Crl. Appeal No. 74-DB of 2000. 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND ARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Appeal No. 74-DB of 2000.
DECIDED ON : 25.2.2009
Sukhwinder Singh
Appellant.
VERSUS
State of Punjab
Respondent.
Crl. Revision No. 536 of 2000.
DECIDED ON : 25.2.2009
Kishan Singh and another
Petitioners.
VERSUS
Arjan Dass and others.
Respondents.
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH
Present: Mr. S.K.Pipat, Sr.Advocate, with
Mr. Ramanjit Singh, Advocate, for
appellant.
Crl. Appeal No. 74-DB of 2000. 2
Mr. S.D.Sharma, Sr. Advocate, with
Mr. S.S.Rana, Advocate and Ms. Bindu
Goel, Advocate, for the revisionist.
Mr. D.S.Brar, Deputy Advocate General,
Punjab.
JORA SINGH,J.
Through the instant criminal appeal,
Sukhwinder Singh has impugned the judgment/order
dated 27.1.2000 rendered by Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur
in Sessions case No. 46 of 5.11.1998, Sessions trial No. 4
of 3.2.1999, in First Information Report No. 42 dated
9.4.1998 Police Station Hariana, District Hoshiarpur,
under sections 364, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal
Code. By this judgment, appellant was convicted under
Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and was
sentenced as under:-
(i)under Section 302 IPC Imprisonment for
life.
(ii)Under Section 201 IPC Rigorous
Imprisonment for two years and a fine of
Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine he
shall further undergo RI for one month.
Co-accused namely Arjan Dass, Sheela Devi,
Shakuntla Rani and Meena Rani were acquitted of the
Crl. Appeal No. 74-DB of 2000. 3
charge levelled against them.
Against acquittal of Arjan Dass and others, no
appeal by the State but Criminal Revision No. 536 of
2000 has been filed by Kishan Singh and Smt. Parkash
Kaur on the allegation that revision be accepted and the
accused persons acquitted by the trial Court may kindly
be convicted under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of the
Indian Penal Code.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 7.4.1998
DDR (Ex.DA) was recorded at 10.05 A.M. at the instance
of Kishan Singh on the allegation that his daughter
Ravinderjit Kaur was married with Sukhwinder Singh
about one year back. After marriage, in laws of
Ravinderjit Kaur used to quarrel with her and on so
many times, Ravinderjit Kaur and her in laws were
made to understand. On 4.4.1998, at 6 P.M.Sukhwinder
Singh came and reported that Ravinderjit Kaur had
some scuffle with entire family. He had gone to the
house of Sukhwinder Singh to enquire about the dispute.
Ravinderjit Kaur and her in laws were made to
understand and at 9 P.M. he came back to his village
Dhariwal. Ravinderjit Kaur was a teacher in the
Government Primary School, Mirjapur. His sister in law
Crl. Appeal No. 74-DB of 2000. 4
was married in village Mirjapur and her house was
near the school. He came to know that Ravinderjit Kaur
did not attend the school. Then he had gone to the house
of Sukhwinder Singh to enquire about Ravinderjit Kaur.
In laws of Ravinderjit Kaur replied that on 5.4.1998,
early in the morning Ravinderjit Kaur had left the
matrimonial house. An effort was made to locate
Ravinderjit Kaur but she was not traceable.
In view of the statement of Kishan Singh,
intimation was given to different police stations to the
effect that Ravinderjit Kaur is missing.
On 9.4.1998 Surinder Pal Singh Sub Inspector
in connection with the investigation of the case had
gone to village Dhariwal. Statement of Parkash Kaur
(Ex.PA) was recorded. Parkash Kaur reported that she is
a teacher in the Government Primary School, village
Kotla Naudh Singh. She has one daughter and two sons.
Ravinderjit Kaur was married with Sukhwinder Singh,
resident of village Kotha Hansian about one year back.
Ravinderjit Kaur was a teacher in the Government
Primary School, Mirjapur. Sukhwinder Singh was also a
teacher in the Government High School, Bhattlan. On
4.4.1998 at about 6 P.M. Sukhwinder Singh came to
village Dhariwal. Her husband was also present in the
Crl. Appeal No. 74-DB of 2000. 5
house then Sukhwinder Singh reported that Ravinderjit
Kaur had some altercation with the family. Her
husband had gone to the house of Sukhwinder Singh to
enquire about the dispute and came back at 9.30 P.M.
with the report that in laws of Ravinderjit Kaur were
quarrelling with her by saying that Ravinderjit Kaur is
not fit to perform domestic work and has no sense. He
was requested to bring Ravinderjit Kaur to her parental
house for about eight/ten days. In laws of Ravinderjit
Kaur told that they will send her ( Ravinderjit Kaur) on
5.4.1998. On 5.4.1998 Ravinderjit Kaur failed to
return. On 6.4.1998 while returning from her school,
enquired from the students of Government Primary,
School, Mirjapur about Ravinderjit Kaur, then she
came to know that Ravinderjit Kaur did not attend her
school. At 1.30 P.M. she came to her house but her
husband was not present in the house. At about 1.35
P.M., her husband came then she told him that
Ravinderjit Kaur did not attend the school on 6.4.1998.
She along with her husband had gone to village Kothe
Hansian. All the family members were present in the
house and on inquiry family members told that
Ravinderjit Kaur was sent in the morning at 7 A.M. by
bus but family members did not disclose by whom and
Crl. Appeal No. 74-DB of 2000. 6
which bus was boarded by Ravinderjit Kaur. Efforts
were made to find out Ravinderjit Kaur but she was not
traceable. They are definite that Ravinderjit Kaur was
murdered by her in-laws and dead body was disposed of
because in laws of Ravinderjit Kaur used to quarrel
with her. Five/six days earlier, Sheela had given beating
to Ravinderjit Kaur. Statement of Parkash Kaur was
recorded by Sub Inspector Surinder Pal. Statement was
read over and explained to Parkash Kaur, who had
signed the same in English. After making endorsement,
statement was sent to the Police Station, on the basis of
which formal First Information Report was recorded.
After completion of investigation, challan was
presented against five accused.
Vide order dated 22.10.1998, passed by Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Hoshiarpur, this case was
committed to Court of Session, Hoshiarpur for trial.
After hearing Public Prosecutor for the State,
defence counsel for the accused and from the perusal of
documents on the file, trial Court opined that a prima
facie case is made out against the accused under
Sections 302/201 I.P.C. and they were charged
accordingly, to which they pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
Crl. Appeal No. 74-DB of 2000. 7
In order to substantiate the charges, the
prosecution examined PW-1 Parkash Kaur mother of
Ravinderjit Kaur who stated that Ravinderjit Kaur was
married with Sukhwinder Singh about one year ago.
One month after the marriage, in laws of Ravinderjit
Kaur started quarrelling with her on the allegation that
she is not doing domestic work and she is also not
obeying to their command. On 4.4.1998, Sukhwinder
Singh came and reported that his family members had
altercation with Ravinderjit Kaur. On the request of
Sukhwinder Singh, her husband had gone to inquire
about the dispute. At 9.30 P.M. Kishan Singh came and
reported that in laws of Ravinderjit Kaur were blaming
her that she is unable to do house hold jobs and is
disobedient. In laws of Ravinderjit Kaur were requested
to send Ravinderjit Kaur. In laws of Ravinderjit Kaur
assured that Ravinderjit Kaur will be sent in the
morning on the next day. But Ravinderjit Kaur failed to
come. On 6.4.1998 while returning from her school, she
came to know from the students of Mirjapur school that
Ravinderjit Kaur did not attend the school. After that
she along with her husband had gone to the house of
Sukhwinder Singh and on inquiry from in-laws of
Ravinderjit Kaur came to know that she was sent by
Crl. Appeal No. 74-DB of 2000. 8
bus at 7 A.M. Ravinderjit Kaur is not traceable.
Application was given to the police.
PW-2 Kishan Singh is the father of Ravinderjit Kaur. He has supported the version of Parkash Kaur.
PW-3 Harbhajan Kaur teacher of Government
Primary School, Mirjapur stated that Ravinderjit Kaur
did not attend the school on 6.4.1998. Telephonic
message was received from the husband of Ravinderjit
Kaur that she is on leave.
PW-4 Yashpal Kaur is the aunt of Ravinderjit Kaur
and stated that Ravinderjit Kaur was a teacher and
was murdered on the night of 4.4.1998. Relations of
Ravinderjit Kaur with her in laws were not cordial. On
6.4.1998 she received telephone call from Sukhwinder
Singh that Ravinderjit Kaur is not to attend School.
Application for leave is to be sent. She had gone to the
school at 9 A.M. and had contacted teacher Smt.
Harbhajan Kaur. At 6 P.M. Sukhwinder Singh came to
inquire about Ravinderjit Kaur by saying that she had
minor dispute with her family members.
Statement of Sub Inspector Manjit Singh-PW5
is of formal nature because he had simply executed
warrants and had arrested Arjan Dass, Sheela Devi,
Crl. Appeal No. 74-DB of 2000. 9
Meena Rani and Shakuntla accused.
PW-6 Sub Inspector Harbhajan Singh had
scribed formal First Information Report Ex.PA/1.
PW-7 Sub Inspector Surinder Pal is the Investigating Officer. On 9.4.1998 in connection with
the investigation of this case, as per DDR, he had gone to
village Dhaliwal and had recorded the statement of
Parkash Kaur Ex.PA. He had investigated the spot and
prepared rough site plan Ex.PB.
After the close of prosecution evidence, the
accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to
explain the allegations, levelled against them. Accused
denied all the allegations and pleaded to be innocent.
Defence version of all the accused was that before the
marriage of Sukhwinder Singh, Sukhwinder Singh was
bearing all the household expenses of the family and
after marriage Ravinderjit Kaur was not interested to
live jointly in the house. She had left their house on
5.4.1998 by saying that she was going to her parental
house after that she did not return.
In defence DW-1Sarabjit Kaur stated that her
house is in front of the house of Sukhwinder Singh. On
5.4.1998 at 7 A.M. she was standing in front of her
house. Ravinderjit Kaur was passing by the side of her
Crl. Appeal No. 74-DB of 2000. 10
house. She had inquired from Ravinderjit Kaur as to
where she is going then Ravinderjit Kaur replied that
she is going to her parental house.
DW-2 Smt. Raj Kumari stated that she was
teacher in Government Primary School, Hariana since
4.1.1986. Gurminder Singh son of Ranjit Singh was
admitted in the school on 12.10.1993 and his date of
birth is 15.10.1985. Daljit Kaur daughter of Ranjit
Singh was admitted in the school on 12.10.1993 and her
date of birth is 24.10.1987.Binderjit Kaur daughter of
Ranjit Singh was admitted in the school on 4.5.1996 and
her date of birth is 24.9.1989.
After hearing Public Prosecutor for the state,
defence counsel for the accused and also from the
perusal of the evidence, learned trial Court opined that
accused Sukhwinder Singh has committed offence
punishable under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal
Code and was sentenced as stated aforesaid.
We have heard learned defence counsel for the
appellant, Mr. D.S.Brar, Deputy Advocate General,
Punjab and Mr. S.D.Sharma, Sr. Advocate, with Mr.
S.S.Rana, Advocate and Ms. Bindu Goel, Advocates,
for the revisionist.
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that
Crl. Appeal No. 74-DB of 2000. 11
there is no evidence qua murder or disposing the body
either direct or indirect. Case is based on suspicion.
Suspicion cannot take the place of proof. First
Information Report was registered after the
investigation had started. All the family members were
implicated. No single circumstance to connect the
appellant-accused with the crime.
Mr. D.S.Brar, Deputy Advocate General,
Punjab and Mr. S.D.Sharma, Sr. Advocate, with Mr.
S.S.Rana, Advocate and Ms. Bindu Goel, Advocate, for
the revisionist argued that Ravinderjit Kaur was
married with Sukhwinder Singh one year earlier to the
present occurrence. Ravinderjit Kaur was not having
cordial relation with her in laws. Ravinderjit Kaur was a
teacher and as per defence version she has left the
house of her in laws at about 7 A.M. on 5.4.1998.;
Accused was to explain where she had gone why she is
missing. Sukhwinder Singh was rightly convicted and
sentenced. No reasonable explanation to acquit the co-
accused namely Arjan Dass and others.
First submission of learned defence counsel for
the appellant was that no evidence qua murder or to
dispose of the body. Case is based on suspicion and
circumstantial evidence. We have gone through the
Crl. Appeal No. 74-DB of 2000. 12
evidence on the file and are of the view that the
submission of learned defence counsel seems to be
correct one. Undisputedly, Ravinderjit Kaur was a
teacher and she was married with Sukhwinder Singh
one year earlier to the present occurrence. No oral or
documentary evidence that Ravinderjit Kaur had some
dispute with appellant before the present occurrence or
Ravinderjit Kaur was not having cordial relation with
her-in-laws. As per Parkash Kaur, few days before the
present occurrence Ravinderjit Kaur was given beating
by her mother in law but allegation of Parkash Kaur is
not correct one as, statement of Parkash Kaur was
recorded on 9.4.1998 at 11.05 A.M. whereas DDR No.9
dated 7.4.1998 was recorded at the instance of Krishan
Singh. Krishan Singh did not state a word that few days
earlier Ravinderjit Kaur was given beating by her
mother-in -law. In case, Ravinderjit Kaur was not
having cordial relations and was given beatings, five/six
days earlier to the present occurrence, then matter
should have been brought to the notice of police or to
the Panchayat. As per evidence, Ravinderjit Kaur had
quarrel with her in laws on 4.4.1998 and on the same
day Sukhwinder Singh came to the house of complainant
and reported that Ravinderjit Kaur has some dispute
Crl. Appeal No. 74-DB of 2000. 13
with her in laws and on the request of Sukhwinder
Singh, Kishan Singh had gone to the house of
Sukhwinder Singh to inquire about the dispute. In laws
were requested to send Ravinderjit Kaur to her parental
house then on the same day Kishan Singh should have
brought back Ravinderjit Kaur from her-in-laws house.
There was no idea for Ravinderjit Kaur to leave her in
laws house on the next day in the morning i.e. 5.4.1998.
Ravinderjit Kaur as per story was to leave her in laws
house in the morning on 5.4.1989 but till evening she did
not visit her parental house. On 5.4.1998 no report to the
police. On 6.4.1998 Parkash Kaur as per story had gone
to her school while returning from school, she had
inquired from the children of Government Primary
School, Mirjapur about the presence of Ravinderjit
Kaur. Children reported to Parkash Kaur that
Ravinderjit Kaur did not attend the school on 6.4.1998.
Parkash Kaur came to her house and later on in the
evening Parkash Kaur along with her husband Kishan
Singh had gone to the house of Sukwinder Singh as to
where is Ravinderjit Kaur. In laws of Ravinderjit Kaur
had reported that on 5.4.1998 at 7 A.M. Ravinderjit
Kaur had left her in laws house but after report by the
in laws of Ravinderjit Kaur, no report was lodged with
Crl. Appeal No. 74-DB of 2000. 14
the police on 6.4.1998. According to Parkash Kaur on
6.4.1998, application in writing was given to the police
but that application is not on the file. No explanation
from the side of prosecution where that application has
gone. For the first time, DDR No. 9 was got recorded by
Kishan Singh on 7.4.1998. If Ravinderjit Kaur had left
her in laws house on 5.4.1998 at about 7A.M. and she
was not traceable then report should have been lodged
immediately. There was no idea to record DDR only on
7.4.1998 and register First Information Report on the
statement of Parkash Kaur dated 9.4.1998. When
Ravinderjit Kaur was missing as per reply by the in
laws of Ravinderjit Kaur, Ravinderjit Kaur had left her
in laws house on 5.4.1998 at 7 A.M. Dead body of
Ravinderjit Kaur was not recovered by the police till that
day. No article of the deceased was recovered at the
instance of any of the accused. As per DW1 namely
Sarabjit Kaur, Ravinderjit Kaur was seen alone at 7
A.M. on 5.4.1998. So the only circumstance that
Ravinderjit Kaur was married with Sukhwinder Singh
and on 4.4.1998 she was in her in laws house and was
seen alone on 5.4.1998 at about 7 A.M. is not sufficient
to connect the appellant-accused with the crime.
Nothing to presume that Ravinderjit Kaur was
Crl. Appeal No. 74-DB of 2000. 15
murdered and dead body was disposed of. In
K.T.Palanisamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2008(1) R.C.R.
(Criminal) 870. Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in a
murder case, no eye witness- case based on
circumstantial evidence. Dead body not recovered- death
of the deceased must be established like any other fact-
conviction cannot be based on last seen evidence. In the
present case, evidence qua last seen inspires no
confidence.
Last submission of the learned defence counsel
was that there is delay in lodging the First Information
Report. First Information Report was registered after
investigation was started. All the family members were
implicated. Submission of learned defence counsel is
correct one. Ravinderjit Kaur was missing with effect
from 5.4.1998. On 6.4.1998 Parkash Kaur and Kishan
Singh had the knowledge that Ravinderjit Kaur was
missing because she was to visit her parental house in
the morning on 5.4.1998 being Sunday. On 5.4.1998 or
6.4.1998 no report to the police. Application in writing
was given on 6.4.1998 but no action was taken by the
police. Statement of Parkash Kaur was recorded on
9.4.1998(Ex.PA). After that formal First Information
Report was recorded. Investigating Officer Surinder Pal
Crl. Appeal No. 74-DB of 2000. 16
in examination in chief did not state a word that before
9.4.1998 any written complaint was received from the
side of complainant party. In cross examination Surinder
Pal stated that on 6.4.1998 no complaint in writing was
given by Kishan Singh to the effect that Ravinderjit
Kaur is missing. He further admitted that there was no
entry in the police record that on 7.4.1998 he had gone
to the house of Ravinderjit Kaur. Lastly admitted that
as per police diary dated 6.5.1998, Kishan Singh had
reported that Ravinderjit Kaur had never made a
complaint regarding maltreatment by her in laws.
Yaspal Kaur also reported that Ravinderjit Kaur never
complained about any harassment by her in laws. On
9.4.1998, Dharminder Kumar President of Municipal
committee, Ram Lubhaya, Bimla Devi and Hardev Singh
were joined in the investigation and they did not
complain regarding maltreatment by the in laws of
Ravinderjit Kaur. Statement of Surinder Pal
Investigating Officer falsify the prosecution story.
Sukhwinder Singh and his family members had never
maltreated Ravinderjit Kaur. When Ravinderjit Kaur
had no dispute with her in laws as per case diary. Then
defence version seems to be probable that on 5.4.1998
Ravinderjit Kaur had left her in laws house by saying
Crl. Appeal No. 74-DB of 2000. 17
that she is going to her parental house. In case before
4.4.1998 in laws of Ravinderjit Kaur had some dispute
with her only then in laws of Ravinderjit Kaur can be
expected to do some mischief. Ravinderjit Kaur being
teacher used to visit Government Primary School,
Mirjapur. 5.4.1998 was Sunday so Ravinderjit Kaur
was expected to visit her parents house at village
Dhaliwal. In case Ravinderjit Kaur was missing since
5.4.1998 then nothing to presume that Sukhwinder
Singh and his family members were at fault and after
murder, they have disposed of the dead body.
PW-4 Yaspal Kaur is the sister of Parkash
Kaur and in examination in chief stated that Ravinderjit
Kaur was murdered on 4.4.1998 but in the next line
stated that on 6.4.1998 telephone call was received from
Sukhwinder Singh that Ravinderjit Kaur is not to
attend the school on that date. At 9 A.M. she had gone to
school to inform that Ravinderjit Kaur is not to attend
school. At 6 P.M. Sukhwinder Singh came to inquire
about Ravinderjit Kaur. If on 4.4.1998 Ravinderjit
Kaur was murdered by her in laws then why on 6.4.1998
Yaspal Kaur had gone to school to give information that
Ravinderjit Kaur is not to attend the school on that day.
If in the morning, on 6.4.1998 Sukhwinder Singh had
Crl. Appeal No. 74-DB of 2000. 18
reported that Ravinderjit Kaur is not to attend the
school then in the evening at 6 P.M. there was no idea
with Sukhwinder Singh to visit the house of Yaspal Kaur
to inquire about Ravinderjit Kaur. Statement of PW4
Yaspal Kaur was recorded on 8.4.1998. No record of
telephone department was produced that on 6.4.1998
in the morning on telephone Sukhwinder Singh had
informed Yaspal Kaur that on that day Ravinderjit Kaur
is not to attend the school. So, statement of Yaspal Kaur
seems to be not natural one. Parkash Kaur and Kishan
Singh are the parents of Ravinderjit Kaur. They are
very much interested in the success of this case.
Statement of Kishan Singh is contrary to the statement
of Parkash Kaur. When the case is based on
circumstantial evidence then chain of circumstantial
evidence should be complete.
No other contention was put forward.
Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence on
file and wrongly opined that Sukhwinder Singh, after
murder, has disposed of the dead body of Ravinderjit
Kaur.
Criminal Appeal No. 74-DB of 2000 filed by
Sukhwinder Singh is accepted. He is acquitted of the
charges levelled against him.
Crl. Appeal No. 74-DB of 2000. 19
Criminal Revision No. 536 of 2000 is also
dismissed.
( JORA SINGH )
JUDGE
25.02.2009. ( JASBIR SINGH )
JUDGE
Anoop