Anoop Singh vs State of Punjab

J.S. Sekhon, J.

The appellant has directed this appeal from the Jail against the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, dated 6.6.1987 whereby that he was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of his brother Dalip Singh and sentenced to under imprisonment of life.

In brief the facts are that Anoop Singh appellant alongwith his brother Dalip Singh deceased used to reside in a house in the area of village Smbhi. They used to quarrel with each other. On November 10, 1986, at about 7 p.m. both of them were quarrelling in front of the shop of Billu Jhinwar on the demand of Rs. 100/ by Anoop Singh accused from Dalip Singh deceased and refusal of the latter, and they were pacified by Charan Singh PW11 and Gurdial Singh. On the next morning at about 8 am. Anoop Singh accused approached Charan Singh PW11 at his house and confessed having killed his brother Dalip Singh during the preceding night while consuming liquor and eating chicken, due to the altercation of the previous evening. He further stated that he picked up a brick bat lying near by and dealt two blows with the same on the head of Dalip Singh and that thereafter he picked up a sota Ex.P4 lying near by and gave a blow with it on the hand of Dalip Singh. The mother of the accused had also arrived at the house of Charan Singh PW by then. Thereafter Charan Singh went to the house of Dalip Singh deceased and found his dead body lying on a cot. He deputed Kanta Ram chowkidar to safeguard the dead body and rushed to Police Post, Nilokheri on a motor cycle where he lodged report Ex.PL with ASI Parkash Chand PW13 at 10.40 a.m. and on its basis formal FIR Ex.PL/2 was recorded at Police Station, Butana, at 11 a.m. by SI Narpat Singh. A case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against, the accused. ASI Prakash Chand along with other police officials and Charan Singh PW then arrived at the spot. He prepared the inquest report Ex.PB of the dead body. He also seized blood stained earth from underneath the cot on which the dead body of Dalip Singh lay besides some blood stained dry stalks of paddy from the cot. He also prepared the visual site plan Ex.PO besides recording the statements of the witnesses. SI Narpat Singh PW 14 arrived at about 235 p.m. at the spot and took over the investigation from him. On the same evening at 4.30 p.m. Surjit Singh and Sharam Singh witnesses produced the accused before the Sub Inspector near the culvert in the area of village Ramana Ramni. The accused was arrested in this case. On interrogation the accused in pursuance of his disclosure statement got recovered one piece of brick Ex.P3 and danda Ex.P4 from a heap of dung cakes lying inside his house. These were wrapped in two different sealed parcels and taken into possession.

The autopsy on the dead body Dalip Singh was conducted by Dr. Ravinder Kumar, PW 1 at 4.30 p.m. on 11.11.1986. He found five blunt weapon injuries on his person. Parietal bone was found fractured under injuries No. 5. This injury was individually found sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This doctor also preserved the pieces of stomach, large intestine, liver, spleen, kidney, sample of blood and urine and sent the same for Chemical Examination. The Chemical Examiner found the presence of alcohol in all these organs as well as in sample of blood and urine. The sealed parcels of the clothes of the deceased, of the earth and brick bat were also sent to the Director Forensic Science Laboratory who confirmed the presence of human blood on all these articles. After completion of investigation the accused was arraigned for trial on such like allegations for the murder of his brother Dalip Singh.

The trial Court believing the evidence of Charan Singh PW11 regarding the extra judicial confession of the accused coupled with the medical evidence, besides the presence of human blood on the brick bat convicted and sentenced the appellant as referred to above by discarding his plea of simple denial and false implication and the evidence of his mother Saro Kaur DW1 to the effect that her son Dalip Singh was murdered by some unknown person during the night.

Though this appeal was filed by the accused from the Jail but subsequently Mr. Inderjit Singh Kapur has put in appearance on his behalf but strange enough he has failed to turn up. Thus was have ourselves examined the entire record carefully with the assistance of Mr. Ram Avtar Singh, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

Learned Additional Advocate General has laid much stress on the testimony of Charan Singh PW11 contending that he being neighbour of the accused, the latter was expected to repose confidence in him and thus there was nothing improbable in the accused, having confessed his guilt before Charan Singh. It was further maintained that the confessional statement regarding the taking of liquor by the accused and the deceased during the night of murder is further corroborated from the evidence of Dr. Ravinder Kumar and the report of the Chemical Examiner who had confirmed the presence of alcohol in the internal viscera, blood and urine of the deceased. The law is well settled on the point that an accusedpension can be convicted on the basis of evidence of a confession before a private provided the evidence of person alone and no corroboration is required the witness before whom the accused had confessed inspires the confidence of the Court. The decision of the Supreme Court in Dharshan Lal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1975 SC 898, can be safely referred to in this regard. In the circumstances, of the present case it would not be safe to sustain the conviction of the accused on the sole testimony of Charan Singh PW11 as in the case the accused had actually confessed before him of such a heinous crime like a murder he was expected to either take the accused to the Police Post or atleast sought the help of other respectables of the village in detaining him at the spot but strangely enough he has failed to do any of these things. Thus under these circumstances it is not acceptables that the accused who had indulged in the murder of his brother Dalip Singh secretively during the darkness of the night would suddenly think on the next morning of taking Charan Singh in confidence. Charan Singh PW is neither a Panch nor Sarpanch or Lambardar of the village. It is note worthy that the accused was produced before SI Narpat Singh on the same evening at 4.30 p.m. by Surjit Singh PW10 and Sharam Singh but he had not confessed his guilty before them. This circumstance would also reflect adversely on the version of Charan Singh PW that the accused had confessed before him having killed his brother. Thus the confession of the accused before Charan Singh is highly doubtful. The mere factum that the accused and the deceased had taken liquor while taking dinner during that night or that they had consumed chicken if of no consequence, especially when the accused admits in the grounds of appeal that he alongwith his brother Dalip Singh had taken liquor but had not given any injury to Dalip Singh and the medical evidence reveals that the murder took place 3/4 hours of last of consumption of food. The evidence of Dr. Ravinder Kumar PW1 leaves no doubt that the death of Dalip Singh had taken place due to the head injury suffered with a blunt weapon as it has resulted in fracture of the parietal bone and blood was found in the cranial cavity and haemotoma was found in the crebare. He also observed semidigested food material in the stomach besides the presence of faecal matter in the large intestine and some urine in the urinary bladder. Under these circumstances his admission during crossexamination that the victim had died after 3 to 4 hours of consuming his last food appears to be well founded. If that is so then the alleged confession of the accused before Charan Singh PW that he has killed his brother Dalip Singh while taking liquor is not acceptable. Thus the medical evidence reflects adversely upon the testimony of Charan Singh PW about the accused having confused before him.

It is note worthy that the father of the accused was killed by Banta Singh about 14/15 years but Banta Singh was acquitted in that case. It is alleged by the accused that he has been falsely implicated at the instance of aforesaid Banta Singh. The dead body of Dalip Singh was being on a coin the room of Dalip Singh provided with no shutter. During crossexamination Charan Singh PW admitted that Dalip Singh deceased was unmarried but Anoop Singh accused was married. He further stated that the accused and the deceased some time used to reside separately and some time jointly and that the house of the accused is not fitted with any wooden planks Sujrat Singh PW has stated that the accused along with his wife and one daughter used to reside in the house. Thus no adverse inference can be drawn against the accused for not reporting the murder of his brother to the police on the next morning.

The only other evidence against the accused is (sic) blood in pursuance of his disclosure statement from the heap of dung cakes lying in his house. In this regard, it is note worthy that a brick bat being not a usual weapon of offence, there was not necessity for the accused to conceal it or to preserve as a prize possession at the rick of his involvement in a heinous crime like murder of his brother. Thus the possibility of this brickbat being found near the dead body cannot be ruled out. Moreover, according to Surjit Singh PW the kotha from which the brick bat was got recovered was lying open. Thus the recovery of the brickbat at the instance of the accused is not acceptable being inherently improbable. Danda Ex.P4 was not found stained with blood. Thus, it is a neutral piece of evidence.

For the foregoing reasons, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and he is ordered to be acquitted of the charge of murder of his brother Dalip Singh by accepting this appeal and setting aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.

JUDGMENT accordingly.