Satbir Singh vs State of Haryana

Jai Singh Sekhon, J.—Satbir, appellant, was found guilty and convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, on the charge for the murder of his wife and infant daughter u/s 302, Indian Penal Code, on two counts as well as for an offence u/s 201, Indian Penal Code, for destroying the evidence of these two murders. The appellant was awarded imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/- or in default of payment thereof to undergo six months'' rigorous imprisonment on the first count while three years and fine of Rs. 200/- or in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months'' rigorous imprisonment. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. Feeling aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, he has come up in appeal.

In brief the facts of the prosecution case are that in the month of October, 1990, Satbir, appellant, along with his wife Mst. Rajo and daughter Ms. Kavita had gone from his Village Govindpura to village Rathal for attending the ''Kaaj'' ceremony of maternal grandmother of his wife. After attending the ''Kaaj'' ceremony, all of them returned from village Rathal on 8-10-1990 to their village Govindpura. On the way they met Amar Singh (PW 6) of her parents village Putthi Mangal, at Bus-stand Hansi, at about 5 or 5.15 p.m. on the same day, Roshan Lal (PW 7) also of village Putthi Mangal Khan saw these persons going in a rickshaw at about 8. p.m. at Loharu Chowk, Bhiwani. Thereafter, Mst. Rajo and Ms. Kavita were not seen alive. On 10th October, 1990, Om Parkash (PW 4) of village Haluwas, found the deadbody lying in the growth of bushes in the fields of Master Ravi Dutt of his village, He then informed Ran Singh, Sarpanch (PW 5) of Gram Panchayat regarding this fact at about 4 or 5. p.m. Ran Singh, PW, along with other respectables of the village then went to the said place and found the deadbody of a female lying in the fields. He then left for police station Sadar, Bhiwani. On the way he met ASI Ram Kumar (PW15) at the crossing of Loharu Dadri, in Bhiwani and lodged report Exhibit PH. It was concluded at 8.30 p.m. and on its basis a case u/s 302, Indian Penal Code, was got registered at the police station. ASI Ram kumar along with Ran Singh arrived at the spot. He got the deadbody photographed from Head Constable Brahm Dutt (PW 3). The shirt worn by the deadbody was found torn, and front of deadbody was exposed. It was the decomposed deadbody of a female. He called residents of the surrounding area but they failed to identify the deadbody. The Assistant Sub-Inspector drafted inquest report and got the deadbody subjected to post mortem examination from Dr. Subash Chander Agarwal (PW 8). The autopsy was conducted on 11-10-1990 at about 10.40 a.m. This doctor found maggots crawling all over the body. The deadbody was in advance stage of decomposition, and emitting foul smell. The pubic hair were easily pluckable. The doctor took sample of pubic hair along with swab from vagina and sent the same to the Chemical Examiner. The finger tips of both the hands of the deadbody were taken into possession and sealed for identification as the deadbody was not identifiable, due to advance stage of decomposition. The doctor, however, failed to detect any external mark of injury. The doctor preserved stomach and part of small intestines, large intestines along with part of liver, spleen and halves of both the kidneys and sent the same to the Chemical Examiner. The cause of death was kept under observation till the receipt of Chemical Examiner''s report. The Chemical Examiner failed to detect any poison in the viscera of the deceased. Thus, the doctor failed to give any specific cause of death of the deceased. However, due to protruding of the tongue between the teeth, this doctor opined that the possibility of the death by throttling cannot be ruled out.

On 19th October, 1990, Dharam Singh, Sarpanch (PW 11) of village Putthi Mangal along with Shanti mother of Rajo, deceased, and Bawa Singh identified the deadbody from the photographs Exhibits P3 and P4 and its clothes. On 24th of October, 1990, Satbir, accused-appellant, came to the house of Dharamvir, Sarpanch, where Hawa Singh was already present. Satbir admitted having murdered his wife Rajo and daughter Kavita by throttling and sought their help in getting the matter patched up with his mother-in-law. Accordingly, the Sarpanch called Mst. Shanti and Hawa Singh cousin brother of Rajo deceased. The accused also begged pardon from these persons after confessing his guilt. These persons then brought the accused to the police station and handed over to ASI. Ram kumar, who arrested him. On interrogation, the accused disclosed in the presence of aforesaid persons having kept concealed the deadbody of his daughter Kavita and "V" shaped chappal of Mst. Rajo in the bushes. His statement, Exhibit PM, was then recorded. Thereafter the accused led the police party to the field of Master Ravipal Sharma of village Haluwas and got recovered 20 pieces of bones of human skelton; a bunch of hair and pair of chappals Exhibits P8/1-2 which were taken into possession after putting these in separate sealed parcels. The Sub-Inspector also prepared plan Exhibit PM/2 of place of recovery of these two articles. The pieces of bones and bunch of hair were got examined from Dr. S.N. Sharma (PW 1), who in turn sent the same to the Professor, Department of Forensic Science Medical College, Rohtak, in a sealed Packet. On receipt of the report of professor of Forensic Medicines, this doctor opined that the age of the bone of the child was six to ten months and these were the bones of a female child and the death had taken place three to four weeks before examination. However, the cause of death could not be ascertained.

Satbir accused on further interrogation on 26-10-1990 also disclosed having kept concealed his underwear in the bushes. His statement Exhibit PT was then recorded by ASI Ram Kumar in the presence of ASI Darshan Lal and Head Constable Kanhi Ram. Thereafter, he led the police party to the bushes and got recovered his Kachha. Exhibit P10. It was wrapped in sealed parcel and taken into possession.

The sealed parcles of the clothes vaginal swabs, bunch of hair of the deadbody of Mst. Rajo, Kachha were sent to the forensic Science Laboratory Madhuban, where Dr. M.K. Goel, Senior Scientific Officer-cum-Ex-Officio-Assistant Chemical Examiner detected the presence of human semen on the Kachha of Rajo deceased, but it was not detected on the vaginal swabs; bunch of hair or Kachha of the accused. After completion of investigation, the accused was arraigned for trial on such like allegations for the murder of his wife and daughter..

Before the trial Court, in order to prove its above referred case, the prosecution examined fifteen witnesses besides tendering the formal evidence of Constables Satbir Singh, Constable Ramesh, M.H.C. Azad Singh, Head Constable Zile Singh and Constable Attar Singh on affidavits Exhibits PG/1 to PG/3 and Exhibit PN respectively as these witnesses were not required by the defence for cross-examination purposes. The reports Exhibits PK and PK/1 of the Assistant Chemical Examiner were also tendered.

The version of Satbir, accused-appellant before the trial Court recorded u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, was that of innocence and false implication. He set up the plea of alibi being present at village Saniyana, which reads as under:--

I am innocent. I had been working as a labourer in the filed of Sardar Amrik Singh at village Saniyana, Uklana Mandi, for the last more than two years prior to the occurrence and deceased Rajo was living with her mother at village Putthi Mangal since last three years prior to her death. However, I used to visit Rajo at village Putthi Mangal at intervals and there were cordial relations between us and she also used to visit our house at village Govindpura at intervals. On 23-10-1990, Hawa Singh of village Putthi Mangla has gone to me at village Saniyana and informed about the death of my wife whereupon I came to my village Govindpura and the police arrested me from there. My wife and come to our village from the village of her mother and to reach our village some distance has to be covered on foot which is a lonely passage and some person finding her alone in the dark attempted to commit rape on her and when she identified that person, he murdered her and my daughter Kavita.

In support of his version, the accused examined Amrik Singh (DW1) of village Saniyana with whom he was working as labourer. Banwari Lal (DW2) of the said village as well as Som Nath (DW2) husband of the sister of the accused.

The trial Court, however, believing the evidence of last seen as well as extra-judicial confession of the accused, coupled with the recovery of skelton of Ms Kavita besides chappals of Mst. Rajo, deceased, in pursuance of the disclosure statement of the accused and medical evidence convicted and sentenced the accused as referred to above. The defence version did not find favour with the trial Court.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record. Mst. Shanti (PW8) is the mother of Mst. Rajo, deceased. According to her, Satbir accused was having cordial relations with his daughter Mst. Rajo. Thus, it is not a case of dowry death or strained relations between the husband and the wife. On the other hand, the photographs of the deadbody of Mst. Rajo positive prints whereof are Exhibits P3 and P4 clearly spell out that she was killed by some assailant during the process of subjecting her to rape or just thereafter. There is no force in the contention of Mr. J.C. Sethil, the learned Additional Advocate-General, Haryana, that Smt. Rajo may have refused to have sexual intercourse on her way to village Govindpura as she was returning from ''Kaaj'' ceremony of her maternal-grantmother and this might have infuriated the accused and resulted in committing sexual intercourse after tearing her clothes and throttling her to death. This contention is devoid of any logic, as a husband having two children would not try to have sexual intercourse with his wife in the fields on the way to his house, especially when the wife was accompanying him to his house which fall at a distance of two-three furlongs from the spot. The prosecution has failed to lead any evidence about the sadistic nature of the accused or his sadistic propensities to commit the murder of his wife or younger daughter hardly six-eight months old. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the motive to commit the crime by the accused plays a crucial role in determining as to why the accused had indulged in pre-planned and secretive murder of the victim. Strangely enough in the case in hand, even according to the mother of Mst. Rajo deceased, there was no motive for the accused to commit the murder of his wife. What to say of young child. There is not even a remote inkling from the prosecution evidence that the accused had done so being unable to sustain his wife or child due to poverty. On the other hand, the factum that the deadbody of Mst. Rajo was found named and front portion of her shirt was found torn, clearly rules out the possibility that she was killed by her husband.

The most material evidence relied upon by the trial Court is that of Dharam Singh Sarpanch (PW11), Hawa Singh Panch (PW12) and Mst. Shanti (PW9) regarding the accused having confessed before them on 24-10-1990 having killed his wife and daughter by throttling. All these witnesses belong to Putthimangal where the mother and brother of the deceased Mst. Rajo used to reside. Dharam Singh Sarpanch and Hawa Singh, Panch, admitted that the accused was not known to them earlier. Thus, it is not acceptable that the accused would approach these unknown persons for making a confession of such a heinous crime like murder of his wife and child and seeking their help in persuading his mother-in-law Mst. Shanti to absolve him. According to Shanti (PW9), the above referred Sarpanch and Panch had brought the accused to her house and thereafter he had again made a confession before her but according to Dharam Singh and Hawa Singh, Mst. Shanti and another Hawa Singh (PW 13) were called to the house of Dharam Singh where the accused was present and made the confession before them also. Thus, the evidence of all these witnesses qua the extra-judicial confession of the accused before them is not at all believable.

The evidence of Amar Singh (PW6) and Roshal Lal (PW7) having seen both the deceased in the company of Satbir Accused at different places at Bus-stand hansi and at Bhiwani on 8-10-1990 at about 5 and 8 p.m. respectively is also not acceptable, as they also belong to the parental village of Mst. Rajo, deceased. Moreover, according to their version, the murder of Smt. Rajo had taken place after 8 p.m. on 10-10-1990. The version of these witnesses saw the light of the day on 19-10-1990, as their statements were recorded by S.I. Kishan Singh (PW 10) on the said date. By then the autopsy findings were available with the Investigator. Thus, the reasonable possibility of creating of such oral evidence after ascertaining the time of death from post mortem examination by the Investigator cannot be ruled out especially when the evidence of extra-judicial confession appears to have been fabricated. Consequently, no implicit reliance can be placed on the testimony of these witnesses.

Dr. Subash Chander Aggarwal (PW8) had conducted the autopsy on Mst. Rajo at 10.40 a.m. on 11-10-1990. According to him, the time between death and post mortem was from 48 hours to 96 hours. During cross-examination when reason for giving this time was elicited from the doctor he stated that he has based his opinion on the disappearance of rigor mortis and that the rigor mortis starts disappearing after 24 hours after that. He also stated that generally the decomposition of the deadbody starts appearing after 24-30 hours of death, but it depends upon the season and temperature in which the deadbody is kept. This doctor during autopsy on the deadbody, subsequently identified as Mst. Rajo, from her clothes and photographs etc. observed as under:--

The length of the body was 5 feet 2 inches. There was no ligature mark on the neck. It was a badly decomposed body of a young female of about 22 years age. Rigor mortis was absent in all limbs. The maggots were crawling all over the body. The body was swollen at abdomen, breast � and faces due to decomposition. The skin was peeled off at various places and a few loose vesicles were also present. There was foul smelling from the body. Eyes were bulging out from the socket and soft. The lips were swollen and everted. The tongue was protruded between the teeth. The scalp hair were absent except in the centre of the scalp which were easily pluckable. The anal canal sphincters were relaxed and rectum was protruding out. The pubic hair were present and easily pluckable. Sample of pubic heir along with a swab, from vagina was taken, sealed and, sent for chemical examination. The belongings were one navy coloured jumper torn at various places, green bangles nine in right writs while 11 in left wrist along with a white metallic kara, a blue coloured salwar, a green coloured underwear which was sealed and sent for chemical examination and a red coloured chunni was present on the body. The figure tips of both hands were taken and sealed.

No external mark of wound was ascertained by us due to badly decomposition of the body. Both lungs were soft and collapsed and were dark blackish coloured. The mucosa of larynx and trachea was brownish read and softened. The heart was soft and all chambers were empty. All organs were softened maintaining their outline. The stomach was empty except foul smelling gases. The stomach and part of small intestine, large intestine along with part of liver, spleen and halves of both kidneys were sent for chemical examination. The bladder was empty and softened. The uterus was normal in size and was empty.

This doctor also sent vicera of the deadbody to the Chemical Examiner for detection of poison, but the Chemical Examiner failed to detect any poison. Thereafter, Dr. Aggarwal failed to give the specific cause of death, but opined from the protruding of the tongue of the teeth that possibility of throttling cannot be ruled out. The protrusion of tongue from the teeth is usual during the process of decomposition of the deadbody due to developing of foul-smelling gases and other changes in the deadbody. Dr. Modi in his Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology (Twentieth Edition) at page 129, has referred to these changes as under

Development of Foul-Smelling Gases. --Side by side with the appearance of the greenish patch on the abdomen the body begins to emit a nauseating and unpleasant smell owing to gradual development of the gases of decomposition some of which are sulpheretted hydrogen, marsh gas, carbon dioxide, ammonia and phosphoretted hydrogen.

From twelve to eighteen hours after death in summer these gases collecting the instestine, consequently abdomen swells up. The sphincters relax, and the urine and faeces may escape.

From eighteen to thirty-six or forty-eight hours after death the gases collect in the tissues, cavities and hollow viscera under considerable pressure with the result that the features become bloated and distorted, the eyes are forced out of their sockets, the tongue is protruded between the teeth, and the lips become swollen and everted. A foothy, reddish fluid or mucus is forced from the mouth and nostrils. Ultimately the features become obliterated and un-recognizable. The abdomen becomes greatly distended; hence on opening the cavity the gas escapes with a loud explosive noise. Owing to the pressure of the gases the stomach contents are forced into the mouth and larynx and are seen running out of the mouth and scrotum become enormously swollen. The cellular tissues are inflated throughout, so that the whole body appears stouter and older than it actually is.

Thus, there is considerable force in the contention of Mr. D.S. Bali, that the prosecution had failed to prove the exact cause of death of Mst. Rajo. Consequently, the medical evidence is of no consequence to sustain the conviction of the accused-appellant, qua the murder of Mst. Rajo.

The recovery of the bones forming part of skelton of a young female of the age of 6-10 months, in pursuance of disclosure statement. Exhibit PM, by the accused on 24-10-1990 is also not acceptable as these were recovered from the growth of bushes in the field of Master Ravi Dutt of village Halowas from where the deadbody of Mst. Rajo was earlier recovered on 10-10-1990. The Investigating Officer was bound to search the surrounding area of the place of recovery of deadbody especially when the identity of the deadbody as well as manner of crime was still obscure.

Moreover, the report, Exhibit PB of the Professor of Forensic Medicines is not itself admissible under the provisions of Section 293, Cr. P.C. 1973. Section 293 reads as under:--

Section 293. Reports of certain Government scientific experts (1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Government scientific expert to whom this section applies, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this Code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code.

(2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.

(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a Court and he is unable to attend personally, he may, unless the Court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the Court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in Court on his behalf. (4) This section applies to the following Government scientific experts, namely:--

(a) any Chemical Examiner or Assistant, Chemical Examiner to Government;

(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;

(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau;

(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;

(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Assistant Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;

(f) the Serologist to the Government.

A bare perusal of Sub-section (4) leaves no doubt that the reports of the Government Scientific Experts mentioned therein is also per se admissible. Under Clause (e) of Sub-section (4) the report of the State Forensic Science Laboratory is admissible and not of the Professor of Forensic Science Medical College, Rohtak. The perusal of report Exhibit PB reveals that it bears the signature of Dr. Basant Lal, Demonstrator, Department of forensic Medical College, Rohtak strangely enough the prosecution had not made any attempt to examine the doctor who had actually determined the bone-age of this skelton. Mr. Sethi had failed to satisfy us as to how this report is admissible in evidence unless the accused had admitted its authenticity. There is no indication from the trial Court file or the report Exhibit PB that the Counsel for the accused had admitted the authenticity of this report. Consequently, the findings of the forensic Science Expert cannot be put into service in order to determine that bones were part of the skelton of a female child of the age of eight-ten months what to say of relying upon the time between the death and examination of these bones. The recoveries of the Chappals of Mst. Rajo, deceased, are also of no help.

In view of lack of any reliable and acceptable evidence, the version of Satbir accused that he used to reside an work as labourer at village Saniyana and work on the farm of Sh. Amrik Singh (DW1) or his wife with child used to reside with her mother sounds probable. The testimony of Amrik Singh, Banwari Lal and Som Nath, D.Ws. further support the above referred plea. In view of this overwhelming evidence of denial of Smt. Shanti mother of the deceased that his daughter never resided with her is not acceptable especially when she had failed to contradict that the accused used to work as labourer at village Saniyana.

For the foregoing reasons, the order of conviction and sentence of the trial Court being not sustainable is hereby set aside by accepting the appeal and acquitting the accused of all the above referred charges. He be set at liberty, if not required in any other case.