State of Punjab vs Bhago and ors.

S. D. Bajaj, J.

While standing at bus stand Bahowal P.S. Mahilpur district Hoshiarpur Satnam Singh real brother of Balwinder Kaur (now deceased), made the following statement to ASI Kuldip Singh at 11.30 AM on 21st of July, 1986. I am a resident of village Jallowal, my father Didar Singh does the work of cultivation in the field. We are six brothers and sisters. I have five sisters out of them two are unmarried and three namely Surinder Kaur, Jaswinder Kaur and Balwinder Kaur are married; About one year ago Balwinder Kaur was married to Paramjit Singh S/o Sadhu Singh Saini by caste resident of village Sabhanpur. We had spent more money on the marriage of our. sister according to the customs and beyond our capacity. We had also given dowry to our status. My sister stayed at her inlaws house for about 2/3 months. Thereafter when she came to her parents house at that time my sister Balwinder Kaur told me my father and my mother Vidya Kaur at the time of sleeping at night that she was harassed by her motherinlaw Bhago, her husband Paramjit Singh and her fatherinlaw Sadhu Singh son of Sunder, Singh Saini by caste residents of Sabhanpur. They (inlaws) say that her parents have given less dowry at the time of her marriage. They did not want to settle her in their house because her parents had not given Kara of gold nor given television and fridge at the time of marriage. At night we went to sleep silently. In the morning we told the entire story of my sister to Gurbachan Singh, Lambardar. Hazara Singh Member panchayat and Malkiat Singh Sarpanch of village Jallowal. They verified the matter from my sister and said, "Let us leave Balwinder Kaur at her inlaw''s house after making entreaties. The daughters cannot be kept at their parental house'' We i.e. my father, Malkiat Singh, Sarpanch, Hazara Singh, Member Panchayat, Gurbachan Singh, Lambardar and I along with my sister went to village Sabhanpur. I put. We after making entreaties to Paramjit Singh, his father and Bhago the mother of Paramjit Singh of our helplessness left my sister it her inlaws house. Thereafter whenever my sister Balwinder Kaur visited our village Jallowal she used .to say that her inlaws force her to bring more dowry. Today at about 7/7:30 AM Harbans Singh; Carpenter resident of village Sabhanpur told us in our village that Balwinder Kaur had died. Thereupon I and other members of my family and respectable persons of the village Sabhanpur enquired about the death of my sister Balwinder Kaur. I have suspicion that Paramjit Singh and. his mother Bhago and Sadhu Singh her fatherinlaw on account of less dowry have committed the murder of Balwinder Kaur by administering her some poisonous substance. I along with Balwinder Singh s/o Malkiat Singh, Saini by caste resident of village Jallowal P.S. Mahilpur was going to lodge a report that you met us at bus stand Bahowal. Action may be taken. I have heard the statement which is correct." On its basis formal FIR No. 96 was registered in Police Station Mahilpur at 12.05 p.m. on the game day.

On being charged with the commission of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. for murder of Balwinder Kaur, all the three accused pleaded not guilty'' thereto and claimed to be tried Vide its impugned judgment dated 2nd of March, 1987, learned trial court acquitted all the three accused holding that the evidence adduced by the prosecution against them was insufficient to bring home the guilt to the accused. Feeling aggrieved there from the State of Punjab has filed Criminal Appeal No. 371DBA of 1987 in this Court. Satnam Singh aforesaid has also filed Criminal Revision No. 622 of 1987 which was ordered by a Division Beach of this Court on 24th July, 1987 to be heard along with the State appeal. Since the appeal and the revision are both directed against the same impugned judgment of the learned trial court dated 2nd of March, 1987 and involve common questions of law and fact for determination, the same have been heard and are being disposed of together.

We have heard Shri S.S. Kang, DAG Punjab for the appellant state assisted by Shri J.S. Mann, Advocate; for the complainant party, Shri D.S. Brar with Shri S.S. Brar, Advocate for the accused respondents and have perused the relevant material on record very carefully.

There is no direct evidence. Circumstances appearing in evidence against the three accused are :

(i) Smt. Balwinder Kaur died in the house of the accused on 21dt July, 1986 of poisoning;

(ii) Presence of Alcohol and insecticide in the viscera of the deceased collected from her stomach at the time of postmortem examination and sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis;

(iii) After her marriage with Paramjit Singh on 29th May, 1985 Smt. Balwinder Kaur was being harassed and accorded cruel treatment in the house of her inlaws;

(iv) Extrajudicial confession allegedly made by accused Paramjit Singh to Shri Thakur Singh PW7 on 25th of July, 1986;

(v) Disclosure statement Ex. PJ made by Paramjit Singh and recovery of poisonous tablets from him vide recovery memo Ex. PJ/I in pursuance of it;

(vi) Contents of letter Ex. P 1 showing that accused Paramjit Singh was not treating his wife, Balwinder Kant well and wanted to do away with her; and

(vii) Recovery of earings and wearing apparel if the deceased from Sadhu Singh her fatherinlaw after her death.

For rational, cogent and convincing reasoning obtaining in para. graphs 21 to 24 of the impugned judgment of the learned trial court with which we entirely agree, it was rightly held by learned trial court that none from amongst the seven circumstances aforesaid either taken singly in isolation or collectively together is capable. of suggesting an inference of guilt against the three accused or anyone of them. Thakur Singh PW7 did not support the making of any extrajudicial confession by accused Paramjit Singh to him on 25th July, 1986. Execution of letter Ex P1 by the accused aforesaid was not proved. Rat killing tablets can be found in the house or almost every agriculturist in the village and moreover the house from which these tablets were recovered was not in exclusive possession of accused Paramjit Singh; who made the disclosure statement to the police. After the death of Balwinder Kaur her earrings as also her clothes had to be with Sadhu Singh, her fatherinlaw in whose house she was living before her death. Alcohol and insecticide poison could be in the stomach of the deceased even if she committed suicide voluntarily and of her own accorded by consuming them. The dead body would also be in her matrimonial home when she committed suicide therein. We therefore, affirm the finding of not guilty returned by the learned trial court against the three accused.

Regarding appreciation of circumstantial evidence the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Annappa Bandu Kavatage, AIR 1979 SC 1410; State (Delhi Administration) v. Gulzaril Lal Tandon, AIR 1979 SC 1382; Pohalya Motya Valvi v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 1949; Gampir v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1982 SC 1157 and Prem Thakur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SCC 61 :

"It is well settled that before a Court can act on circumstantial evidence the circumstances proved must be complete and of a conclusive nature so as to be fully inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and are not explainable on any other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused.

It is also well settled that the accused can be convicted on circumstantial evidence only if every other reasonable hypothesis of guilt is completely. excluded and the circumstances are wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the accused.

The principles are that each circumstance relied upon by the prosecution must be established by cogent succinct and reliable evidence; that the circumstance relied upon must be such as cannot be explained on any hypothesis except the guilt of the accused in other words the circumstances must be of an incriminating character. All the proved circumstances must provide a complete chain no link of which must be missing and they must unequivocally point to the guilt of the accused and exclude any hypothesis consistent with his innocence.

The law regarding circumstantial evidence is well settled. When a case rests upon the circumstantial evidence such evidence must satisfy three tests. (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly is established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite establish tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances taken cumulatively should form chain so, complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. The circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence."

In this view of the matter none of the seven circumstances given so against the accused having in any way connected. With the commission of the crime attributed to them, all the three accused are given the benefit of doubt and acquitted. Criminal appeal filed by the State and Criminal Revision filed by the brother of the deceased are both dismissed.