Sardar Singh @ Sardara vs State of Haryana

Sukhdev Singh Kang, J.

This appeal by Sardara Singh is directed against the judgment dated 11.11.1996 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (I) Kurukshetra whereby the learned Judge has convicted the appellant under Section 302. Indian Penal Code and has sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.

Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that Mam Raj. deceased of this case, had taken one acre of agricultural land belonging to Sawan Ram, PW 7, on lease. This land is adjacent to his family lands measuring about 5 acres. Sardara, appellant, had also taken another acre of land on lease from Sawan Ram, abovementioned, Sawan Ram is a big landowner. Other small landowners of the village also used to take land from him on lease. A tubewell had been installed in that piece of land and the lessees used to irrigate the lands taken on lease from that tubewells There was no fixed turn of the water and as such there used to arise disputes between various persons over the turn of the water. On this score dispute had taken place between Mam Raj and Sardara appellant on more than one occasion

On 25 3.1986 Mam Raj went to the fields at about sunrise. Ram Singh, P.W. who had also his lands nearby saw Sardara and Mam Raj quarrelling over the turn of water at about 10.00 A.M.

Ram Pal, PW 11. a son of Mam Raj was employed as a Munim with Sat Parkash, Commission Agents at Babain He used to go daily from village Mangoli Jattan to Babain and come back in the evening at about 5/600 P.M. On 15.3.1981 when Ram Pal came back from Babain in the evening at the usual time, be learnt that his father had not come back from the fields. He went to the house of his uncle Roop Ram, PW 2 who was busy in cutting fodder on his chaff cutter and informed him that Mam Raj has not returned from the fields. Roop Ram put Ram Pal on the job of cutting fodder and himself went to Sardara appellant to enquire about the whereabouts of Mam Raj. Sardara was present in his baithak which is near the house of Roop Ram and was puffing a huqa. On enquiry by Roop Ram. Sardara informed him that he had seen the Khesi of Mam Raj in the fields lying near the eucalyptus trees. Roop Ram came back to his house and informed Ram Pal. Thereafter, Roop Ram, Lachhman, Ram Singh and Ram Pal went to the fields and found the dead body of Mam Raj lying in the field of Mangat Ram. They brought the dead body on a cot to their house. Ram Singh disclosed that be had seen the deceased and Sardara appellant and his servant working in their adjoining fields at about 10/11 A.M. and that Sardara and Mam Raj had quarreled over the turn of water.

Ram Pal went to the Police Station Radaur and lodged a report at about 10.40 p. m. with Sohan Singh, S.I PW 12. Sohan Singh, S.I. then accompanied Ram Pal to the house of Roop Ram in village Mangoli Jattan. He found the dead body of Mam Raj lying on a cot. He prepared an inquest report Exhibit PB He went to the place from where the dead body had been picked up and inspected the site. He got the site photographed, prepared the rough site plan and then went to the Civil Hospital Kurukshetra and got the autopsy done on the dead body. The postmortem examination was conducted by a penal of doctors consisting of Dr. N.C. Mureja, PW 1, Dr. Madan Goel and Dr. Naresh Gandhi. They observed that the length of the body was 5''5". There was no mark of ligature. There was congestion of the body above the angle sternum. manubrium, both in front and back and on both shoulders, neck, face, scalp. There was also congestion over upper half of both arms The face was puffy and cyanosed. Petition haemorrhages present in the subcontaneous tissues in the area described The eyes were prominent and conjactiva were congested and pupils were dilated. The lips were cyanosed and so was the tongue. Bloody froath present in both nostrils. Tongue was swollen also. Seminal fluid was present at the glans penis.

On dissection of the neck, there was found extravasation of blood in subcontaneous tissues, muscles and paratracheal tissues. Blood froath was bubbling out from the trechea at the junction of coricord and trachea. On palpation of cricotracheal junction, tracheal cartilages and cricord were fractured The trechea was compressed anteroposteriorly. On opening the trachea the larynx, it was full of blood and froath.

Scalp meaninges and brain matter were congested. And petecheal haemorrhages were present in brain tissue in therax both the pleurae and lungs were congested.

Stamach contains semidigested food, small intestine contained semi digested food and gases. Large intestines contained fickle matter and gases Death in the opinion of the doctor was due to asphyxia as a result of obstruction to air ways caused by external pressure over the neck which was ante mortem in nature and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature The doctor also opined that death of the deceased in this case could have taken place at any time on the intervening night of 24/2531986. The doctor did not observe any external mark of injury on the nose or the neck or the face.

On 30.3.1986 Surta Ram, PW 4 was present in his house at village Kaithal, Sardara appellant and his co accused Charan Singh came to this witness. The sister of Sardara, namely, Sardari is married with Ajmer Singh, cousin brother of Surta Ram. Therefore, he was on visiting terms with Sardara appellant Sardara and Charan Singh took meals at the house of Surta Ram Thereafter Sardara told Surta Ram that he had committed a sin. On enquiry by Surta Ram Sardara stated that he had got tremendously enraged against Mam Ran as a result of the dispute over the irrigation of the onion field and that both Sardara and Mam Raj had a scuffle and during that scuffle he felled down Mam Rai on the ground and sat over him and then throttled him and killed him. Thereafter he and Charan Singh picked up the dead body of Mam Raj and removed it to the field of Mangat Ram and placed it there. Sardara requested Surta Ram to produce him and Charan Singh before the Sub Inspector at Police Station Radur. Surta Ram accompanied by Sardara and Charan Singh went to the Police Station Radaur at about 4.00 A.M. Surta Ram met Sub Inspector Sohan Singh in the Police Station and informed him that he wanted to produce the accused before nim. At that time Hukam Singh, who is a member Panchayat of the village Potli was present there. Surta Ram produced Sardara and Charan Singh accused before the Sub Inspector. Both of them were arrested. After the completion of the investigation, Sardara and Charan Singh were challaned The learned trial Judge has acquitted Charan Singh and convicted and sentenced Sardara, as mentioned in the opening part of the judgment.

Before proceeding to appreciate the various submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, it will be appropriate to keep in mind that where the inference of guilt of an accused person is to be drawn from circumstantial evidence only those circumstances must in the first place be established, Further, those circumstances should be of a definite tendency pointing towards the guilt of the accused and in their totality must unerringly lead to the conclusion that within all human probability the offence was committed by the accused and none else (Rama Nand and others v. The State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 738).

In order to connect the appellant with the crime, the prosecution has relied upon four circumstances :

(1) Main Raj deceased was last seen by Ram Singh, PW 3 with Sardara, appellant( 2) the conduct of Sardara, appellant. He had informed Roop Ram that he had seen the Khesi of Mam Raj near eucalyptus trees. (3) the extrajudicial confesion of Sardara and (4) abscondence.

In order to establish the first circumstance, the prosecution had examined Ram Singh, PW 3. Ram Singh is a cousin of Mam Raj, deceased. Mam Raj was the son of Jyoti. Ram Singh is the son of Moti, who were brothers. The statement of Ram Singh does not inspire confidence. He has prevaricated. At one stage he stated that at about 10/11 A.M he had seen Sardara appellant and Mani Raj deceased quarrelling with each other. At another stage lie stated that he saw Mam Raj in his field only upto 9 or 10 A.M. and did not see Mam Rai thereafter. He further stated that be worked in the field for about one or 11/2 hours and thereafter he returned to his home whereas at another stage he stated that be remained in the fields up to 2.30/3 00 P.M. The prosecution has not been able to establish with any certainty the exact time of death of the deceased. As noticed earlier, Dr. Mureja. PW I had opined that the deceased may have died any time on the intervening night of 24/25.3.1986 It is also not stated by Ram Singh that the deceased and Sardara were seen by him together after the quarrel. It is not the case of prosecution that when the quarrel took place Mam Raj had been murdered at that time The conduct of Ram Singh is also not natural, He does not say that he intervened when Sardara and Main Raj were engaged in a quarrel. Ha being the first cousin of Mani Raj could not act in such a detached manner. If he had been present there, he surely would have intervened and at least would have asked the parties not to fight. There is also discrepency with regard to his presence at the material time He had stated that he was busy with the Masri crop and that he had not paid the share of the produce of this crop to the landlord, Mast Ram. The landlord has however, stated that be had received the share of crop from Ram Singh 7/8 days prior to the recovery of the dead body. So, no reliance can be placed on the statement of Ram Singh.

The second circumstance alleged by the prosecution is wholly innocuous. It does not establish guilty mind The conduct of Sardara as deposed to by Roop Ram and Ram Pal does not in any manner implicate him. The statement that Sardara had seen the Khesi of the deceased near the eucalyptus tree is a natural circumstance. It is not shown that this statement was false.

Extrajudicial confession is a weak type of evidence. This evidence can be accepted only if it comes from an independent and reliable source, Here the evidence of extra judicial confession is furnishered by Surta Ram. He is vitally interested in the complainants. His son Ram Singh is married with Atmi, the first cousin of Mam Raj deceased. In these circumstances, it is difficult to believe that Sardara will go to Surta Ram and seek his help Surta Ram tried to pose as nutural person who was related to both sides. However, he has miserably failed. He stated that Sardari, the sister of Sardara. appellant was married to his cousin Ajmer Singh. However, in the cross examination h e could not tell the name of Ajmer Singh''s grand father. He also stated that his grandfather Natha Singh did not have any brother. He feigned ignorance regarding the name of his great grandfather or as to the number of his brothers. He has not explained how Ajmer Singh was his cousin He also stated that he was on visiting terms with Sardara and had gone to his house many times hut be was unable to give any particulars about the village of Sardara and the dignitories thereof. He stated that he did not know the name of the Sarpanch of village Mangoli Jattan. He did not know if the Panchayats of Majara Sainian and that of Mangoli Jattan is one and the same or there are two different ones. He did not know who was the Lambardar of village Mangoli] Jattan. So these facts indicate that this witness had not been visiting village Mangoli Jattan. The statement of this witness cannot be relied upon also for another very important reason. He has stated in his statement that Sardara told him that the appellant had during the course of scuffle felled Main Raj on the ground, sat on his body, then, throttled him and killed him in, that way. The relevant part of his statement on this aspect of the case, in Hindi, reads as under :

"Sardara Ne Mujhe Bataya Ke Phir Sardara Ne Uska Gala Ghot Kar Mar Dia"

If we peruse the statement of Dr. Mureja PW 1, we find that there was no mark of ligature on the neck and there was no external mark of injury on the nose, the neck or the face. If Mam Raj, deceased had been throttled then there would have been ligature marks on the neck. It has been stated by or Mureja. PW 1 that in this case some soft cloth or any pillow type thing may have been used for blocking the nose, mouth and thereby restricted the air passage which resulted in asphyxia It will hot be possible for a single person to cause the death of the deceastd in this manner because of the resistance which may be offered by the deceased". This opinion of the doctor clearly knocks out the story that the deceased had been throttled by pressing his neck. This shows that the story of extrajudicial confession is only a concoction.

Apart from the vague statement of Sub Inspector Sohan Singh there is no cogent evidence that the appellant had absconded. Furthermore, the abscondence does not always indicate of guilty mind. Sometimes after coming to know of some crime even the innocent persons panic and make themselves scarce. So this circumstance is also not such which may be definite pointer to the guilt of the accused.

In the result, we find that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against Sardara appellant beyond reasonable doubt. We allow the appeal and acquit appellant.