Tejinder Singh @ Billa vs State of Punjab

Hemant Gupta, J.—The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.9.2002 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Amritsar, whereby the appellant was convicted for an offence under Sections 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- i.e. for causing death of Gurpinder Pal Singh @ Gopi son of Ranjit Singh, aged about 7 1/2 years. The appellant was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years for an offence u/s 201 IPC i.e. for disposing of the dead body of Gurpinder Singh @ Gopi with intention to disappear evidence to screen himself from legal punishment.

The prosecution case was set in motion on the basis of the statement of Ranjit Singh Ex. PA on 23.5.2000. It has been stated by him that he has two sons namely Simranpal Singh, aged about 10 years and Gurinder Pal Singh, aged abut 7 1/2 years. His son Gurinder Pal Singh studies in Ist Class in Baba Jago Public School, Kohali. He (Gurinder Pal Singh) goes to school alongwith other children by bus and also returns the village by bus. On 23.5.2000, he (Gurinder Pal Singh) went to school alongwith other children at about 7.30 AM by bus. At about 1.30 PM, the Clerk of the school came to their house and informed that Gurinder Pal Singh, before the prayers at about 7.45, AM has been taken away by one unknown Hindu gentleman on a white colour scooter, which was without stepney on the pretext that his uncle asked him to take medicines and to go to Amritsar. The description of Gurinder Pal Singh was said to be of fair colour, big eyes, height about 3 1/2 feet, wound mark on the right thigh, healthy with heirs on the head and wearing blue patka on head, white T- shirt, blue nikkar, blue tie, white socks and black shoes. On such information, he alongwith his father Jarnail Singh, uncle Balwinder Singh and Clerk of the School went to School and enquired about Gurinder Pal Singh. He has further deposed that he had money at his home for the purchase of land and somebody has taken away Gurinder Pal Singh for taking ransom or killing after kidnapping. On such complaint, a ruqa was sent by SI Shangara Singh to the Police Station Lopoke at 4.45 PM, on the basis of which FIR Ex. PA/2 was lodged on the same day at about 5.55 PM.

On 27.5.2000, Balwinder Singh (PW-6) produced Tejinder Singh, appellant before Inspector Shailnder Singh, the Investigating Officer. The appellant suffered a disclosure statement Ex. PL that he had kept concealed the dead body of Gurinderpal Singh @ Gopi on the bank of canal in the area of village Piddi under the sarkandas and offered to get the same recovered.

Such statement was thumb marked by the accused and attested by Shabegh Singh, Joginder Singh and ASI Paramjit Singh. In pursuance to such statement, the dead body of deceased Gurinderpal Singh @ Gopi was recovered and taken into possession vide memo Ex. PB. The dead body was identified by Ranjit Singh and Shubegh Singh. After completing the inquest proceedings, the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. Tejinder Singh also suffered a disclosure statement Ex. PX that he had kept concealed one scooter Bajaj Chetak without number on the bank of canal in the area of village Chawinda. In pursuance of such statement, the scooter was recovered vide memo Ex. PX/1. It was on 1.6.2000 another accused Balwant Singh was arrested and letter Ex. PV was recovered.

The prosecution has sought to prove the charges against the accused on the basis of recovery of dead body proved by Joginder Singh (PW-7), extra-judicial confession proved by Balwinder Singh (PW-6) and the evidence of last seen proved by Bikramjit Singh (PW-8), Clerk of the school and Sarmail Singh (PW-2).

However, in respect of accused Balwant Singh, who was made to face trial alongwith the appellant on the basis of recovery of letter Ex. PV demanding ransom, at the time of his arrest, the learned trial Court found that there is no evidence of criminal conspiracy i.e. meeting of mind of accused Tejinder Singh and Balwant Singh in hatching a conspiracy to murder Gopi for ransom prior to occurrence. It was found that there is nothing on record that Tejinder Singh has disclosed Balwant Singh that Gopi has been murdered. Writing of a letter after committing murder of Gopi does not lead to the conclusion that Balwant Singh was a conspirator in the murder of Gopi and when the letter has not reached to the complainant or any family member of the complainant. Thus, Balwant Singh was acquitted of the charges levelled against him.

PW-1 Ranjit Singh is the father of deceased Gurinderpal Singh @ Gopi. He has deposed the manner of missing of his son and information given by the Clerk of the School. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that Piddi village is at a distance of 50/60 kms from their village. He has admitted that one Baljinder Singh son of Dilawar Singh was murdered in the extremist activities and that they have purchased the land belonging to Baljinder Singh. He has also admitted that a case u/s 364 was got registered against himself, Jarnail Singh, Jagjit Singh and others.

PW-2 Sarmail Singh and PW-8 Bikramjit Singh are the witnesses of last seen. Sarmail Singh (PW-2) has deposed that on 23.5.2000 at about 7.45 AM, he alongwith Natha Singh was coming on a scooter from village Chogawan and going towards Amritsar, when Tejinder Singh @ Billa accused came from their back side and were in a process of crossing their scooter. Gurpinder Singh @ Gopi was standing in front of Tejinder Singh on the scooter. He was wearing school uniform. He asked Tejinder Singh that where he is going. He (Tejinder Singh) replied that he was going to have a medicine for Gurpinder Singh @ Gopi. He alongwith Natha Singh came to Amritsar and stayed there upto 25.5.2000. It was on 25.5.2000, Pargat Singh, Numberdar told him that Gurpinder Singh @ Gopi was not traceable for the last two days.

Bikramjit Singh (PW-8) has deposed that Gurpinder Singh @ Gopi was kidnapped from the ground of the school and he had gone to the house of the deceased and informed that their son was kidnapped by some unidentified person.

The FIR was recorded on 23.5.2000 at about 5.00 PM. The statement of Bikramjit Singh (PW-8) supports the version given in FIR and as testified by Ranjit Singh (PW-1).

The veracity of Sarmail Singh (PW-2) was sought to be disputed on the basis of statement of Balwinder Singh (PW-6), when he deposed that Sarmail Singh has gone to Uttar Pradesh as against the statement of Sarmail Singh (PW-2) that he has gone to Amritsar on 23.5.2000. Since Sarmail Singh (PW-2) has deposed that he has gone to Amritsar, the testimony of Balwinder Singh (PW-6) that Sarmail Singh has gone to Uttar Pradesh is not sufficient to discard the testimony of the witness. It is a minor discrepancy in the testimony of Balwinder Singh (PW-6) and not material in view of eyewitness evidence of last seen of Sarmail Singh (PW-2).

The argument that Sarmail Singh (PW-2) and Balwinder Singh (PW-6) are real brothers and are interested witnesses, therefore, their testimonies cannot be believed is again not tenable. Mere fact that two witnesses are near relations, does not make them interested witnesses. The testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses cannot be doubted only for the reason of relationship. The relationship requires more care and caution before accepting testimonies of such witnesses. We do not find any infirmity in the testimonies which can lead to an inference of untruthful witness.

Balwinder Singh (PW-6), is the Chairman of the Market Committee, Chogawan. The house of the accused is situated near his house and is known to the witness. He has deposed about the confession of the accused of kidnapping Gurpinder Pal Singh. The witness has deposed that the appellant has told him that he has taken Gurinder Pal Singh on his scooter to village Piddi near Tarn Taran and near the sarkandas, he strangulated Gurinder Pal Singh and threw his dead body in the sarkandas. Thereafter, he got a letter written from his co-accused demanding Rs. 10/15 lacs from the parents of Gurpinder Pal Singh. He has taken Tejinder Singh and produced him before SHO Shalinder Singh. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he was present when the accused got recovered the dead body. PW-7 Joginder Singh is the witness of disclosure statement Ex. PL. He has deposed that the accused led the police party and pointed out the place where he had thrown the dead body of Gurpinder Pal Singh @ Gopi. The dead body was eaten by animals and the remnants of two leg, one below the knee and the other above the knee, both the feets were having socks and sandles belonging to the deceased. One white shirt in torn condition, blue nikkar and one belt of Jago School and patka blue in colour was found. A plastic rope was also found near the dead body. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he has not gone to the police station before 27.5.2000 and the place of the recovery of the dead body was 40/45 kms from police station Lopoke.

In the case, where the prosecution is said to prove the charge based upon circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients, as laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, :

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated from the circumstances concerned ''must or should'' and not ''may be'' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ''may be proved'' and "mut be or should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, where the following observations were made:

Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ''may be'' and ''must be'' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.

(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,

(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,

(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and

(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." Learned Counsel for the appellant has sought to argue that the case of the appellant is sought to be proved by circumstantial evidence, therefore, the prosecution in such a case is required to prove the chain of entire circumstances, which lead to inference of guilt of the accused and that accused alone has committed crime and none else. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to identify the scooter as the one belonging to the appellant. The registration certificate has not been produced. Still further, in the FIR, it was alleged that it was a Hindu gentleman, who has taken Gurinderpal Singh from the school, whereas the appellant Tejinder Singh is a Jat. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to link the identity as in FIR with the appellant. Still further, Natha Singh with whom Sarmail Singh (PW-2) has last met the appellant has not been examined, nor Sukhdev Singh, in whose house Sarmail Singh (PW-2) has stayed in Amritsar has been examined. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to link the accused with the crime and that none else but the accused has committed the crime is not proved.

The recovery of scooter at the instance of accused-appellant is not disputed in the cross-examination of Inspector Shailander Singh (PW-13). Even the recovery of dead body at the instance of the appellant from the sarkandas near the bank of canal is not disputed. The recovery of dead body on the basis of disclosure statement of the accused is proved by Joginder Singh (PW-7). Discovery of dead body on an information given by the appellant is relevant in terms of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The recovery of dead body at a distance of 40/45 kms from the Police Station and 50/60 kms from the village of the accused is relevant, as disclosed in the statement of the appellant. Therefore, such evidence has been rightly made basis for convicting the appellant.

The argument that in FIR, Ranjit Singh (PW-1) has deposed that it was a Hindu gentleman, who kidnapped Gurpinder Pal Singh, whereas appellant is Jat sporting beard and hair. It was not the case of the appellant before the trial Court. Mere fact that the appellant is a Jat is not indicative of the fact that he was sporting beard and hair on the date of occurrence as well. There is no cross-examination to any of the prosecution witnesses in respect of the identity of the accused. Therefore, such an argument has been raised for the first time without laying any factual basis.

Natha singh has been given up by the prosecution as having won over. Still further, the testimony of Natha Singh is only to quantify the evidence, which has already been led by Sarmail Singh (PW-2). Similarly, non-examination of Sukhdev Singh is not relavant as staying of a witness at Amritsar after having seen the appellant, is not a fact in issue.

Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances and evidence on record, we are of the opinion that various links in the chain of evidence led by the prosecution, have been satisfactorily proved and the circumstances point to the guilt of the accused with reasonable definiteness. The chain of events is complete and does not leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it shows that in all human probability the crime has been committed by the accused. Thus, the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt.

We find that the learned trial Court has examined the evidence in detail and that there is no illegality in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.

Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed.