State of Punjab vs Daljit Singh

J.S. Sekhon, J.

Daljit Singh, accusedrespondent, was acquitted on a charge for the murder of his wife Mst. kulwant Kaur by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar.

Aggrieved against the above referred order, the State of Punjab sought leave to appeal, which was granted by the Division Bench of this Court and the appeal was admitted.

Briefly the facts of the prosecution case are that Mst. Kulwant Kaur daughter of Amar Singh was married with Daljit Singh accused about six year prior to the present occurrence. She failed to deliver any issue. Both the husband and wife used to quarrel with each other on account of being issueless. The parentsinlaw of the deceased and Daljit Singh accused called the parents of the deceased for patching up the matter on three occasions. Accordingly, Amar Singh along with other members of the family brought about reconciliation between them. On July 1, 1982, Amar Singh, complainant, was informed by his soninlaw Daljit Singh accused in the factory at Chhehratha (Distt. Amritsar) about the ailment of Mst. Kulwant Kaur and that she was lying unconscious at the clinic of Dr. Krishna Kumar, at Chhehratha, Amar Singh PW along with his soninlaw and Jaswant Singh then went to the said clinic, but by then Kulwant Kaur had already expired. Dr. Krishan Kumar advised Amar Singh to get the dead body of Kulwant Kaur subjected to postmortem examination. Daljit Singh accused, however, started entreating with his fatherinlaw saying that no postmortem on the dead body was required. Thereafter, Amar Singh alongwith Comrade Gurmej Singh, Roda Singh went to police Station Lopoke and lodge report Exhibit PD at 2.45 p.m., which was recorded in the daily diary at 6.15 p.m. A copy of this report was sent to ASI Balkar Singh, PW 8 who rushed to the clinic of Dr. Krishan Kumar and held inquest on the dead body of Kulwant Kaur. The dead body was entrusted to Constable Sangat Singh and Janak Raj for autopsy.

The autopsy on the dead body was conducted by Dr. Pritpal Singh (PW 1) at 12.30 p.m. on 271982. He found the lips and nails synosed. He also observed subdural haemorrhage besides the congestion of left lung, right lung and spleen and kidneys. There was, however, no external mark of injury. The viscera of deadbody was preserved and sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis. The Chemical Examiner vide his report Exhibit PG/1 detected orangophosphorus compound in the contents of the stomach, small and large intestines, liver, spleen and kidney as well as of the heart. On receipt of this report, De. Pritpal Singh opined that the death of Mst. Kulwant Kaur had taken place due to said poison. On receipt of the opinion of the above referred doctor, a case under Section 304, IPC was registered against the accused, on the basis of the daily diary report, Exhibit PH. Ultimately, the offence was changed to the one under Section 302, IPC. ASI Balkar Singh (PW 8) took over the investigation of this case and recorded the statements of the witnesses. During investigation, the statement of Pardip kumar (PW 3) was recorded, who disclosed having taken the deceased along with Daljit Singh accused and another person on his threewheeler at 9 a.m. on July 1, 1982, towards the clinic of Dr. Krishan Kumar and charged Rs. 6/ from the accused Kulwant Kaur was then suffering from sickness and when he covered a distance of 1 1/2 Karams, Daljit Singh accused asked him to stop the three wheeler and managed to slip away, Kulwant Kaur was crying "mar gai manu bachao". On the query of this witness, Kulwant Kaur apprised him that her husband had administered her something as she was not conceiving any child. Shortly thereafter, Daljit Singh accused along with another person again returned in the threewheeler. Pardip Kumar (PW 3) brought all of them to the clinic of Dr. Krishan Kumar and thereafter left the spot.

Daljit Singh accused continued absconding till 21.10.1988 when he contacted Bhupinder Singh (PW 40 at his house in village Bal Khurd and sought his help for patching up the matter with his fatherinlaw after confessing that he had committed the murder of his wife by administering poison as she was incapable of conceiving any child. Thereafter, the accused went away. Bhupinder Singh (PW 4) apprised Amar Singh father of the deceased of this episode, but latter did not agree to the reconciliation. After completion of the investigation, the accused was arraigned for trial on such like allegation.

Before the trial Court, in order to prove its above referred case, the prosecution examined eight witness. Amar Singh, Pardip Kumar and Bhupinder Singh supported the above referred prosecution version. The remaining witnesses were given up by the prosecution. The formal evidence of HeadConstable Karam Singh was tendered on affidavit, which was ordered to be read over Exhibit AF/1, because this witness was not required for crossexamination purposes. The report of the Chemical Examiner was also rendered in evidence.

The version of the accusedrespondent before the trial Court in his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. was that of innocence and false implication. On the other hand it was alleged that his relations with his wife were always cordial.

The accusedrespondent, however, led no evidence in defence despite being called upon to do so by the trial Court.

The trial Court disbelieving the testimony of Pardeep Kumar; Bhupinder Singh and Amar Singh witnesses acquitted the accusedrespondent.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record.

The trial Court has dealt with the evidence of Pardeep Kumar (PW 3) in para 25 of the judgment as under :

"In the instant case, Pardeep Kumar (PW 3) has deposed with regard to the alleged dying declaration of the deceased, wherein she stated that something was administered to her by the accused. After going through the testimony of Pardeep Kumar, I am of the view that no such dying declaration was made before him. His evidence appears to the highly suspicious and fabricated one. It is highly suspicious and fabricated one. It is highly unnatural on the part of the accused to leave Kulwant Kaur, alone in the company of Pardeep Kumar, for one or two minutes so as to enable her to make a dying declaration. Nothing has been brought on record, as to why the accused and his companion went away from the deceased. If the poison was administered by the accused he would not have provided an opportunity to the deceased to make dying declaration. Further according to Pardeep Kumar, after ten, twelve days of the occurrence, he happens to be present near the clinic of Dr. Krishan Kumar, and that he disclosed to the police that the deceased had made dying declaration. No effort was made by Pardeep Kumar to lodge any report with the police after he had come to know that something was administered to the deceased. It is in the crossexamination of Pardeep Kumar that his address and parentage were noted down by the police at the clinic of Dr. Krishan Kumar and that his statement was on the record of that date. According to ASI Balkar Singh, the recorded the statement of Pardeep Kumar on 22101982 for first time. It is in the crossexamination of Pardeep Kumar that he did not disclose to the police that he stopped the three wheeler near Kathania or that in the absence of the accused, he asked Kulwant Kaur the reasons of her twisting the abdomen. He also did not state before the police that the accused was accompanied by two ladies and one person. According to Amar Singh, Kulwant Kaur was brought to the clinic as dead. Pardeep Kumar has nowhere stated that he left the deceased in dead conditions at the clinic of Dr. Krishan Kumar. Dr. Krishan Kumar was the best and important witness in this case. He could have thrown some light with regard to the true facts and the circumstances under which Kulwant Kaur had arrived at his clinic. But he has not been produced at the trial for the reasons best known to the prosecution. On careful scrutiny of the statement of Pardeep Kumar, I find that his statement does not inspire confidence and he has been introduced as a witness to strengthen the prosecution case especially when the complainant was after the police officials to take action against the accused."

We find no justification in taking different view than the one taken by the trial Court regarding the testimony of Pardeep Kumar, as his conduct in not reporting the matter to the police or even to Dr. Krishan Kumar about the deceased having disclosed to him that her husband had administered her something while she was crying `save, save''. His version saw the light of the day on August 20, 1982 when the statement of this witness was recorded by ASI Balkar Singh. Such like evidence can easily be created. Thus, the statement of this witness qua the dying declaration of the deceased was rightly held by the trial Court as unreliable.

The trial Court had dealt with the evidence of Bhupinder Singh (PW 4) qua the accused having confessed before him in paras 26 and 27 as under :

IIIExtraJudicial Confession.

Bhupinder Singh (PW 4) has deposed in respect of the alleged extrajudicial confession made by the accused before him on 21101982. His crossexamination would show that he had never been to the village of the accused. Even he does not know the distance between his village and that of the accused. He did not try to inform any Sarpanch, Panch or Lambardar or any other respectable of the village that the accused had committed the murder. In Ratish Mohan v. The State of Haryana, 1979 CLR (Pb. and Haryana), page 175, the Hon''ble Judges of our own Hon''ble High Court while dealing with murder case resting on circumstantial evidence and extrajudicial confession held as under :

"Evidence relating to extrajudicial confession has always been held to be a weak type of evidence. To make a confession of guilt after committing the crime is against natural human conduct. Unless there are convincing circumstances to show that the accused were under great stress and strain and they were to get some tangible benefit by making confession before some dependable and influential source, evidence regarding confession has to be considered with a good deal of caution and cannot be placed by reliance in the absence of convincing corroboration."

In the case in hand, Bhupinder Singh, has never been to the house of the accused. This person was not a man of influence so as to lend any help to the accused. If the accused had committed the murder of his wife then it does not sound to reason as to why he would go to Bhupinder Singh and vomit out the confessional statement. In all probabilities, this witness has been introduced to strengthen the case, since there was no direct evidence against the accused."

In view of the factum that the accused had no social status with Bhupinder Singh (PW 4) earlier, it is too preposterous to believe that the accused would approach him for effecting reconciliation between him and his fatherinlaw. The factum that Bhupinder Singh, PW did not consider to secure the accused or to take him to his fatherinlaw what to say of producing him before the police further reflects upon the reliability of his evidence. Thus, the trial Court rightly discarded the evidence of this witness.

No doubt the medical evidence of Dr. Pritpal Singh (PW 1) coupled with the evidence of the Chemical Examiner does reveal that Mst. Kulwant Kaur had died unnatural death due to consumption of organophosphorus, but due to lack of evidence, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the deceased had consumed this poison by mistaking it as medicine. Even if it is taken that she had committed suicide due to her inability to conceive any child, it would be of no consequence under the circumstances of the case to hold that the accused had abetted the committing of suicide by his wife, especially when the evidence of Amar Singh, father of the deceased reveals that his soninlaw and latter parents used to call him for rapprochement between them and the deceased which in turn implies that the deceased might be accusing her husband qua the nonconception of any child. So, it cannot be said that the accusedrespondent used to treat his wife with cruelty to the extent of enforcing her to commit suicide.

For the foregoing reasons, we find no justification in interfering with wellfounded order of acquittal by the trial Court. Consequently this appeal against acquittal fails and is hereby dismissed.