Criminal Appeal No. 7-DB of 1999 -1-
****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. 7-DB of 1999
Date of decision: 1.8.2008.
Rulda Singh and another ....Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND
****
Present: Ms. Baljeet Kaur Mann, Advocate for the appellants
Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
S. D. ANAND, J.
The prosecution presentation, as upheld by the learned
Trial Judge, drew essential sustenance from the last-seen evidence
in the statement of PW-5 Dev Rishi and PW-7 Parveen Kumar and
the eye witness account of PW-3 Balbir Nath.
2. The detailing of facts in the first instance would be
appropriate for appreciation of the criticism directed at the relevant
finding.
3. Ram Lal deceased, a younger unmarried brother of PW-2
Bikkar Singh, was residing in Canada. He came over to India on
15.8.1996. After few days stay with his elder sister at Delhi, he came
over to stay with his brother PW-2 Biikkar Singh. Lakhwinder Singh,
Devinder Singh and Kulwinder Singh are three sons of Bikkar Singh.
Ram Lal used to enjoy a drink occasionally.
Criminal Appeal No. 7-DB of 1999 -2-
****
4. On 13.9.1996, Lakhwinder Singh and Ram Lal cycled
down to Rahon. While leaving the house, Ram Lal was wearing a
golden chain, a ring and wrist watch. Lakhwinder Singh returned
home in the evening; while Ram Lal did not. Lakhwinder Singh
informed Bikkar Singh that Ram Lal stayed over in an Ahata (a
licensed place for taking liquor). Bikkar Singh set out in search of
Ram Lal. He was accompanied by Tarsem Singh alias Babby son of
Gurdev Singh. Ahata owner namely Pandit informed Bikkar Singh
that Ram Lal had been taken away on a Rehra by appellants Rulda
and Rana. He further informed Bikkar Singh that after the initial
transportation of Ram Lal by Rehra, two appellants had also taken
away the cycle which Ram Lal left at the Ahata. In the light of that
information, Bikkar Singh and Tarsem Singh first went over to the
house of appellant Rana, who was not found available at his house.
When they were on way to the house of appellant Rulda, he (Rulda)
met them enroute near the heaps of debris. On being queried about
the whereabout of Ram Lal, Rulda informed them that Ram Lal was
lying at the house of Rana. Rulda, then, accompanied them to the
house of Rana which (house) was nearby. Thereafter, Rulda ran
away. Ram Lal was not found lying at the house of Rana nor was
Rana found available in the house. On getting verbal information
that one person was lying dead in the Kotha of one Kariami Jat near
the house of Rulda, Bikkar Singh and Tarsem Singh went over there.
They peeped into the house through window and found that dead
body lying there was that of Ram Lal. Bikkar Singh brought along
Criminal Appeal No. 7-DB of 1999 -3-
****
Ajit Singh Sarpanch of the village to the spot and the trio (Bikkar
Singh, Tarsem Singh and Ajit Singh) entered the room afore-
mentioned and found that Ram Lal had been strangulated with a
rope around his neck and there also were injuries on his head. They
further found that ornaments and the wrist watch, which deceased
was wearing, were missing from the dead body.
5. PW-1 Dr. Neena, M.O, M.H.C., Ghataron had conducted
the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Ram Lal and
found following injuries on it:-
“1. There was ligature mark around the neck, reddish
brown in colour 2.5 cms wide at the level of thoirode
cartilage. Encircling the neck completely and
horrizontally.
On dissection there was infiltration of blood in the
bed of ligature and adjoining tissue. There was
fracture of thoiride cartilage.
2. Lacerated wound 7 cms x 1.4 cm deep upto bone
one the left side of skull, oblique in direction its
lower end was 5 cms above left ear. Blood clots
were present and underlying bone was intact.
3. Red bruise 6.5 cms x 5 cms over right side of fore
head .2 cms above the right eye brow. 2 cms from
the mid line. Vertical in direction. On dissection
clotted blood was present under the skin.
Underlying bone was intact.
Criminal Appeal No. 7-DB of 1999 -4-
****
On opening the skull, membrance was congested,
brain was congested and showed potechial
hammorgages.
4. Red abrasion 2 cm x 2 cm over the inner aspect of
right leg. At the junction of upper 1/3rd and lower
2/3rd.”
6. PW-2 Bikkar Singh is first informant.
7. PW-3 Balbir Nath is an eye witness.
8. PW-4 is Ashwani Chopra, Goldsmith, who had prepared
ring Ex.P1 for Ram Lal.
9. PW-5 is Dev Rishi representing the last seen evidence
segment, the other part thereof being PW-7 Parveen Kumar.
10. PW-6 is Rattan Chand, who runs a cycle shop at Rahon,
had sold a new cycle of Atlas Make to Gurdev Singh son of Milkhi
Ram for Rs. 800/- and had issued the receipt Ex. P2.
11. PW-8 Constable Vijay Pal tendered his affidavit Ex. PE
into evidence.
12. PW-9 Balbir Singh, a professional photographer, had
photographed the spot where the dead body of Ram Lal was found
lying. He proved photographs Ex. P3 to Ex. P7 and negatives Ex. P8
to Ex. P12.
13. PW-10 Surjit Kumar was posted as SI/SHO, Police
Station, Rahon, on 13.9.1996. He had recorded statement Ex. PD of
Bikkar Singh and had forwarded it to Police Station, along with his
endorsement Ex. PD/1.
Criminal Appeal No. 7-DB of 1999 -5-
****
14. Formal FIR Ex. PD/2 was recorded by the MHC of Police
Station, Rahon. Apart therefrom, he also prepared inquest report in
the presence of Lakhwinder Singh and Ajit Singh. He had taken the
blood stained earth and one blood stained brick Ex. P-14 into
possession from the spot. He had also sent the dead body for post-
mortem examination. He had also conducted investigation of this
case.
15. Ex. PZ and Ex. PZ/1 are reports of Chemical Examiner.
16. The appellants alleged false implication.
17. No evidence was adduced by the appellants in defence.
18. As already noticed and apparent from the record, the
evidence against appellants consists of last seen evidence in the
statement of PW-5 Dev Rishi and PW-7 Parveen Kumar and the
eye witness account in the statement of Balbir Nath.
19. We have been through the record with the assistance of
the learned counsel for the parties.
20. The last seen evidence in the statement of PW-5 Dev
Rishi does not inspire confidence. PW-5 Dev Rishi categorically
stated that the appellants and Ram Lal had taken liquor at his Ahata
and they left thereafter at about 1.00 A.M. He does not at all make a
mention of the fact that appellants had taken Ram Lal on a Rehra.
As against it PW-7 Parveen Kumar testified that his son Ravi Kumar
had carried appellants Rulda, Rana and also Ram Lal in his Rehra
on hiring charges of Rs. 20/-. This witness stated in the cross-
examination that police recorded his statement under Section 161
Criminal Appeal No. 7-DB of 1999 -6-
****
Cr.P.C. the following day. There is a note by the learned Trial Court
that learned Public Prosecutor was “unable to place on record any
statement of the witness dated 14.9.1996”.
21. Learned Trial Court also noticed that the file does contain
the statement (under Section 161 Cr.P.C.) dated 11.10.1996 of
Parveen Kumar. Ravi Kumar afore-mentioned is alive and lives at
Rahon. PW-7 Parveen Kumar claimed to have told the police that
appellants and also Ram Lal were taken in Rehra by Ravi Kumar.
He was confronted with the statement dated 11.10.1996 where the
fact that those three named persons had been taken by Ravi Kumar
is not mentioned. Apart therefrom, this witness claimed that “I had
not talked with anybody else about my son or myself having taken
the deceased and accused Rulda and Rana in my Rehra”. His
statement is nothing but a creature of padding. Ravi son of PW-7
Parveen Kumar who had allegedly taken two appellants (Rulda and
Rana) and Ram Lal on his Rehra was also not examined at the trial
in spite of the fact that it is in the statement of none else or other
than his father Parveen Kumar PW-7 that his son Ravi Kumar is alive
and lives at village Rahon. PW-5 Devi Rishi averred that his
statement was recorded by the police after five days of death of Ram
Lal, though the police did visit his Ahata on the second day of the
death of Ram Lal. If there was even an iota of truth in the statement
made by Dev Rishi PW-5, there is no reason why he would not have
notified this fact to the police when it visited his Ahata on the second
day. Thus, we have no hesitation in discarding the last seen
Criminal Appeal No. 7-DB of 1999 -7-
****
evidence in the statement of PW-5 Dev Rishi and PW-7 Parveen
Kumar.
22. The eye witness account of PW-3 Balbir Nath also does
sound credible. He claimed to have seen appellant Rana helping
one person alight from the Rehra, though that person could not
manage himself and fell down upon the ground. It is in his statement
that Rulda appellant took some money from Rana appellant, made
payment to the Rehrawala and thereafter both the appellants lifted
that person to the room which they closed from inside. It gave an
idea to PW-3 Balbir Nath that there was something foul in their
conduct. After 10-15 minutes thereof, he went near the room,
peeped into it through the window and found that appellant Rulda
was holding a rope around the neck of that stranger. Appellant
Rulda strangulated the stranger; while appellant Rana gave brick
blow on the head of the stranger. When Balbir Nath called upon the
appellant to indicate why they had done that act, the appellants held
out a threat that he should get away from there or else he would also
be treated in that very fashion. He claimed to have told the police
that he had spotted appellant Rana sitting on the Rehra while holding
the stranger and that appellant Rulda was walking along the Rehra.
His attention was drawn to his statement Ex. DA where that fact was
not found mentioned. He claimed to have re-iterated that fact even
in the course of a statement which he made to the Magistrate under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. He has confronted with statement Ex. DB
wherein that fact was not found recorded. He further claimed to
Criminal Appeal No. 7-DB of 1999 -8-
****
have told the police and the Magistrate( the former in the statement
under Section 161 Cr.P.C.) and the latter in the statement under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. that Rana appellant was supporting the stranger
and helping him alight from the Rehra and that stranger fell upon the
ground. His attention was drawn towards Ex. DA and Ex. DB where
that fact was not found to have been recorded. He further claimed to
have told the police that appellants Rana and Rulda lifted the
stranger and took him inside Kariama’s room. This fact was not
found mentioned in Ex. DA. He further claimed to have told the
police that window of the room was initially not covered with any
piece of gunny bag but that it was after about 15-10 minutes of the
occurrence that pieces of gunny bags were found covering the
window. He was confronted with Ex. DA and also Ex. DB where this
fact was not noticed.
23. It would be apparent from a perusal of the above that
though this witness claimed to have mentioned every relevant piece
of evidence to the police and to the Magistrate, those facts were
found missing from Ex. DA and also Ex. DB. It is pertinent to notice
in that context that he did not raise any alarm on witnessing the
impugned occurrence. However, he claimed to have brought this
fact to the notice of Sat Pal Joshi, President of the Committee that
manages the cremation ground. He was not examined at the trial.
He was staying at a distance of 10-15 karams from the police when it
prepared the inquest report but did not bring facts to the notice of the
police at that point of time. In the totality of the facts noticed above,
Criminal Appeal No. 7-DB of 1999 -9-
****
we do not find his testimony to be credible.
24. Insofar as PW-2 Bikkar Singh is concerned, his son
Lakhwinder Singh had allegedly accompanied Ram Lal to Rahon on
an independent cycle. Lakhwinder Singh was not examined at the
trial. Further, Bikkar Singh claimed to have gone in search of Ram
lal in the company of Tarsem Singh alias Babby son of Gurdev
Singh and it was in the presence of Tarsem Singh that Dev Rishi
Pandit told Bikkar Singh that Ram Lal had been taken away on a
Rehra by both the appellants. Tarsem Singh aforementioned was
not examined at the trial.
25. In the light of the foregoing discussion, it is evident that
both segments of evidence (last seen evidence and eye witness
account) adduced by the prosecution do not appear credible.
26. We do not find that the prosecution had been able to
adduce evidence, substantive in character, to nail the appellants who
are entitled to benefit of doubt and are ordered to be acquitted.
27. The appeal shall stand disposed of, accordingly.
( S. D. ANAND )
JUDGE
August 01, 2008 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
Pka JUDGE