Kaur nor did they put up any plea of defence. The accused also did not lead any evidence in their defence.

Learned counsel for the appellants has employed a spirited and vigorous attack against the finding of conviction recorded by the learned trial court, saying that evidence of Harbhajan Kaur (PW10) and Kulwant Singh (PW4) has been wrongly relied upon in spite of the fact both these witnesses, ex facie, are planted witnesses; compromise, Exhibit PF, is a manufactured document as is evident from the fact that it claims to have come into existence on 09.05.1999 but does not find a mention in missing report, Exhibit PN, recorded on 26.04.2000 on the statement of father of the deceased, namely Gurbachan Singh (PW14) and neither Gurbachan Singh nor Shivdev Singh are party to it in spite of the fact that they happen to be father and brother in law, respectively, of the deceased; interregnum of 26 days between the day the deceased went missing and recording of missing report, Exhibit PN, has not been explained; there are contradictions in the evidence pertaining to place of recovery of the dead body; from the revelation made by Rajwant Singh (PW8) that the police was guarding the place of recovery since 30.04.2000 and key of the lock of the room was in possession of HC Mangat Ram (PW11) raises a serious doubt about the disclosure statement, Exhibit PQ, and consequent recovery of dead body, because it indicates that the investigating agency knew before-hand where the dead body was; and there is no evidence to prove that the two appellants had illicit relations, inter se. The learned counsel also argues that even if the entire prosecution story is accepted to be correct, still no nexus is established between the appellants and death of the deceased.

On the contrary, on behalf of the respondent-State it is argued, with no less vitality, that PW10, Harbhajan Kaur saw the appellants killing the deceased and then they made a confessional statement before PW4, Kulwant Singh. Above this all, it has remained undisputed that dead body of the deceased was recovered from within the house of appellant Santokh Singh at the instance of appellant Gurvinder Kaur and they have failed to render any explanation in this regard. According to the learned State counsel, the missing report itself carries an explanation that efforts were made to trace out the deceased and the missing report was lodged only after all such efforts had failed.

No other or further point has been urged on either side.

Let''s examine the evidence of PW4, Kulwant Singh and PW10, Harbhajan Kaur in the first instance.

PW4, Kulwant Singh claims that the four accused, including the appellants, approached him at or around 04.00 a.m. on 01.05.2000 but had slipped away after making a confessional statement before him. However, he kept silent till his statement, u/s 161, CrPC, was recorded on 07.05.2000. He did not disclose it either to the village headman or other respectables of the village or relatives of the deceased or to the police even though he was present there when the police was digging out the dead body of the deceased on 01.05.2000. It has been admitted by him that he is a Mazhbi Sikh while the appellants belong to Jat Sikh community and he has no connection with them. He had ceased to be a Member Panchayat four years ago and does not claim to have made a rapport with the police officials. In such a situation it is not believable that the appellants would approach him to lay their hearts open and confess their guilt. He, therefore, is a planted witness.

PW10, Harbhajan Kaur is real aunt of the deceased. She claims to have seen the accused killing the deceased at or around 10-11 p.m. by strangulating him with a rope and then dragging the dead body towards the street. Still, she left for Nagpur in the next morning and did not disclose it to parents of the deceased or to anyone else till her statement, u/s 161, CrPC, was recorded on 07.05.2000 in spite of the fact that parents and other relatives of the deceased were living just across a passage from her house. She did not disclose the episode even to her husband at Nagpur. These circumstances render her evidence unacceptable. She again appears to be a planted witness.

The circumstances attending on the evidence of PWs Kulwant Singh and Harbhajan Kaur compel us to observe that these witnesses have been purposelessly introduced by the prosecution as the chain of circumstances, even without assistance of these witnesses, is complete to such an extent as to fix guilt of the appellants and to rule out any hypothesis of their innocence.

According to the missing report, Exhibit PN, proved by Gurbachan Singh (PW14), deceased did not enjoy cordial relations with his wife, appellant Gurvinder Kaur. On 31.03.2000 they exchanged hot words and did not talk to each other throughout the day. On 01.04.2000 he learnt that the deceased was missing from the house. His efforts to search him out having failed, he lodged this report expressing suspicion that deceased might have left the house on account of the dispute he had with his wife. Shivdev Singh (PW3) appeared before the Investigating Officer (PW13) on 30.04.2000 and made statement, Exhibit PE, stating therein that appellant Gurvinder Kaur, wife of the deceased, had illicit relations with appellant Santokh Singh and Amrik Singh which the deceased would object to. On an earlier occasion a compromise was also effected whereunder appellant Santokh Singh had undertaken not to have such relations with appellant Gurvinder Kaur. He, therefore, was sure that the deceased had been done to death by the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention. Iqbal Singh (PW5), an attesting witness, has proved the compromise dated 09.05.1999 as Exhibit PF. He has passed the litmus test of cross examination successfully. Perusal of the compromise reveals that appellant has very categorically stated that in future he would not keep illicit relations with wife of the deceased. It is, thus, sufficiently proved that the two appellants were illicitly engaged with each other and repeated annoyance of the deceased with his wife, appellant Gurvinder Kaur, was the consequence of this unwanted and immoral bond. It may be added here that in our non-permissive and conservative set up matters telling adversely upon honour of the family and fidelity of womenfolk are not discussed by the younger ones with their parents and close relatives like brother in law etc. Therefore, compromise, Exhibit PF, cannot be termed as manufactured document only because father and brother in law of the deceased were not party to it and Gurbachan Singh (PW14) did not make a mention of it in the missing report, Exhibit PN.

No questions have been raised by the defence in respect of a statement of fact contained in Exhibit PN, viz. on 31.03.2000 the deceased and appellant Gurvinder Kaur had heated exchanges, did not speak with each other and went to sleep in a room separate from the room in which Gurbachan Singh (PW14) and his wife had slept and in the morning of 01.04.2000 he was found to be missing from there. On 01.05.2000, after her arrest in view of registration of the FIR, Exhibit PE/2, on 30.04.2000 naming her as an accused, appellant Gurvinder Kaur suffered a disclosure statement, Exhibit PQ, stating that she, and her accomplices, including appellant Santokh Singh, had killed the deceased and had concealed his dead body near western wall in a room on the western side in the house of appellant Santokh Singh. The indicated place was dug in the presence of an Executive Magistrate, named Joginder Pal (PW7) and disfigured dead body of the deceased was recovered from there vide memorandum, Exhibit PJ. This circumstance has been proved by the executive Magistrate, Joginder Pal (PW7), Rajwant Singh (PW8), Janak Raj Sharma (PW9), Investigating Officer, SI Ramandeep Singh (PW13) and HC Mangat Ram (PW11). All these witnesses have passed the test of credibility except for a very negligible variation that has come in the deposition of Joginder Pal (PW7) as he has stated that the dead body was recovered from eastern side room of the house. This variation, in our considered view, is the outcome of clerical mistake or phonetically identical pronunciation of the terms "Western" and "Eastern". The variation, therefore, is liable to be ignored, more so in view of the fact that all other witnesses have been unanimous in saying that the dead body was recovered from near western wall in a room on the western side in the house of appellant Santokh Singh. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that, as stated by Rajwant Singh (PW8), police was guarding the room and key of the lock was obtained from HC Mangat Ram, is wholly misplaced because it is not so stated by SI Ramandeep Singh, the Investigating Officer, Joginder Pal, the Executive Magistrate and HC Mangat Ram.

Dead body of the deceased having been recovered from within the house of appellant Santokh Singh at the instance of appellant Gurvinder Kaur, in the backdrop of the proven fact that the two had illicit relation with each other and, presumably, objection of the deceased to such a relationship was working as an irritant to the duo, the appellants were obliged to explain if the deceased was not killed by them, how his dead body reached the house of appellant Santokh Singh and how the place of its concealment came to be known to appellant Gurvinder Kaur. An opportunity fell their way to render an explanation when the appellants were examined u/s 313, CrPC, but they chose not to render any such explanation. Then, no evidence by them in defence has been adduced. Therefore, it has to be presumed that the deceased was killed by them and his dead body was concealed in the house of appellant Santokh Singh.

It is beyond cavil that the deceased died a homicidal death. Dr. Gurmanjit Rai (PW1) conducted post mortem on the dead body of the deceased on 02.05.2000, found eight injuries on it and opined, vide post mortem report, Exhibit PA, that injuries were ante mortem in nature and deceased died of asphyxia caused by strangulation due to injuries No. 1 to 4, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He also opined that the time that elapsed between death and post mortem was 3 to 5 weeks. On having counted on the basis of time that elapsed between the date of death and post mortem, date of death of the deceased comes to be around 01.04.2000, the day on which he was stated to have gone missing from the room where he had gone to sleep along with appellant Gurvinder Kaur on 31.03.2000, after having an altercation with her. Reluctance of appellant Gurvinder Kaur to disclose "disappearance" of the deceased to her father in law or to any one else till she was arrested on 01.05.2000, also speaks volumes about her complicity in the commission of the crime.

As regards the submission that father of the deceased did not report "disappearance" of the deceased for 25 days, suffice it to say that it has come in the missing report itself that previously also the deceased would remain absent from his house owing his annoyance with his wife. For that reason, PW Gurbachan Singh preferred to search him out rather than to inform the police and he approached the police only after his efforts to find him out had failed.

As a consequence of what has been said and discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and affirm the same. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled. They shall forthwith surrender before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar failing which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate shall cause them to be re-arrested and commit to custody so as to serve the remainder of sentence awarded to them by the learned trial court as affirmed by this court.