PETITIONER: HARBANS LAL Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/01/1996 BENCH: ANAND, A.S. (J) BENCH: ANAND, A.S. (J) MAJMUDAR S.B. (J) CITATION: 1996 AIR 1186 1996 SCC (2) 350 JT 1996 (6) 5 1996 SCALE (1)629 ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
The appellant along with his two sons Pawan Kumar and
Dial Ram were sent up for trial in connection with the
murder of Punni Devi – wife of the appellant and mother of
Pawan Kumar and Dial Ram on the night intervening 16/17
October, 1981. The trial court convicted all the three
accused for offences under Section 302/34 IPC vide its
judgment dated 15.6.1982 and sentenced them to undergo life
imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court gave benefit of
doubt to Pawan Kumar and Dial Ram and acquitted them. The
conviction and sentence of the appellant was, however,
maintained.
By special leave, the appellant has called in question
his conviction and sentence.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
examined the record.
That Punni Devi died as a result of burn injuries on
the night intervening October 16/17, 1981, in the house of
her husband Harbans Lal appellant, is not in dispute. The
question, however, is whether the prosecution has been able
to establish that the appellant committed the crime.
The prosecution examined PW-11 Kartar Singh and PW-12
Karnail Singh – grandson of PW-11, as the two witnesses of
the occurrence. The High Court while considering the
submissions relating to the evidence “was not without force”
but went on to say that even if the evidence of that witness
was ‘ignored’, the fact remains that the deceased was found
dead in her own house where she was residing with the
appellant and that it was not a case of suicide and
therefore the appellant must have burnt her to death. Thus,
the High Court appears to have relied upon that
circumstances to uphold the conviction and sentence of the
appellant.
With a view to satisfy our judicial conscious, we have
perused the evidence of PW-11 Kartar Singh and PW-12 Karnail
Singh but their evidence does not inspire confidence. PW-11
Kartar Singh deposed that on the night in question, while
passing through the house of Harbans Lal he peeped through a
window of the house and saw that the appellant had kept his
foot on the neck of Punni Devi deceased while Pawan Kumar
had caught hold of her arms and Dial Ram of her legs. Why
PW11 had to peep through the window is not explained by him,
particularly when it is not his case that the deceased was
shouting or raising an alarm? Karnail Singh PW-12 deposed
that after PW11 had peeped through the window, he did
likewise and noticed that Pawan Kumar was sprinkling
kerosene oil on the body of Punni Devi while Harbans Lal had
put his foot on her abdomen, and he (i.e. Harbans Lal) set
her on fire with a match stick. Thus, these two witnesses
deposed about two stages of the occurrence they had seen
through the window. Their evidence appears to be rather
artificial. These two witnessed appear to us to be got up
witnesses. They saw a gruesome murder being committed with
their own eyes and yet for reasons best known to them, they
did not raise any alarm but went their way and did not
disclose about the occurrence to anyone, not only that
evening but even till the third day after the occurrence.
Their conduct was thus, most unnatural. This creates a
serious doubt about their credit worthiness. From the
evidence of DW-4 and DW-5 it transpires that PW11 did not
even have a ration card in that ward and even his name was
not entered on the voters list of that area. His presence in
the area is therefore, doubtful. The evidence of both these
witnesses, PW-11 and PW-12, has not impressed us. The High
Court also does not appear to have found them reliable
witnesses. Their conduct belies the possibility of their
presence and various infirmities in their evidence, renders
it unsafe to rely upon their testimony. The only other piece
of evidence relied upon by the prosecution is the recovery
of the deed body with extensive burns from the house of the
appellant. That circumstance, however, is not sufficient to
hold the appellant guilty. It is not conclusive in nature
and is not compatible only with the guilt of the appellant
and wholly incompatible with his innocence. This
circumstances can only create suspicion about the complicity
of the appellant but suspicion cannot be allowed to take the
place of proof. The High Court, after having dis-believed
PW-11 and given benefit of doubt to Pawan Kumar and Dial Ram
by accepting their statements that they were living
separately fell in error in convicting the appellant only on
the supposition that the appellant was living with the
deceased, ignoring the statement of the appellant recorded
under Section 313 Cr. P.C. to the effect that on account of
his strained relations with his wife, he used to sleep at
the shop and not in the house and that after he learnt about
the death of his wife at about 10/11 A.M. on 17th October,
1981, he sent information to the relations of his wife. The
prosecution did not lead any evidence to show that the
appellant was living in the house and not in the shop.
Since, the High Court accepted the statements of Pawan Kumar
and Dial Ram recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. that they
were living separately and gave them the benefit of doubt,
we are at loss to understand as to why the same yardstick
was not applied while appreciating the evidence in so far as
the appellant is concerned.
There is yet another serious lacuna in the prosecution
case. The failure of the High Court to notice, let alone
consider and discuss, the evidence of ten defence witnesses,
besides the court witness Shri G.S. Bhullar, S.S.P., was
highly improper and in our opinion, the failure to
appreciate the defence evidence has resulted in mis-carriage
of justice and the appellant has been seriously prejudiced.
The evidence on the record in our opinion fails to
connect the appellant with the crime and the prosecution has
not proved the case against the appellant beyond a
reasonable doubt. The appellant is entitled to the benefit
of the doubt. The conviction of the appellant under the
circumstnaces cannot be sustained. We, accordingly, accept
this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the
appellant. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall
stand discharged.