Baba Ram Dass alias Tarlok Singh vs State of Punjab

V.K. Bali, J.

Swinder Singh, stated to have been lastseen by his wife Smt. Gurcharan Kaur on August 31, 1994, was not traced thereafter. The prosecution, which was only able to collect the remains of Swinder Singh in the shape of few bones, skin and ash, endeavoured to prove that the appellant Baba Ram Dass had burnt his body after killing him. The charge of murder was sought to be proved against the appellant on the basis of circumstantial evidence and the prosecution was successful in bringing home the offence against the appellant as the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar, found that the circumstances led to only one hypothesis, i.e., that the appellant was guilty of offence charged against him. Accordingly, vide order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, dated April 25, 1996, Baba Ram Dass @ Tarlok Singh, appellant herein, was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/, or in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months, under Section 302 IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo RI for five years under Section 201 IPC. Both the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently.

In this appeal preferred by the appellant against the order of conviction and sentence, two significant questions, one, as to whether the prosecution has been able to prove that Swinder Singh actually died and if so as to whether the chain of circumstances is so complete so as to lead to only one hypothesis, i.e., that the appellant alone is guilty of causing murder of Swinder Singh, have been posed before this Court.

Brief facts of the case reveal that Gurcharan Kaur wife of deceased Swinder Singh, made a statement before ASI Sukhjinder Singh on September 5, 1994 at 6 p.m. at Tonga Stand, Sultanbind, wherein she got recorded that she was resident of New Partap Nagar and her husband Swinder Singh was posted as Computer Clerk in Health Department at Civil Hospital, Fatehabad. On August 31, 1994 at about 4.30 p.m. her husband Swinder Singh had gone from his house on his Enfield motor cycle bearing registration No. PJA346 along with Baba Ram Dass of Dera Baba Kaleranwala at Kot Mit Singh. But he had not come back to house since then and she remained searching for him. On that day, she along with her brother Manmohan Singh son of Natha Singh, went to the Dera of Baba Kaleranwala, Kot Mit Singh, where Baba Ram Dass, owner of the Dera, was present. She enquired from him about her husband but he did not give any satisfactory reply. When they came out of the Dera, they found Motor Cycle No. PJA346 belonging to her husband, lying parked towards the eastern side in the green fodder field. Because the motor cycle was lying concealed in the green fodder field, so they became suspicious that her husband Swinder Singh had been killed by Baba Ram Dass and his dead body had been destroyed. She along with her brother Manmohan Singh was going to lodge a report when ASI Sukhjinder Singh met her at Tonga stand, where she got her statement recorded.

The records of the case reveal that whereas Swinder Singh was last seen by his wife on August 31, 1994 at 4.30 p.m., FIR with regard to his missing and Gurcharan Kaur unable to trace him out, suspecting that the appellant might have killed him, came to be recorded on September 5, 1994 at 6 p.m. The special report with regard to incident reached the concerned Magistrate at 3.40 a.m. on September 6, 1994.

The prosecution endeavoured to prove that the appellant alone was guilty of killing Swinder Singh by relying upon circumstantial evidence. Recovery of human bones with ash from outside the Dera, where the appellant was residing, as also recovery of some skin from the roof of the house of Dera, coupled with the evidence of doctor, testifying that the recovered bones were of human being, is one piece of evidence, whereas the other is extra judicial confession, said to have been made by the appellant. The other link in the chain of evidence is the recovery of motor cycle. Prosecution also relied upon the statement of Smt. Surjit Kaur, PW4, with a view to prove motive of the accused, actuated by which he killed Swinder Singh and then burnt his dead body. It is not disputed that insofar as recovery of motor cycle and extra judicial confession, said to have been made by the appellant, is concerned, the same has not been believed by the learned Sessions Judge. The order of conviction and sentence has been recorded against the appellant on the basis of recovery of some bones, ash and skin as also evidence of last seen provided by the widow of Swinder Singh. The learned Sessions Judge has also relied upon the statement of PW4 Surjit Kaur with regard to motive which actuated the appellant to commit the crime, even though Surjit Kaur, when she appeared before the Court, did not at all support the prosecution version.

Dr. Gurmanjit Rai, Lecturer, Forensic Medicine, who was examined as PW2, stated that September 6, 1994 he gave expert opinion report. The bones and ash were brought in a gunny bag and on examination of bones and ash, the bones were found partially burnt and blackened at places and some of the bones were charred. He found following bones :

"1. Femur Bone : Upper half of right femur bone was present, partially burnt and partially burnt muscle tissue was present. Charring of the bone was present at the lower end.

Occipital bone : The bone was found having clotted blood on the inner surface of the bone, the muscle mass and scalp with tuft of partially burnt hair was present on the outer surface.

Radius head It was blackened.

Lumber vertebra 5 in number were present. Blackening and charring was present at places.

Head of left femur it was partially burnt.

Part of hip bone Right side. It was partially burnt and small amount of muscle was present on the bone.

Piece of Tibia It was partially burnt and found blackened. No muscle mass was present.

Radius piece and first rib piece were found partially burnt.

Head of ulna and lower end of radius : They were partially burnt.

Two pieces of body of Mandible right and left having 8 sockets on each side and socket for last molar was present on both sides. The angle of mandible was found averted and the mandible was present in two pieces.

Atlas vertebra was found intact. It was blackened and semi burnt.

10 numbers of small bones were present which were partially burnt and a piece of cloth of shirt which was also partially burnt was present."

With regard to specific questions put by the police, he gave the reply. The questions and answers run thus :

"Q.1 : Whether the bones belong to human being ?

Ans : Yes. The bones were of human being.

Q.2 : Whether the bones belonged to male or female ?

Ans : The bones belonged to male.

Q.3 : What was the age of the deceased ?

Ans : From the examination of the bones, I was of the opinion that the age of the deceased was more than 25 years, but the upper limit of the age could not be ascertained from the bones.

Q.4 : What was the height of the deceased ?

Ans : From the examination of the bones, the height of the deceased could not be ascertained."

From the statement made by the investigating officer, i.e., ASI Sukhjinder Singh, PW8, it is made out that these bones and ash were recovered from outside the wall of the Dera and that there were fields around the Dera and also a garden. Insofar as recovery of skin from the roof top of the house of Dera is concerned, learned counsel for the parties state that as per the report of the Chemical Examiner it could not be opined as to the material sent to it was of human skin as the material so sent had disintegrated. We are quite convinced that this piece of evidence in no way links the appellant with the commission of crime. The prosecution led no evidence whatsoever to prove that the Dera in question, i.e., from outer boundary whereof some bones and ash were recovered, belonged to the appellant alone. No evidence, whether oral or documentary that the appellant alone was either the owner or was exclusively residing therein, was brought on records of the case. Even though, therefore, it may be assumed that the appellant was also living in that Dera, the fact that it could not be proved, and in fact no evidence was led to show, that the appellant alone was the owner or was exclusively residing therein, recovery of some bones and ash cannot connect him with the crime with which he was charged. Further, it is not disputed that there were fields around the Dera and there was also a garden nearby and the bones and ash that the investigating officer had collected, were lying along the outer wall of the Dera, appellant alone therefore was not the person who, after commission of the crime, could have thrown the remnants of Swinder Singh outside the boundary wall of the Dera. Others too could do it and, therefore, recovery of some bones and ash from the outer wall of the dera, as referred to above, cannot be pressed into service to secure conviction against the appellant. As mentioned above, nothing could possibly hinge upon some skin, stated to have been recovered from the roof top of the house located in the Dera, as the report of the Chemical Examiner is clear that the material was disintegrated and it could not be opined that the same was human skin. True, the prosecution has been able to prove that the wife of Swinder Singh had seen her husband in the company of the appellant on August 31, 1994 and thereafter he did not come home. However, report that her husband was missing and might have been done away with by the appellant came to be recorded only on September 5, 1994 at 6 p.m. The prosecution in this case has not been able to lead any evidence as to on what date and time Swinder Singh might have been done to death. Supposing, Swinder Singh was actually murdered, but such an offence was committed on 3rd or 4th of September, 1994, this evidence of last seen loses all its significance. That apart, only on the basis of last seen, no one can possibly be convicted.

Coming now to the statement of Surjit Kaur, it shall be seen that she did not support the prosecution version at all. It is true that her statement was recorded by the police as also by the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and she was duly crossexamined after declaring her hostile. In the cross examination, she did admit that she had made a statement before the Magistrate but she qualified it by saying that the same was forced upon her as she was tortured by the police and a threat given to her that her whole family shall be liquidated. However, the motive that actuated the appellant to kill Swinder Singh is stated to be that this lady, Surjit Kaur, PW4, was having illicit relations with the appellant. On the eventful day, i.e., August 31, 1994, she was present in the company of the appellant and deceased and that both of them, i.e., appellant and deceased, had taken liquor together and thereafter the deceased had started cutting indecent jokes with her under the influence of liquor, of which she made a complaint to the appellant and it is for that reason that the appellant had killed Swinder Singh and on the third day i.e., September 2, 1994, Swinder Singh was burnt by the appellant. In the very nature of things, it is very difficult to believe that Surjit Kaur PW4 had confessed while making a statement before the police and the Magistrate that she had illicit relations with the appellant, the human conduct militates against a woman admitting that she was leading an immoral life. That apart, the fact remains that she did not support the prosecution version at all and when crossexamined by the learned Public Prosecutor, she clearly stated that she had not made a voluntary statement either before the police or the Magistrate. It is true that in her crossexamination she admitted having received some money from the appellant when he was in jail, but does that show that she was actually having illicit relations with the appellant and on Swinder Singh having cut indecent jokes with her, appellant would kill him ? In our view, the fact that the appellant had given some money to her when he was in jail, would not lead to such an inference. The chain of circumstances in this case is wholly incompatible of the guilt of the appellant. It is not a case where the circumstances shown by the prosecution lead to only one hypothesis, i.e., that the appellant is guilty of the crime alleged against him. Since we are holding that chain of circumstances is not complete to sustain conviction, there is no need to go into the second question posed by the defence that there is no proof that Swinder Singh has actually been done to death. Thus, giving benefit of doubt, we acquit the appellant. Consequently, order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is set aside. This appeal is accordingly allowed.