State of Punjab vs Ramesh Chand and ors.

S.D. Bajaj, J.

Around 11.30 A.M. on April 10, 1985, ASI Sohan Singh of Police Station, Dhuri learnt in village Ranchna alias Rajinder Puri of Sangrur District in Punjab State that Smt. Tara Wanti and her two sons, named Sonu and Monu had caught fire from the blaze emanating from the stove when Tara Wanti was preparing tea and their bodies got charred on this account. The ASI took them all the three injured to Civil Hospital, Dhuri in government jeep. Tara Wanti and her son Sonu died inside the hospital. Monu was removed to C.M.C Ludhiana by his maternal uncle wherein he also died at 5.30 P.M. on the same day viz. April 10, 1985.

Adhering to the version of accidental deaths by burn from the stove blaze father Jagan Nath of Tara Wanti (now deceased and her brother Surinder Kumar moved application Ex. PA before the then SDM Malerkotla Shri Harjit Singh, PCS PW 1 that all the three dead bodies should be given to the legal heirs without getting their post mortem done. Police endorsed their application and the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate made the desired order Ex. PA/2 after satisfying himself that there was no foul play Inspite of it, on request from Som Nath another brother of deceased Tara Wanti, the police got the postmortem done. Since the postmortem only confirmed the earlier version of their accidental deaths, the police did not take any action against the accused.

Adamant brother Som Nath, however, sent application dated April 14, 1985 to Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur. On its basis formal FIR No. 97 was registered in Police Station, Dhuri against the accused at 5.20 P.M. on April 23, 1985. It reads "It is requested that I, the applicant am a resident of village Gharachon. 6/7 years ago my sister Tara Wanti aged 30 years was married with Ramesh Chander son of Kulwant Rai resident of village Ranchna (Rajinder Puri). My sister Tara Wanti had two sons Sonu aged 4 years and Monu aged 2 years. For the last three years, a dispute was going on in their house over the matter of dowry. As such my sister Tara Wanti used to tell me verbally and through her letters also regarding the dispute in her inlaws house. I did not tell about the said dispute to my father and brother because my father is a heart patient. The inlaws of our girl demanded a motor cycle. After the marriage of my younger sister, which was solemnized one month ago, the inlaws of my sister Tara Wanti had demanded some more articles. Rajinder Kumar younger brother of Ramesh had given threats to Tara Wanti to kill her by burning. On 10.4.1985 at about 11.30 A.M. Ramesh Chand, Rajinder Kumar, their sister Sunita Rani and their daughter Lajwanti having connived with one another, burnt my sister Tara Wanti and her both sons Sonu and Monu by sprinkling (kerosene) oil upon them. My father came to know about this mishap at about 6.00 P.M. and in the hospital at Dhuri the reason of death was told to him to be bursting of a stove. Thereupon, they (accused persons) got written an application from my father and brother and obtained their consent for taking dead bodies without conducting their post mortem examination. We came to know about the fact after reaching the place of occurrence, that there was no bursting of any stove but contrary to it the aforesaid accused persons had burnt my sister and her innocent children. We brought these dead bodies to the police station at Dhuri for conducting the postmortem examination. The police of this police station got the post mortem examination of these dead bodies conducted but until now they have not initiated any proceedings. Therefore, I request that a case (FIR) having been registered, action may be taken. The photostat copies of 4 letters are being attached here as a token of proof."

On being charged with the commission of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for intentionally causing the death of Tara Wanti and her two children in village Ranchna at 11.30 A.M. on April 10, 1985, all the four accused pleaded `not guilty'' thereto and claimed to be tried. Vide its impugned judgment dated December 8, 1988, learned trial Court acquitted all the four accused holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against them. Feeling aggrieved therefrom, the State of Punjab has filed Crl. Appeal No. 332 DBA of 1988 in this Court. Som Nath brother of deceased Tara Wanti has also filed Criminal Revision No 671 of 1988 against it. Since both the appeal as also the revision are directed against the same impugned judgment of the learned trial Court and involve common questions of law and fact for determination, these have been heard and are being disposed of together.

We have heard Shri Randhir Singh, AAG, Punjab for the State assisted by Shri M.L. Mirchea, Advocate, of the petitioner, Shri M.R. Midha, Advocate, for the respondents and have perused the entire relevant material on record very carefully.

There is absolutely no direct evidence of the alleged murder. Even the doctor conducting autopsy on the three dead bodies ruled it out by asserting. `I had thoroughly examined all the three dead bodies and no smell of kerosene or petrol was coming. There were no marks of violence on the dead bodies and the skin was not sooty". Expert opinion of the doctor runs counter to the allegations in the FIR which read, " On 10.4.85, at about 11.00 A.M. Ramesh Chand, Rajinder Kumar, their sister Sunita Rani and their mother Lajwanti having connived with one another, burnt my sister Tara Wanti and her both sons Sonu and Monu, by sprinkling (kerosene) oil upon them" and therefore confirms the earlier version of accidental death of all the three victims through stove blast burning coming from the mouth of ASI Sohan Singh. Jagan Nath father of deceased Tara Wanti and her brother Surrender Kumar. In Ram Narain v. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 1727 their lordships of the Supreme Court observed : "Where the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution is totally inconsistent with the medical evidence or the evidence of the ballistic expert, this is a most fundamental defect in the prosecution case and unless reasonably explained it is sufficient to discredit the entire case, where the direct evidence is not supported by the expert evidence, then the evidence is wanting in the most material part of the prosecution case and it would be difficult to convict the accused on the basis of such evidence.

The High Court does not appear to have considered this important aspect but readily accepted the prosecution case without noticing that the evidence of the eye witnesses in the court was a bleated attempt to improve their testimony and bring the same in line with the Doctor''s evidence with a view to support an incorrect case. The prosecution had not been able to prove its case against any of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the appellants were, therefore, earn an acquittal on this score.

Extra judicial confession allegedly made by the two male accused in Ramesh Chand and Rajinder Kumar to Mangal Ram PW 19 on April 27, 1985 in village Majhi is again a fabrication and concoction for the reasoning recorded by the learned trial court in para No. 17 of its impugned judgment. The reasoning is cogent, convincing will knit and duly analysed. We endorse it whole heartedly and confirm this finding of the learned trial court on its basis. There was no motive for killing as explained in para No. 18 of the learned trial court judgment and consequently there was no occasion for the two male accused aforesaid to make an extra judicial confession of their guilt to Mangal Ram PW 19. Their lordships of the Supreme Court observed in Ratan Chand v. State of Bihar, AIR 1959 S.C. 18, Heramba Brahma and another v. State of Assam, 1982 SC 1595, and Kansa Behera v. State of Orissa, AIR 1987 SC 1507 :

"Usually and as a matter of caution, Courts require some material corroboration to confessional statement, such as extra judicial confession corroboration which connected the accused person with the crime in question.

Witness speaks of an extra judicial confession by three accused persons having simultaneously made and when reproduced in his language, it makes no sense. It is dangerous to rely upon such extra judicial confession even if the witness''s credentials are not in question. The question that agitates is what language was used by each accused, in what words confession was made and whether each used the same language ? Evidence of the witness does not reproduce the words used by each accused. High Court wrongly accepted the evidence of this extra judicial confession without examining the credentials of PW 2 Bistriram without ascertaining the words used without referring to the decision of this Court to be presently mentioned wherein it is succinctly stated that extrajudicial confession to afford a piece of reliable evidence must pass the test of reproduction of exact words, the reason or motive for confession and person selected in whom confidence is reposed.

Extra judicial confession made after long lapse of time is of no consequence."

In the present case, the alleged extra judicial confession is stated to have been made seventeen days after the occurrence and by the two male accused jointly. No evidentiary value can, therefore, be attached thereto.

FIR in this case is made 13 days after the occurrence on April 23, 1985, occurrence being of April 10, 1985. In Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1973 SC 501 their lordships of the Supreme Court observed, "Delay of 20 hours in recording the FIR when the place of occurrence is only two miles from the police Station makes the FIR doubtful." The assertions made against the accused therein are, therefore, rendered to be doubtful. Learned trial court rightly gave the benefit of this doubt to the accused. Finding of their acquittal recorded by the learned trial court in its impugned judgment is, therefore, affirmed.

Since the circumstantial evidence adduced in the case does not lead us to the only hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, feeling extremely sorry for the three deaths, we are constrained to dismiss both the state appeal as also revision filed by the brother of deceased Shrimati Tara Wanti.

JUDGMENT accordingly.