IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. 460-DB of 2007
Date of Decision: July 02, 2008
Kaur Singh.
... Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab.
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND.
Present: Mr. A.P.S.Deol, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Davinder Bir Singh, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab,
for the respondent.
S.D. Anand, J.
1. In case F.I.R. No. 75 dated 13.08.1998, Police Station
Sangat, three persons (Jagsir Singh son of Joginder Singh son of
Prem Singh, Kaur Singh son of Ujaggar Singh and Malkiat Singh son
of Dan Singh son of Prem Singh) were tried on a charge of having
committed the murder of deceased Harbans Singh. Out of them,
Jagsir Singh and Malkiat Singh earned acquittal. It is only appellant
– Kaur Singh who suffered conviction for the offence under Section
302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced by the learned Trial
Judge to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of
Crl. Appeal No. 460-DB of 2007 2
Rs.10,000/-. In default of the payment of fine, the appellant was
directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months.
2. As apparent from the substantive evidence (in the
statements of PW2 – Kartar Kaur and PW3 – Amandeep Kaur,
mother and daughter respectively of the deceased), none witnessed
the commission of the crime. All that PW2 – Kartar Kaur testified at
the trial was that “Panna Singh told me that Harbans Singh was lying
near house of Kaur Singh.” She proceeded to state that “Harbans
Singh was lying near the place of Mata Rani and drag marks were up
to that place from house of Kaur Singh. Amandeep arranged for the
water and Harbans Singh was made to sit. He was offered water and
thereafter I asked Harbans Singh what is the matter. Harbans Singh
disclosed that Kaur Singh and his wife Harbans Kaur has given me
injuries.” Her statement to that effect is fully in accord with the
statement made by PW3 – Amandeep Kaur who testified that “Panna
Singh came to our house that Harbans Singh is lying near house of
Master Kaur Singh and be brought home. Myself, my grand mother
and Panna went near the house of Kaur Singh on a bullock-cart.
Harbans Singh was lying near the small gate of house of Kaur
Singh……. Harbans Singh was given water after arranging same
from neighbour. He was made to sit. My grand mother asked
Harbans Singh what has happened with him, on which he replied that
Master Kaur Singh, his wife Harbans Kaur alias Banto, Jagsir and
Malkeet and Leela alias Kabal Singh have inflicted injuries on him.”
3. As would be apparent from the perusal of the above
Crl. Appeal No. 460-DB of 2007 3
quoted statements made by PW2 – Kartar Kaur and PW3 –
Amandeep Kaur, they claimed to have been informed by Harbans
Singh himself that injuries had been caused by appellant – Kaur
Singh and his non-appellant wife Harbans Kaur. That presentation
is not born out by Ex.PD which is the earliest presentation made by
PW2 – Kartar Kaur to this Court on the administrative side. In the
course thereof, there is a precise averment that “At that time, the
applicant tried to ask my injured son about the whole incident, but he
was unable to speak anything except the wording `Kaur Singh’.”
4. Furthermore, PW2 – Kartar Kaur attributed to Harbans
Singh, a statement that Kaur Singh – appellant and his wife Harbans
Kaur had caused injuries to him. As against it, PW3 – Amandeep
Kaur testified at the trial that her father informed PW2 – Kartar Kaur
that appellant – Kaur Singh, his wife Harbans Kaur alias Banto,
Jagsir, Malkeet and Leela alias Kabal Singh had inflicted injuries
upon him. The three additional names (Jagsir, Malkeet and Leela)
do not find mention in the deposition on oath of PW2 – Kartar Kaur.
5. A conjunctive perusal of the testimony on oath of PW2 –
Kartar Kaur and PW3 – Amandeep Kaur would make it amply clear
that both are not in tandem with each other. If Harbans Singh had
actually informed PW2 – Kartar Kaur in the presence of PW3 –
Amandeep Kaur that appellant – Kaur Singh and his wife Harbans
Kaur had caused injuries to him, there is no understandable reason
why this fact would not have found mention in Ex.PD. It may be
noticed here that PW2 – Kartar Kaur had to address Ex.PD to the
Crl. Appeal No. 460-DB of 2007 4
Chief Justice of this Court as she found that the police of Police
Station Sangat, had not registered an FIR in the context.
6. Panna Singh, who had allegedly furnished the information
to PW2 – Kartar Kaur in the presence of PW3 – Amandeep Kaur,
was not examined at the trial.
7. The statement made by PW2 – Kartar Kaur that the dead
body of Harbans Singh was lying near the place of Mata Devi and
drag marks were upto that place from house of Kaur Singh does not
inspire confidence. She testified at the trial that she had mentioned
the drag marks aforementioned in Ex.PD. She was confronted with
Ex.PD where this fact is not recorded. She also claimed to have
averred in Ex.PD that Harbans Singh informed her that Kaur Singh –
appellant and his wife Harbans Kaur had caused injuries upon him
and that Leela was standing over there at that time. She was
confronted Ex.PD where these facts do not stand recorded. She
stated at the trial that her statement in the context of the present
case was recorded by the Police after about 2-1/2 years of the
impugned occurrence and that she had thumb marked that
statement. The defence counsel called upon the prosecution to
supply to him a copy of that statement but the State counsel informed
the Trial Court that no statement bearing thumb impression of PW2 –
Kartar Kaur was available on record. This fact stand noticed by the
learned Trial Court in the course of the statement of this witness.
Likewise, similar fact-based note appears in the testimony of PW3 –
Amandeep Kaur.
Crl. Appeal No. 460-DB of 2007 5
8. Even otherwise, if Kartar Kaur had a grievance against
the police inaction in the matter of murder of her son, she could have
filed a private complaint in the Court. There is not even an averment
that any such complaint had been filed in the Court. Both these PWs
i.e. PW2 – Kartar Kaur and PW3 – Amandeep Kaur conceded that
their statements were recorded for the first time after 2-1/2 years of
the impugned occurrence.
9. We would also like to notice here that though PW3 –
Amandeep Kaur testified at the trial that Gurjant Singh, Sarpanch, did
turn up in the morning and that she (PW3) accompanied Harbans
Singh, Paharha Singh, Tek Singh and son of Gurjant Singh
aforementioned in the tractor-trolley by which Harbans Singh was
taken to a Hospital, she had to concede that the details of the
occurrence were neither disclosed to Paharha Singh and Tek Singh
nor to Dr. Gurmail Singh who examined Harbans Singh at the
Hospital. That would appear to represent an unnatural conduct on
their part. Normally, one would have expected the mother and
daughter of the deceased to share the details of the occurrence with
those who were helping them out by taking Harbans Singh to the
hospital in a tractor-trolley or whilst he was under treatment at the
hands of Dr. Gurmail Singh.
10. In the light of foregoing discussion, the finding of
conviction recorded by the learned Trial Judge cannot be sustained.
(There are a number of tell-tale circumstances which indicate that the
prosecution had not been able to make a doubt free presentation.)
Crl. Appeal No. 460-DB of 2007 6
The appeal shall stand allowed. The appellant shall stand acquitted
of the charge.
( S.D. Anand )
Judge
July 02, 2008 ( Adarsh Kumar Goel )
vkd Judge
Note : Whether to be referred to reporter: Yes/No