CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 83-DB OF 2000 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
DATE OF DECISION: March 04, 2009
Parties Name
Sat Pal Singh and another
...APPELLANTS.
VERSUS
State of Punjab
...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH
PRESENT:Mr. Vijay K. Jindal,Advocate,
with Mr. Durga Dutt Sharma,
Advocate, for appellant Sat Pal.
Mr. D.S. Brar, D.A.G., Punjab;
JASBIR SINGH, J.
JUDGMENT
It was allegation against the appellants that on October 4, 1991,
they had committed murder of Jeet Singh son of Kaka Singh, aged about 25
years, within revenue estate of village Namol, Police Station Longowal,
district Sangrur. In the FIR, besides the appellants, two more persons,
namely, Kaka Singh son of Maghar Singh and Jora Singh son of Sadda
Singh were also named as the culprits. However, during investigation, they
were found innocent and their names were put in column No. 2 of the final
report. Vide judgment and order dated January 7, 2000, both the appellants
were held guilty for commission of an offence punishable under Section 302
read with Section 34 IPC. Appellant No. 1 Satpal Singh was sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 83-DB OF 2000 -2-
a default clause . Similarly, Harnek Singh, appellant No. 2 was sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with
a default clause. Hence this appeal.
At the time of arguments, it was brought to our notice that
Harnek Singh, appellant No. 2, had died during pendency of this appeal.
Case of the prosecution, as noticed by the trial Court in para
No. 2 of its judgment, reads thus:
“2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 5-10-1991 ASI
Baldev Singh of Police Station Longowal along with other
police officials was present on the bridge of drain, in the area of
village Longowal, in connection with patrolling. There,
Mukand Singh son of Kaka Singh, Jat, resident of village
Namol along with Sarpanch Mohinder Singh and Kaur Singh
Member Panchayat came and Mukand Singh got recorded his
statement (Ex. PD) before ASI Baldev Singh, wherein he has
stated that he is resident of village Namol and they are four
brothers. The names of his other brothers are Sardara Singh,
Baldev Singh and Jeet Singh and all the four brothers reside
together and they are doing the work of agriculture. Sardara
Singh is serving in the Military. They have their fields known
as Tibbian Wala towards Sunam side and there is an electric
motor installed in that field and they used to keep their cattle
animals there in the field by constructing room. The
complainant further stated that his brother Jeet Singh used to
live in the fields to look after the animals. They used to take the
meals of Jeet Singh from their village turn by turn. The
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 83-DB OF 2000 -3-complainant has further stated in his statement that on
4.10.1991 at about 8.00 P.M., he reached the fields by taking
the meals for Jeet Singh and his brother Jeet Singh was found
present in the fields. In the meantime Harnek Singh son of
Narain Singh of Natha Patti, Namol, came to his brother Jeet
Singh and told him that he is being called by Sat Pal Singh alias
Jaggar son of Harnek Singh, Jat, Kaka Singh son of Maghar
Singh and Jora Singh son of Sada Singh Mazbi, residents of
village Namol, on the electric motor of Anter Singh son of
Jhaba Singh, resident of village Namol. The complainant
further stated that his brother Jeet Singh went along with
Harnek Singh without taking his meals. The complainant
further stated that he remained sitting on his electric motor in
the fields. He heard the alarm of ‘Marta Marta’ from the side of
electric motor of Anter Singh after about half an hour. The
complainant did not go there out of fear and he ran towards the
village. The complainant told about the entire occurrence to his
brothers Baldev Singh and Sardara Singh, who had come on
leave. They told the complainant that since the conditions in
Punjab were deteriorated, they will enquire in the next morning.
The complainant further stated that on that day, i.e., 5.10.1991,
they all the brothers went on the electric motor of Anter Singh
in search of their brother Jeet Singh and they found that their
brother Jeet Singh was lying dead in the Bore of the electric
motor of Anter Singh and there was signs of Gandasas and
Takuas on his head and mouth. The complainant left his
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 83-DB OF 2000 -4-brothers Sardara Singh and Baldev Singh at the spot and he
himself came to the village and reported the matter to Sarpanch
Mohinder Singh and Member Panchayat Kaur Singh. The spot
was shown to them by the complainant. He has also stated in
his statement before the police that in that year the land of
Anter Singh was taken on lease by Jora Singh son of Sada
Singh mazbi, resident of Namol. The complainant also stated
that his uncle Harnek Singh son of Narain Singh got executed
the Will regarding the land of their uncle Jagger Singh alias
Jagga son of Narain Singh in his own favour, but the
complainant and his brothers had also a right in that land of
Jagger Singh son of Narain Singh. The complainant party had
been opposing about this and due to that grudge. Harnek Singh
son of Narain Singh, Sat Pal Singh alias Juggnu son of Harnek
Singh, Jats, residents of village Namol, Jora Singh son of Sada
Singh, Mazbi , resident of Gujjer Pati, Namol and Kaka Singh
son of Magher Singh, resident of Main Patti, Namol, have
murdered Jeet Singh by causing injuries on his person.”
Above said statement of Mukand Singh (PW2) was recorded by
ASI Baldev Singh (PW8) at 11.30 AM on October 5, 1991. Thereafter,
formal FIR Ex. PD/2 was recorded in Police Station Longowal at 12.50 PM
on the above said date. Special report reached the concerned Magistrate at
Sunam at 4.30 PM. In the meantime, Investigating Officer inspected the
place of occurrence. Dead body of Jeet Singh was taken out from the
borewell of electric motor of Anter Singh. After preparing inquest report
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 83-DB OF 2000 -5-
(Ex. PB) regarding dead body of Jeet Singh, it was sent to Civil Hospital,
Sangrur, for post-mortem examination. The Investigating Officer took into
his possession blood-stained earth from the spot, got prepared rough site
plan Ex. PK, of the place of occurrence and recorded statements of the
witnesses. Post-mortem examination on the dead body was conducted by
Dr. K.C. Goyal (PW1) at 4.30 PM on October 5, 1991. Appellant Sat Pal
Singh was arrested on November 7, 1991. On the basis of his disclosure
statement, one Kulhari was recovered and taken into possession against
recovery memo Ex. PH. Harnek Singh appellant was also arrested
thereafter. On completing other formalities, final report was put in Court for
trial.
The appellants were charge-sheeted, to which they pleaded not
guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution produced 11 witnesses and also
brought on record documentary evidence to prove its case. On conclusion of
prosecution evidence, statements of the appellants were recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating material was put to them. They denied
the same, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, they led no
evidence in defence. The trial Court, on appraisal of evidence, found them
guilty and accordingly convicted and sentenced them, as mentioned in
earlier part of this order.
Shri Vijay K. Jindal, Advocate, counsel for the appellant has
vehemently contended that the trial Court was not justified in convicting
and awarding sentence to the appellant. By making reference to the
statement of PW2 Mukand Singh, brother of the deceased, and PW3
Mohinder Singh, the alleged eye witnesses, he argued that conduct and
behaviour of above said witnesses was doubtful. The prosecution has failed
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 83-DB OF 2000 -6-
to prove presence of both of them at the spot. He further argued that PW5
Satgur Singh was not a person of means and had no relation with the
appellants, as such there was no occasion for them to make any extra
judicial confession before the above named witness. He further argued that
there existed a large number of discrepancies so far as statements of the
private witnesses and the Investigating Officer are concerned. He also
argued that there was no motive with the appellants to commit murder of
Jeet Singh, rather there were chances of the complainant party to involve the
appellants in a false case. He further argued that weapon of offence was
recovered from a place, which was open and accessible to all. He prayed
that the appeal be allowed, judgment and order under challenge be set aside
and the appellant be acquitted of the charges framed against him.
Prayer made by counsel for the appellant has vehemently been
opposed by Shri D.S.Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. He, by
making reference to the statements made by PW2 , PW3 and PW5, argued
that the prosecution was successful in bringing home guilt to the appellant –
accused. As per version of PW2 Mukand Singh, deceased was last seen with
appellant Harnek Singh, who asked the deceased to accompany him to the
electric motor of Anter Singh. This witness also heard noise, coming from
the side of above said place, indicating that somebody was being beaten up.
He further argued that the entire occurrence was seen by Mohinder Singh
(PW3), who had given clear sequence of events as to how Jeet Singh was
killed. By stating that confessional statement made by the appellants before
Satgur Singh is reliable, he prayed that the appeal having no substance be
dismissed.
Counsel for the parties heard.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 83-DB OF 2000 -7-
Record reveals that post-mortem on the dead body was
conducted by Dr. K.C. Goyal (PW1) on October 5, 1991, at 4.30 PM.
Following injuries were found on the person of the deceased:
“1) Incised wound 7 cm x 2.5 cm x bone and brain matter was
cut on right side of the skull, 3 cm above the right eye brow in
vertical direction. Frontal bone was fractured. On dissection
base of skull was fractured and brain matter was lacerated,
blood clots were present in the wound. Brain cavity was having
blood mixed with fluid.
2) Incised wound 8 cm x 2.5 cm x nasal bone cut in vertical
direction from the root of nose upto the upper lip in its
middle. Only a tag of skin was attached to the lip.
Underlying upper jaw was cut and maxillary bone was
fractured.
3) Incised wound .7 cm x 2 cm x maxillary bone deep just
below the eyes in transverse direction cutting injury No. 2
just above the bridge of nose. Blood clots were present in the
mouth and max bone was fractured into pieces.”
As per opinion of the doctor, cause of death was shock and
hemorrhage due to injuries No. 1 to 3, which were ante mortem in nature
and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course. It is an admitted fact
that dead body was lying in the borewell wherein water pump and pipes
were fitted.
The deceased was last seen with appellant Harnek Singh by
PW2 Mukand Singh, who happens to be real brother of the deceased. As per
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 83-DB OF 2000 -8-
case of the prosecution, Mukand Singh had gone to the farm-house of the
family, to serve food to the deceased. In his presence, Harnek Singh
appellant came there and told Jeet Singh deceased that he was being
summoned by Satpal Singh, appellant No.1, Kaka Singh and Jora Singh at
the motor of Anter Singh. Thereafter, deceased Jeet Singh, without taking
food, left with Harnek Singh, appellant. After about half an hour, Mukand
Singh heard shrieks of ‘Marta Marta’ from the side of motor of Anter Singh.
Jeet Singh did not come back. This witness came back to his house, told the
incident to his brother Sardara Singh (PW9), both did not go out in search
of Jeet Singh, rather they kept on sleeping in their house.
Perusal of FIR and statement made by PW2 Mukand Singh
indicates that he was an introduced witness. In his statement Ex. PD made
to the police and deposition made in Court, this witness has categorically
stated that he had gone to serve food to Jeet Singh deceased at about 8 PM,
who on asking of Harnek Singh, appellant, left with him without taking
food. Post-mortem on the dead body was conducted by Dr. K.C. Goyal
(PW1), who has specifically stated that stomach contained digested food
particles, small intestine contained chyme. In cross-examination, this
witness has stated that the food leaves the stomach as soon as it is digested.
In the stomach of the victim, there were digested food particles and their life
in stomach could be two or three hours. Above said fact clearly indicates
that death has taken place after the deceased had taken his meals.
Not only this, conduct of Mukand Singh (PW2) and Sardara
Singh (PW9), who are real brothers of the deceased, was most unnatural.
Mukand Singh on hearing noise from the side of Motor of Anter Singh,
sheepishly came back to his house and told the entire story to his brother
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 83-DB OF 2000 -9-
Sardara Singh (PW9). Both made no attempt to intimate respectables of the
village or went out in search of Jeet Singh, their brother. They have tried to
over come this deficiency simply by stating that due to fear of terrorism in
those days, they failed to go out in search of Jeet Singh. This plea appears
to be an afterthought. PW2 Mukand Singh has stated that when he had gone
to serve food to his brother(deceased), he had met many persons on his way.
PW3 Mohinder Singh was also available at his farm house. No evidence has
been brought on record to show that there was any fear of terrorism, in that
area, at the relevant time. As per prosecution , occurrence has taken place at
about 8/ 8.30 PM. It was not too late to go out in search of a family member.
Investigating Officer ASI Baldev Singh (PW8) has specifically stated that
about 50 licensed arms were available in the village. PW2 and PW9 made
no attempt to contact anyone having licensed arm. Above mentioned facts
clearly indicate that an attempt was made to suppress the real genesis of the
prosecution case.
Mohinder Singh (PW3) also appears to be a procured witness.
As per case of the prosecution, his land is situated next to the farm house of
the deceased. He has seen the occurrence. In his statement, he has not made
any mention of the presence of Kaka Singh and Jora Singh at the spot as
was stated by PW2. This witness has stated that when the appellants
attacked the deceased, he raised an alarm. He was threatened by the
appellants. Out of fear, he went to Sunam, stayed there for whole of the
night and made statement to the police on October 5, 1991, at 2 PM. It is not
a case of this witness that he was chased by the appellant. It is very
surprising that instead of going to the village, which is situated nearby, this
witness preferred to go to a nearby town, i.e. Sunam. Police Station is
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 83-DB OF 2000 -10-
situated in Sunam. He made no attempt to inform the police regarding the
occurrence in dispute. In the next morning, he made no effort to reach his
village, at a distance of few KMs., at an early point of time. As per his
version, dead body had already been sent for post-mortem examination at
about 2 PM. Deposition of this witness does not inspire confidence. As such
trial Court was not justified in relying upon the same.
As per case of the prosecution, appellants made confessional
statement before Satgur Singh (PW5). Above named witness has stated that
Satpal accused came to him on October 4, 1991, and disclosed that he had
killed Jeet Singh. He requested PW5 to produce him before the police. In
his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that on the next day,
accused came to him at 7.30 AM and he produced both of them before the
police. Deposition made by this witness falsifies story of the prosecution.
As per admitted facts, Satpal Singh, appellant No. 1- accused was arrested
on November 7, 1991, and appellant No. 2 Harnek Singh was arrested
thereafter. The Investigating Officer has nowhere deposed that they were
produced before him by Satgur Singh. This witness has admitted that a
criminal case, for keeping illicit liquor, was registered against him. He is
neither Sarpanch nor Panch. This witness has admitted that he has no
special influence with the police officials. Under those circumstances, it is
not expected that the appellant – accused would go to him and make a
confessional statement. Facts on record and statement made by PW5 have
not corroborated each other. The deposition made by this witness appears to
be false.
Jora Singh, who was initially alleged as an accused, when FIR
was recorded, was declared innocent. Thereafter, he was brought in the
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 83-DB OF 2000 -11-
witness box to support case of the prosecution. However, he resiled while
deposing in Court. Furthermore, when we read statements of PW2 Mukand
Singh and PW8 ASI Baldev Singh, it comes out on record that the witnesses
are not deposing correct facts. PW2 Mukand Singh has stated that the
utensils, in which he had taken food for the deceased, were left by him at his
farm house. He has further stated that the police never visited the farm
house whereas to the contrary, Investigating Officer – PW8 has deposed that
he had gone to the farm house of the deceased. PW2 has deposed that
moulds were available at the place of occurrence, but those were not lifted.
Foot prints were also clearly visible. Investigating Officer has deposed to
the contrary. A look at the inquest report Ex. PB indicates that the
Investigating Officer, in the rough site plan, drawn in column No. 24 of the
inquest report, has shown presence of one Gabber Singh as an eye witness.
In his cross-examination, the Investigating Officer has failed to disclose on
what ground and under what circumstances, he has shown the presence of
Gabber Singh as an eye witness in the inquest report.
In this case, not only as above, the prosecution has miserably
failed to prove any motive on the part of the appellants to commit murder of
Jeet Singh. To know the facts, following pedigreetable will prove helpful:
Narain Singh
_________________________I__________________________
I I I
Harnek Singh Kaka Singh Jagger Singh
1 1 ___ 1_____
Satpal Singh Mukand, Sardara, Baldev, Jit (died issueless)
Singh Singh Singh Singh
Admittedly, Jagger Singh had executed a will, of his property,
in favour of Harnek Singh. As per admitted position, Jagger Singh had died
six years prior to the date of occurrence. Thereafter, his land was mutated in
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 83-DB OF 2000 -12-
the name of Harnek Singh, appellant. Neither any criminal case nor any civil
suit was filed by the complainant party against appellant Harnek Singh,
agitating to get share in the property of Jagger Singh. As per admitted
position, Harnek Singh was in possession of the property left by Jaggar
Singh. Neither Mukand Singh nor Sardara Singh have stated that prior to
the present occurrence, they had ever raised any demand with regard to their
share in the property left by Jagger Singh. If that is so, we feel that there
was no occasion for the appellants to kill the deceased. It appears that on
account of transfer of property in favour of Harnek Singh, the complainant
party was nursing a grudge against the appellants and there was possibility
of the complainant party making an attempt to harm the appellants, which
they did by involving them in a false case.
The trial Court has failed to appreciate evidence of the
prosecution in a critical manner. Entire judgment of conviction is based
upon surmises and as such the same cannot be sustained.
In view of facts, mentioned above, this appeal is allowed,
judgment and order under challenge are set aside and Sat Pal Singh,
appellant, is acquitted of the charge framed against him.
Harnek Singh, appellant No. 2 had died during pendency of the
appeal. As such appeal filed by him stands abated.
Appellant No. 1 is on bail and as such there is no necessity to
issue any release warrant.
(JASBIR SINGH)
JUDGE
(JORA SINGH)
JUDGE
March 04, 2009.
DKC
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 83-DB OF 2000 -13-