IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1) Criminal Appeal No. 726 -DB of 2007
Dated of Decision:- February 19 , 2009
Jagmohan Singh and another ....APPELLANTS
VERSUS
The State of Punjab ....RESPONDENT
2) Criminal Appeal No. 612 -DB of 2007
Darshan Singh ....APPELLANT
VERSUS
The State of Punjab ....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHTAB S.GILL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL
Present:- Sh. Vijay Kumar Jindal, Advocate with
Sh. Vipul Jindal, Advocate
for appellants Jagmohan Singh and Swaran Kaur.
(Crl.Appeal No.726-DB of 2007).
Sh. Anshuman Dalal, Advocate for
Sh. Vikas Malik, Advocate
for appellant Darshan Singh (Crl.Appeal No.612-DB of 2007)
Sh. S.S.Gill, Addl. A.G. Punjab.
------
MEHTAB S.GILL, J.
We will be deciding Criminal Appeal No.726-DB of 2007 and
Criminal Appeal No.612-DB of 2007 together, as they arise out of the
common judgment/order dated 23/26.5.2007 of the learned Sessions Judge,
Ropar.
2
Criminal Appeal No. 726 -DB of 2007 and
Criminal Appeal No. 612 -DB of 2007
The learned Sessions Judge, Ropar convicted Jagmohan Singh
son of Avtar Singh, Swaran Kaur w/o Avtar Singh and Darshan Singh son
of Joginder Singh under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to undergo
life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each. In default of
payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for three months.
The case of the prosecution is unfolded by the statement Ex.PK
of Jarnail Singh given to SI Balwant Singh at Samrala Chowk, City
Morinda.
Jarnail Singh stated, that he is a municipal councillor in the
Nagar Palika, Morinda. He has land near the bye pass Railway Crossing,
Morinda. He has taken 7 Bighas on lease from Pritpal Singh and Mohan
Singh sons of Khushal Singh, residents of Morinda. This land is situated
near his land. He had sown wheat crop on this land. He has also taken 7
bighas of land on lease from Faquir Chand, former Municipal Councilor. In
that land also, he had sown wheat crop. In the land of Faquir Chand, there
was a stack of wheat straw (Kup of Turi). There was wheat crop standing
in the land of Faquir Chand and in the land of Pritpal Singh, which also has
been taken on lease. The wheat crop was 2½ feet in height. On 28.3.2005
at about 10.30 a.m., Jarnail Singh along with Mohinder Singh Nambardar
and Hari Pal, President of Nagar Council, Morinda had gone to the fields.
When they reached near the stack of the wheat straw, a foul smell was
coming from the land of Pritpal Singh. On going ahead, they saw one jute
bag lying there. The mouth of the jute bag was tied and plastic bags were
lying on the jute bag. Maggots were roaming around the bag. They
suspected, that there was body of a dead man or woman. The bye pass next
3
Criminal Appeal No. 726 -DB of 2007 and
Criminal Appeal No. 612 -DB of 2007
to this land was a busy thorough fare, but it was lying closed for one week
because of rain. After leaving Hari Pal, President and Mohinder Singh,
Nambardar at the spot, Jarnail Singh was going to the police station, when
he met SI Balwant Singh.
On the basis of this statement, FIR Ex.PK/3 was recorded on
28.3.2005 at 12.35 p.m. and the special report reached the A.C.J.M. on the
same day at 6.00 p.m.
The prosecution to prove its case brought into the witness box,
HC Jasbir Singh PW1, HC Amrit Lal PW2, Parminder Singh PW3, HC
Kulwinder Singh PW4, C. Bhag Singh PW5, Dr. Harbhajan Singh PW6,
Jarnail Singh PW7, Jagtar Singh PW8, C.Baljit Singh PW9, Sohan Singh
Patwari PW10, Harpal Singh PW11, Pawan Kumar PW12, Kuldeep Singh
PW13, Sukhdev Singh PW14, SI Balwant Singh PW15, Bhupinder Singh
PW16, ASI Nirmal Singh PW17, HC Parkash Chand PW18 and Avtar Singh
PW19. Harbans Singh was examined in defence as DW1.
Learned counsel for appellants Jagmohan Singh and Swaran
Kaur has argued, that it was imperative upon the prosecution to first
establish the identity of the dead body being that of Surjit Kaur. Dr.
Harbhajan Singh PW6, who performed the post mortem, has stated in his
testimony before the Court, that the dead body was highly decomposed.
Death had taken place 10 days prior to the post-mortem. Identification of
the body was very difficult. Constable Bhag Singh PW5 has also stated,
that the body had been eaten up by insects and it was in a highly
decomposed condition. In column No.9 of Inquest Report Ex.PL, the
4
Criminal Appeal No. 726 -DB of 2007 and
Criminal Appeal No. 612 -DB of 2007
Investigating Officer has also written, that the dead body could not be
identified.
Learned counsel has further argued, that the extra judicial
confession made before Bhupinder Singh PW16 is not trustworthy. In fact
he has made a false statement before the Court. Bhupinder Singh PW16 is
neither a relative or friend or an important person in whom the appellants
would have reposed confidence in, nor is Bhupinder Singh PW16 in a
position to help the appellants. The recoveries made qua the disclosure
statements of the appellants are not sufficient to connect the appellants with
the scene of crime or the weapons of crime. Sukhdev Singh PW14, who
allegedly identified the appellants, is an implanted witness. He is related to
the deceased and that is the reason he has given the statement. The motive
for the commission of the offence is also not proved. In fact there was no
motive to commit the offence.
Learned counsel for appellant Darshan Singh has argued, that
appellant Darshan Singh was a servant of appellant Jagmohan Singh. He
did not have any motive. He has been unnecessarily roped in being the
servant of Jagmohan Singh. There is no evidence, that sulphas was
administered. In fact Harpal Singh PW11 has categorically stated, that
appellant Darshan Singh was not a servant and he did not see him working
with Jagmohan Singh. Harbans Singh DW1 has stated, that on the fateful
day, Darshan Singh was employed by him, as he was a mason and he was
working with him.
Learned counsel for the State has argued, that the testimony of
Kuldeep Singh PW13 that he knew the family members of Amar Singh for
5
Criminal Appeal No. 726 -DB of 2007 and
Criminal Appeal No. 612 -DB of 2007
the last 36 years and this itself was sufficient to identify the dead body of
Surjit Kaur. The dead body was identified by Kuldeep Singh PW13 and one
Ujagar Singh on 28.3.2005. The motive for the commission of the offence
was very strong. The extra judicial confession made before Bhupinder
Singh PW16 is cogent and convincing.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record with their assistance.
Though the dead body was in a decayed condition, but
identification had been done by Kuldeep Singh PW13, who was no other
person than the son-in-law of the deceased. In Inquest report Ex.PL in para
14, it is shown that there was a chuni around the neck. Deceased was
having some cloth on her person by which she could be identified. The
persons, who identified the body when Inquest report Ex.PL was prepared,
were Jarnail Singh and Mohinder Singh. They are both independent
witnesses, though they have not been brought into the witness box, the
Investigation officer has not been questioned about their genuineness.
Bhupinder Singh PW16 has stated categorically and in clear
terms, that on 30.3.2005 he was present in his house, when appellants
Swaran Kaur, Jagmohan Singh and Darshan Singh came to his house and
confessed the murder of Surjit Kaur. He has stated, that he knew the
appellants, as he had been visiting the house of the appellants in Village
Sahoran. Appellants had come to him for the reason, that he knew the SHO
of Police Station Morinda and they wanted help from him.
Sukhdev Singh PW14 has stated in his testimony before the
Court that, on 22.3.2005 at about 5.30 a.m., he was standing in his fields. A
6
Criminal Appeal No. 726 -DB of 2007 and
Criminal Appeal No. 612 -DB of 2007
male and a woman came on a motor cycle with a gunny bag. He enquired
from them. They stated, that there was cotton in the gunny bag. On
28.3.2005 he read in the newspapers that a decomposed body had been
found. He had identified both Jagmohan Singh and Swaran Kaur, when
they were in police custody, as time had elapsed, he could not identify them
in Court. It is clear from the statements of these witnesses, that the identity
of Surjit Kaur had been established by Kuldeep Singh PW13 and by the
witnesses to Inquest report Ex.PL. The inquest report was prepared on
28.3.2005, where the name of Surjit Kaur w/o Amar Singh is clearly
mentioned.
The motive for the commission of the offence has been proved
by Harpal Singh PW11, where in his testimony before the Court he has
stated, that on 15.3.2005 deceased Surjit Kaur came to his house and stated,
that Avtar Singh had not been paying the theka of her land and he should
intervene. Harpal Singh PW11 met Avtar Singh and Swaran Kaur and
asked them to pay the amount of theka (Rent) to Surjit Kaur. They gave an
assurance that they would pay the amount of theka by 20.3.2005. Apart
from the theka, the bone of contention between the appellants and deceased
was also the land of Gurmit Singh, who had expired in the year 2003
without an issue. Gurmit Singh had left 5 bighas of land, which were
inherited by Surjit Kaur w/o Amar Singh. The mutation of the land of
Gurmit Singh was sanctioned vide mutation No.3473 in favour Surjit Kaur.
To understand the inheritance, the pedigree table is as under: –
Amar Singh
7
Criminal Appeal No. 726 -DB of 2007 and
Criminal Appeal No. 612 -DB of 2007
Surjit Kaur (wife) Avtar Singh (Son) Gurnam Kaur Gurmit Singh (Son)
(Daughter) (expired in the year 2003)
Swaran Kaur (wife) Jagmohan Singh (son)
(Accused) (Accused)
Accused Darshan Singh is the servant of Avtar Singh.
Appellants Jagmohan Singh and Swaran Kaur were not happy
with Surjit Kaur for taking the property of Gurmit Singh, as they had an eye
on this property also.
Kuldeep Singh PW13 has stated in his testimony before the
Court, that he is on visiting terms with his mother-in-law Surjit Kaur for the
last 36 years. Gurmit Singh left 5 bighas of land. Out of which, one bigha
was sold by Surjit Kaur. Four bighas of land was given by Surjit Kaur on
theka to Avtar Singh at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per bigha. Avtar Singh had
not been paying the theka amount. Panchayats had been called. In the
presence of the panchayat, Avtar Singh, Swaran Kaur, Jagmohan Singh and
Darshan Singh had threatened Surjit Kaur. Appellants Swaran Kaur,
Jagmohan Singh and Darshan Singh had demanded, that the land be given
to them, otherwise they would find other ways to take out the land. The
motive for the commission of the offence has been proved beyond
reasonable doubt.
It comes from the evidence as discussed above that the
appellants committed the murder of Surjit Kaur, because appellants
Jagmohan Singh and Swaran Kaur were interested in the property of
8
Criminal Appeal No. 726 -DB of 2007 and
Criminal Appeal No. 612 -DB of 2007
Gurmeet Singh, which was inherited by Surjit Kaur. Appellant Darshan
Singh was the servant of Jagmohan Singh.
As per the above discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the
judgment of the learned trial Court.
Both the appeals i.e. Crl. Appeal No.726-DB of 2007 filed by
appellants Jagmohan Singh and Swaran Kaur and Crl. Appeal No.612-DB
of 2007 filed by appellant Darshan Singh are dismissed. If on bail,
appellants are directed to surrender before the C.J.M./Duty Magistrate,
Ropar to undergo the remaining part of their sentence.
(MEHTAB S.GILL)
JUDGE
(L.N.MITTAL)
February 19, 2009 JUDGE
SKArora
WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO