Jatinder Pal Singh vs State of Punjab

M. Jeyapaul, J.—Accused Jatinder Pal Singh was convicted u/s 302 and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further period of R.I. for 3 months. He was also convicted u/s 364 IPC and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further period of R.I. for 2 months, whereas co-accused Dilsheet Singh and Amar Nath were acquitted of the charges framed as against them. Accused Jatinder Pal Singh has preferred the present appeal aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. It is the case of the prosecution that Harmeet Kaur, daughter of complainant Gurcharan Singh (PW1) left the house on 23.12.1998 at about 8.45 a.m. to attend a course in ITI, Nangal Township. PW1 received a telephonic call on 23.12.1998 at about 11.30 p.m. from an unidentified person that Harmeet Kaur was admitted to Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh in an unconscious condition. He came to know that his daughter was kidnapped by accused Jatinder Pal Singh alongwith his companions when she was proceeding to ITI and was beaten mercilessly with an intention to kill her. Accused Jatinder Pal Singh had admitted his daughter in emergency ward of PGI, Chandigarh in a very serious condition. As the police had not registered a case based on the original statement suffered by PW1 and the police had registered a case of 24.12.1998 based on the statement suffered by accused Jatinder Pal Singh as though it was a case of motor accident, he sent a complaint straight to the Sr. Superintendent of Police for initiating action.

Harmeet Kaur had succumbed to the injuries on 30.12.1998. PW6 Dr. Dalbir Singh conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Harmeet Kaur on 30.12.1998 at about 4.15 p.m. He found that bleeding was present in the right ear. There was unhealed sutured lacerated wound in the pinna of right ear. There was also a contusion of reddish brown colour over lower right lateral abdomen and pelvis. Haemorrhage was also noticed. There was also fracture of pelvis bilateral superior and inferior of rami public bones. On further examination, it was found that there was contusion on right occipital frontal muscles in the scalp. There was a comminuted fracture of right temporal and frontal bone. There was also contusion of left temporal lobe. He alongwith a team of Doctors opined that the death was caused on account of brain contusion and internal ventricular haemorrhage as a result of head injury which was ante mortem in nature. He was very specific that the injuries could have been caused in a vehicular accident.

PW2 Ram Nath spoke to the effect that he alongwith Satpal saw the accused alongwith three other persons attacking Harmeet Kaur. She informed the father''s name and address. As the accused pelted them with brickbats, he and his friend escaped. The next day he informed PW1 about the entire occurrence he had seen.

PW5 ASI Harmesh Kumar inspected the spot on 25.4.1999 and prepared a rough site plan Ex. PW5/AI. According to his investigation it was a case of motor accident. PW4 ASI Shiv Singh arrested accused Jatinder Pal Singh on 24.8.1999. The motorcycle of the accused bearing registration No. PBW-8247 was taken into police custody vide memo Ex. PW4/A. On 30.8.1999, mechanical test report of the motorcycle was also obtained.

Accused Jatinder Pal Singh has contended in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that he was innocent. Harmeet Kaur was proceeding on a motorcycle. The motorcycle met with an accident while crossing the truck bearing registration No. PIP-5614. Due to the accident, Harmeet Kaur received injuries. The complainant had a dispute with the family of the accused. He also demanded money from the family of accused. Though he had not committed any offence, he had been falsely implicated in this criminal case.

The trial Court even though disbelieved the evidence of PW2, the only alleged ocular witness examined on the side of the prosecution, and chose to convict the accused accepting the other materials produced by the prosecution.

We heard the submissions made on either side. We also thoroughly analyzed the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution in the light of the rival submissions made before us.

On a mere suspicion or surmise accused cannot be convicted. The prosecution should come out with solid materials either through ocular testimony or through circumstantial evidence or through the mixture of both to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt.

The prosecution has projected ocular testimony of PW2 as the material evidence to rope in the accused. On a thorough analysis of the evidence of PW2, we find that his testimony is found to be totally artificial to a prudent mind.

It is the version of PW2 that he witnessed the accused alongwith three other boys beating Harmeet Kaur on 23.12.1998 at about 3.30 p.m. She disclosed the name of accused Jatinder Pal Singh. She also informed PW2 the name of her father and her address. Though PW2 and his friend Satpal intended to rescue Harmeet Kaur, they had to run away for safety as the accused started pelting stones. On 24.12.1998 at about 10.00 a.m. he proceeded to the house of Gurcharan Singh and disclosed the entire facts led to the attack on his daughter.

Firstly, we find that his village is located about 10 kms. away from the place where the occurrence took place. He had not chosen to disclose such a revolting occurrence to anyone till he chose to disclose to PW1 on the next day at about 10.00 a.m. It is his admission that he appeared as witness in another case as well.

Men may lie, but not the circumstances. In our view, if at all PW2 had given the graphic account of the occurrence to PW1 on 24.12.1998 at 10.00 a.m. there was no reason for PW1 not to give such details in the lengthy complaint he lodged with Sr. Superintendent of Police (Ex.DC) on 20.4.1999 about 4 months after the occurrence. Absence of reference to the eye witness account and the details furnished by PW2 to PW1 in the complaint Ex.DC shakes the very foundation of the case of the prosecution that PW2 infact witnessed the occurrence.

It is against common sense that a person who witnessed the attack launched by four persons on the road did not share the information to anyone on the way or to the village head or to his family members till he allegedly shared the information with PW1 the next day at 10.00 a.m. To top it all, PW2 Ram Nath during the course of cross-examination would admit that he had not seen the accused-appellant giving brickbat injury to the victim. In our view, the trial Court has rightly rejected the testimony of PW2.

Eschewing the evidence of PW2, we find that there is no incriminating evidence available on record to clinch the charges of abduction and murder of Harmeet Kaur. Intact, the investigating agency had originally proceeded with the investigation that it was a case of motor accident. PW6 Dr. Dalbir Singh alongwith the team of Doctors having performed the autopsy had come out with an unassailable opinion that the injuries found on the person of the deceased could have been caused in a motor accident. In other words, the medical evidence supports the original investigation that proceeded on the footing that it was a case of motor accident.

PW1 Gurcharan Singh had unambiguously admitted that he was not present when the accused abducted his daughter nor had he witnessed the accused launching attack on her. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 did not in any way improve the case of the prosecution.

It is true that PW1 speaks of some earlier incident on 21.12.1998 about two days prior to the occurrence in which the accused-appellant alongwith his friends teased his daughter. Firstly, such a version was not narrated in the first information report lodged by PW1. Secondly, there is no complaint lodged for such an occurrence with the police. Therefore, the earlier occurrence which allegedly took place on 21.12.1998 was also not established by the prosecution.

The interesting aspect of the case is that PW 1 during the course of evidence without any foundation in the first information report comes out with a version that his daughter was subjected to gang rape. The offence of gang rape has been projected only through the testimony of PW 1 for the first time. There is no other evidence to substantiate the same. The medical evidence also disowns the evidence of PW1. Therefore, in my considered view, there is no substance in the allegation made by PW1 that there was a gang rape.

PW5 had prepared a site plan showing the motor accident that took place at the scene of occurrence. Infact, he had cited two persons who witnessed the motor accident which culminated in the injuries sustained by Harmeet Kaur. PW4 ASI Shiv Singh had arrested the accused and recovered the motorcycle of the accused on 24.8.1999. The arrest of the accused and the recovery of the motorcycle had been affected after 9 months of the occurrence.

Learned Addl. A.G., Punjab appearing for the State would vehemently submit that the accused had not chosen to establish that he sustained injury and the motorcycle also was exposed to some damage in the motor accident that took place on 23.12.1998.

It is only the prosecution who is bound to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Failure on the part of the accused to establish his defence cannot be a ground to accept the case of the prosecution. Even otherwise, we find that the accused who was arrested and the recovery of motorcycle which was affected after 9 months time might not have provided any clue of the injuries sustained by the accused and the damage caused to the motorcycle in the occurrence which took place about 9 months earlier. It is pertinent to note here that though the prosecution would admit that the motorcycle which was recovered from the accused was subjected to mechanical test, they withheld the report of the mechanical test for reasons best known to them. Such a conduct of the prosecution exposes itself to adverse inference.

Learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant would bring to the notice of this Court the conduct of the accused-appellant immediately after the occurrence and submitted that no prudent person who had intended to cause the death of the victim would have behaved in such a manner. We find that there is substance in the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant. Had the accused-appellant intended to cause the death of the victim, there was no reason for him not to kill the victim at the scene of crime itself. Even assuming for the sake of arguments that the accused had intended to immobilize the victim with his attack, he would not have taken her to the best hospital in Chandigarh for treatment. It is the admitted version of PW1 Gurcharan Singh, the father of the victim that not only the accused-appellant, but also his parents were present at PGI, Chandigarh when he reached there to meet his injured daughter. Had the accused-appellant made an attempt to kill the victim, he would not have associated his parents in giving best of treatment in the reputed hospital in Chandigarh. For all these reasons, we find that the conduct of the accused-appellant also belies the version of the prosecution that the accused-appellant authored the crime charged as against him. In view of the above, we find that the trial Court had fallen in error in convicting the accused for the charges u/s 302 and 364 IPC. We set aside the judgement of conviction and sentence recorded as against the appellant. He is acquitted of the charges framed as against him. He shall be set at liberty, if his custody is not required in connection with any other case. Consequently, the appeal is allowed.