Amrit Singh vs State of Punjab

Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.—The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence of even date i.e. 13.1.2005, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offences, punishable under Sections 364 /302 /201 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The facts of the case, when put into narrow compass, are that the criminal law was set into motion on the statement Ex. PC/3 dated 19.12.1999 made by Harinder Singh S/o Gurbax Singh, caste Jat Sikh, resident of H. No. 4900, in front of Nav Bharat School, Gali No. 3, Abadi Amarkot, Putlighar, Amritsar, to the effect that he was employed in the Electricity Board Department at Amritsar. He had a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing No. PB-02-T-0777, model 1998, which had been given to Taxi Union on hire. He had engaged Sukhdev Singh @ Sukha S/o Kundan Singh, resident of H. No. 4738/24, Guru Nanak Wara, Putlighar, Amritsar, as driver. On 15.11.1999, he received a telephone that it was Baldev Singh, who was speaking on the other side. Baldev Singh disclosed that he had a talk with the driver (Sukhdev Singh) that he (Baldev Singh) was intending to go to Hazoor Sahib. He wanted to hire the vehicle and demanded the same near outside Water Works, Police Station Division, alongwith driver. He sent the driver with the vehicle and followed the vehicle on the scooter. On reaching near water works, two persons met and one of them disclosed his name as Baldev Singh. He was a trimmed beard Hindu gentleman. They told that their house was located at Bazar Bhoriwala and the lane was narrow one, where the vehicle could not pass. The negotiation took place. After settling the rate for Hazoor Sahib for 10/12 days, he alongwith driver Sukhdev Singh went to their home. After about an hour, his driver came at his residence with luggage. When he asked the driver as to why he has returned, he told that wheel driver (Panna) for fixing the nuts was left behind in the house and he came to collect the same. At that time, two abovesaid persons, two ladies and a female child of the age of 5/6 years had boarded the vehicle and left the place. They had not returned till the day of recording the statement nor any telephonic message was received from the side of the driver since 15.11.1999. He had personally made enquiries into the matter at his own level. He recognised the lady, whose name was Kashmir Kaur W/o Amrit Singh D/o Ajmer Singh and her daughter Paramjit Kaur. The real name was Amrit Singh and not Baldev Singh. It was wrongly disclosed as Baldev Singh. Kundan Singh, father of his driver was aware about the episode. Kundan Singh also knew Amrit Singh S/o Puran Singh. He was having suspicion that his driver has been murdered by the accused and they had grabbed his vehicle. He requested that action be taken.

The above said statement was recorded by Gurdip Singh, Inspector/SHO, Police Station B-Division, Amritsar on 19.12.1999, when he was present at chowk Sultanwind in connection with patrolling, alongwith ASI Jagir Singh, HC Maan Singh 548, C Palwinder Singh 1613, LC Assa Singh No. 557, C Jasbir Singh 109, C Kulwant Singh 2051. The statement was read over to Harinder Singh PW-6, who admitted the same to be correct and signed in token of its correctness. It was endorsed by Gurdip Singh, SHO and offence under Sections 364 /420 /34 IPC having been found to be made out, the writing was sent to the Police Station through Constable Palwinder Singh No. 1613 for registration of the case. It was directed that after registration of the case, number of the FIR be informed. Special reports be sent to the higher officers and control room may also be informed. He proceeded to the spot for further investigation. On the basis of above said statement, S.I., Surjit Singh recorded the FIR and number thereof was forwarded to Inspector/SHO Gurdip Singh for investigation. Special reports were sent to the higher officers and control room was also informed through wireless.

Investigation was carried out by Inspector Gurdip Singh PW-5. Statements of witnesses were recorded, recoveries were effected. After completion of the investigation, report u/s 173 Cr.P.C., was presented to the Illaqa Magistrate. Relevant documents were supplied to the accused. The offence u/s 302 IPC having been found to be exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the case was committed for trial. A prima facie case having been found to be made out, charge was framed for the offences punishable under Sections 364 /302 and 201 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 7 PWs, besides tendering the relevant documents in evidence. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. All the incriminating evidence brought on record was put to him. He alleged false implication and claimed complete innocence. However, accused did not lead any defence evidence.

After hearing the parties and going through the evidence brought on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, held the accused guilty and convicted him for the offences, punishable under Sections 364 /302 /201 IPC, vide his judgment of conviction dated 13.1.2005. Vide order of sentence dated 13.1.2005, the learned trial court awarded the sentence to the convict, as under:-

(i) u/s 364 of IPC, he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

(ii) u/s 302 of IPC, he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(iii) u/s 201 of IPC, he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.

However, all the sentence were ordered to run concurrently.

Feeling aggrieved against the above said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellant has filed the present appeal. That is how, this court is seized of the matter.

Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that firstly there was inordinate, long and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. There was no recovery of any kind, whatsoever, shown to have been effected from the appellant. There was no medical evidence because the dead body of the deceased was not recovered. No identification parade was held and link evidence was also conspicuously missing. He further submitted that the learned trial court has committed serious error of law, while recording the conviction of the appellant without there being any cogent and convincing evidence. He also submitted that the evidence of extra judicial confession was of very weak type of evidence and even that was not proved because PW-2 Manjit Singh, before whom the appellant allegedly made the extra judicial confession, was declared hostile. The inordinate long delay in registration of the case was also not appreciated by the learned trial court in right perspective. He concluded by submitting that since there was no evidence to connect the appellant with the crime, the impugned judgment of conviction was liable to be set aside.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State contended that the prosecution has brought on record cogent evidence, which was reliable and sufficient to record the conviction of the appellant. He placed heavy reliance on the last seen evidence and extra judicial confession. He also submitted that the delay in registration of FIR has been duly explained. Finally, he submitted that the appeal was without any merit and the same was liable to be dismissed.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance have gone through the record of the case.

Having given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised on behalf of both the parties and keeping in view the peculiar fact situation of the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent, reliable and sufficient evidence. In this view of the matter, the conviction of the appellant is liable to be set aside and the instant appeal deserves to be allowed. We say so for more than one reasons, being recorded hereinafter.

PW-1 Kundan Singh s/o Ishar Singh was the father of deceased Sukhdev Singh. He deposed that Sukhdev Singh was a driver on the Tata Sumo of Harinder Singh. On 15.11.1999, he went near Police Station B-Division to give the meals and clothes to his son and at that time accused, alongwith two ladies and one girl aged 6/7 years, was sitting in the Tata Sumo. Another person was also there in Tata Sumo, whose name he was not knowing. Vehicle was taken for Hazoor Sahib and it was told that they would come back within 10 days, but thereafter his son did not return. He further deposed that his son was killed by the accused. His statement was recorded by the police. However, in cross-examination, he expressed his ignorance, whether Harinder Singh PW-6 was running a company. He had no knowledge, whether Harinder Singh had taken a licence from the Government to run the vehicle as taxi. He further deposed that after 25.11.999, he was daily visiting the house of Harinder Singh to know about the whereabouts of his son. He had been visiting the Police Station approximately 3 times a day after 25.11.1999 and continued to go there for about 2 years. He also deposed that his statement was not recorded. Further stated that except Ex. ''PA'', no other statement was recorded. He also stated that after a gap of two years and one month, accused was shown to him in the Police Station. He told that he did not know the accused personally, but he identified him on the basis of description given by him, when the taxi was hired. He further deposed that no test identification parade was arranged by the police for identification of the accused, by this witness PW-1.

PW-2 was Manjit Singh s/o Joginder Singh. The accused allegedly made an extra judicial confession before him. However, this witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the APP for the State. The opening sentence of his statement was that no person came to him and did not make any confession of the crime. However, in his cross-examination, this witness stated that accused came to him on 13.9.2001 and stated that on 15.11.1999, he had engaged Tata Sumo bearing No. PB-02-T-0777 for Hazoor Sahib. He further stated that Baldev Singh disclosed to him that the vehicle was taken by the driver to water works near Police Station B-Division. Thereafter, he left his wife, mother-in-law and daughter at Village Thathian and went for Hazoor Sahib via Harike. When they were about 4 Kms. short of Harike, he got the vehicle stopped near a tea stall. There, he got prepared two cups of tea, mixed poisonous tablets in one cup of tea and gave it to Sukhdev Singh driver. After drinking the tea, Sukhdev Singh became unconscious and after that he was killed by strangulation by the accused. His dead body was disposed of by the accused in Rajasthan canal.

He went away with vehicle to Hazoor Sahib. He further told that when he was in U.P., his vehicle met with an accident. Thereafter, the vehicle was not fit to drive and he left the vehicle there. He went to Hazoor Sahib. Accused requested PW-2 Manjit Singh to arrange for his surrender before the police, as the police was after his relatives. He further deposed that he told the accused to come after two days. However, he did not come to him and in the meantime, he was arrested. He was called in the Police Station on 18.9.2001. The accused was interrogated in his presence, who suffered a disclosure statement before the police. The accused admitted before the police that he committed the murder of Sukhdev Singh. The original recovery memo/disclosure statement were bearing his signatures, which was exhibited as ''PA''. PW-2 on having been recalled for cross-examination, which was earlier deferred, further stated that normally his duty hours were 9 AM to 5 PM, but he was also put on duty in shifts and night duty was from 10 PM to 6 AM. He was residing in a private house and was required to get permission from the University for leaving the station. He was called orally by the police and not in writing. He had no personal knowledge about the occurrence. He has deposed as directed by the accused. He stated that his statement was recorded by the police and signatures were also obtained. He denied the suggestion that his statement was not recorded by the police.

PW-3 was Harvinder Kaur, Clerk, DTO office, Amritsar. She deposed that vehicle No. PB-02-T-0777 Tata Sumo Model 1998 was registered in the name of Harvinder Singh s/o Gurbax Singh, New Bharat School, Amritsar. The letter Ex. ''PB'' had been issued by her office, which was correct as per office record.

PW-4 was S.I., Sarabjit Singh, SHO Police Station Kathunangal, Amritsar. He stated that on 15.2.2001, he was posted as ASI in Police Station B/Division, Amritsar. He was deputed to collect the vehicle of this case i.e. Tata Sumo PB-02-T-0777, which had been taken in police possession by the U.P. Police. He went to Police Station Talgate in the State of U.P. and after soliciting orders from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalitpur, the above said vehicle was taken into police possession, vide recovery memo Ex. ''PB'', which had been attested by L.C. Asha Singh. In his cross-examination PW-4 stated that there was no FIR regarding theft of the vehicle. FIR was registered u/s 364 IPC. He expressed his ignorance, whether the accused was in custody in some other case or not.

Gurdip Singh, retired Inspector was produced as PW-5. He stated that on 19.12.1999, he was posted as SHO, Police Station B-Division, Amritsar. When he was present at chowk Sultanwind, Amritsar, alongwith a police party, the complainant Harinder Singh came there and suffered his statement Ex. ''PC''. It was read over and explained to Harinder Singh, who signed it after admitting the same to be correct. He further stated that he made his endorsement Ex. ''PC/1'' and ruqa was sent to the Police Station. His attestation was Ex. ''PC/2'' and accordingly, FIR Ex. ''PC/3'' was recorded by S.I., Sukhjit Singh, whose signatures were identified by PW-5 Gurdip Singh. Thereafter, he went to the place of occurrence and prepared a rough site plan Ex. ''PD'' with correct marginal notes. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. Thereafter, since he retired, the investigation of this case was transferred from him to some other officer. In his cross-examination, this witness deposed that complainant Harinder Singh did not come to him before 19.12.1999. Accused was not arrested during his tenure of investigation. He retired on 30.6.2000. He expressed his ignorance about the recovery of Tata Sumo, involved in this case, before his retirement. Accused was arrested after his retirement.

PW-6 was Harinder Singh S/o Gurbax Singh. He was complainant. He deposed that he was having one vehicle Tata Sumo PB-02-T-0777 and it was registered with Taxi Union. Sukhdev Singh was its driver. On 15.11.1999, he received a telephone from Baldev Singh accused, who told that he had to go to Hazoor Sahib and he required the vehicle for 10/15 days. He requested that the vehicle be sent outside Police Station B-Division, Amritsar, near water tank. Then, Sukhdev Singh brought the vehicle near water tank, opposite Police Station B-Division, Amritsar. PW-6 followed Tata Sumo on his scooter. The accused had disclosed his name as Baldev Singh, but his actual name was Amrit Singh. At that time, accused had cut his hair and trimmed beard. He reiterated his demand for vehicle to go to Hazoor Sahib. Thereafter, accused alongwith two ladies, one child and another person, alongwith their luggage, took the vehicle from there. After half an hour, driver came to his house and stated that he had come to take the wheel spinner. One of the lady was Kashmir Kaur. He did not know the name of any other person.

Despite a gap of 15/20 days, neither the driver nor the vehicle came to him till 19.12.1999. He also deposed that he suffered a statement before Gurdip Singh, SHO, Police Station B-Division, Amritsar, which was Ex. ''PC''. He signed the statement after admitting it to be correct. He could not locate either the driver or the vehicle. Later on, vehicle was recovered from Fatehpur in Maharashtra after a gap of one and half years. In cross-examination, PW-6 stated that he had enrolled his Tata Sumo with Chhaba Taxi Stand, Railway Station, Amritsar. Manjider Singh, his younger brother was managing the taxi stand. Normally, he had been sending the vehicle, where ever it was required. He had received a telephone regarding hire of this vehicle at his house. On that, day, his driver was available on taxi stand. Baldev Singh, who rang him was not earlier known to him. After six months, he came to know that actual name of Baldev Singh was Amrit Singh. He did not take any advance from Baldev Singh and he stated that he will make the payment to the driver. He did not pay anything for diesel/petrol. He denied the suggestion that the accused did not demand any vehicle from him or the vehicle was never hired by the accused. He also deposed that he received the telephone from Baldev Singh at 8.30 AM.

PW-7 was S.I. Hans Raj. He deposed that Amrit Singh had jumped bail. Balkar Singh was his surety. He was apprehended by SHO, Gurdev Singh on 5.8.2001.

A combined reading of the above said statements of prosecution witnesses would show that neither the motive has been proved in the present case nor any last seen evidence has been proved. No recovery has been effected from the accused. Inordinate delay of more than one month in registration of the FIR has also not been explained. Discrepancies in the prosecution evidence are so glaring and serious, which not only create doubt in the prosecution story, but make it totally unreliable.

PW-4 S.I. Sarabjit Singh stated that the vehicle i.e. Tata Sumo was recovered from Police Station Talgate under the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalitpur in the State of U.P., vide recovery memo Ex. ''PB'', whereas owner of the vehicle i.e. Harinder Singh PW-6 deposed in his statement before the court that the vehicle was recovered from Fatehpur in Maharashtra after a gap of one and half years. It is not possible to reconcile the statements of PW-4 and PW-6 on the crucial issue of the recovery of vehicle i.e. Tata Sumo, which was allegedly used in the commission of crime. It has also come on record that although PW-6 stated that he had enrolled his taxi (Tata Sumo) with Chhaba Taxi Stand near Railway Station, Amritsar, but there was no entry in the record of the Taxi Union. Further, no payment was made by the person, who engaged the vehicle nor any petrol/diesel was filled in the presence of PW-6.

Admittedly, no identification parade was conducted in the present case inspite of the fact that the accused was not earlier known to any of the witnesses. Harinder Singh PW-6-complainant has admitted in his cross-examination that after six months from the date of occurrence, he came to know that actual name of Baldev Singh was Amrit Singh. However, he could not explain the source, from which he came to know about this material fact because it goes to the root of the case, questioning the very identity of the accused. Similarly, there is no corroboration, whatsoever, to the alleged extra judicial confession made by the appellant before PW-2 Manjit Singh, particularly when this witness before whom the accused allegedly made extra judicial confession, was declared hostile and has not supported the prosecution version.

It is the own pleaded case of the prosecution that the accused hired the taxi of the complainant on 15.11.1999 for going to Hazoor Sahib, in the State of Maharashtra and told that he would come back within 10 days. PW-1 Kundan Singh, father of the deceased clearly deposed that after 25.11.1999, he had been daily visiting the house of Harinder Singh-complainant PW-6, to enquire about the whereabouts of his son Sukhdev Singh-deceased. He also stated that he had been visiting the Police Station approximately three times a day after 25.11.1999 and continued to go there for about two years, but his statement was not recorded. Then he stated that except Ex. ''PA'', no other statement was recorded. He further deposed that after a gap of two years and one month, the accused was shown to him in the Police Station, where he stated that he did not know the accused personally. He further deposed that he identified the accused on the basis of description given by him, when the taxi was hired. However, he admitted that no identification parade was arranged by the police for identification of the accused by PW-1. Ultimately, the FIR came to be recorded as late as on 19.12.1999. Thus, the long delay of more than one month in lodging the FIR, remained totally unexplained.

PW-5 Gurdip Singh was the Investigating Officer. He deposed that he retired on 30.6.2000 and the accused was arrested after his retirement. Although, PW-7 S.I., Hans Raj stated that Amrit Singh had jumped bail and Balkar Singh was his surety, who was apprehended by S.H.O., Gurdev Singh on 5.8.2001, yet, the arrest of the appellant Amrit Singh remained a mystery. No prosecution witness has proved this fact, as to when and where, the accused-appellant Amrit Singh was arrested by whom and in whose presence. All these questions remained unanswered. Further, when and where the alleged crime was committed and by whom, has again not been proved by the prosecution. Since the dead body of the deceased was not recovered and the case was based on circumstantial evidence, a heavy burden was on the prosecution to prove its case by leading cogent and well convincing evidence. However, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt against the accused-appellant.

After a careful reading of the prosecution evidence, we have no hesitation to conclude that the learned trial court has fell in serious error of law, while recording the conviction of the appellant, despite the fact that the prosecution has failed to prove its case on all the material aspects of the matter. The story put forth by the prosecution was highly improbable. In view of the glaring contradictions and discrepancies in the case of the prosecution, a serious doubt had been created in the prosecution version, benefit of which goes in favour of the accused.

Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons afore mentioned, it is unhesitatingly held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment of conviction is not sustainable in law and the same is hereby set aside. The appellant is ordered to be acquitted of the charge. Resultantly, the instant appeal stands allowed. The appellant is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case.