Jit Singh vs State of Punjab

Ujagar Singh, J.—Smt. Mohan Defci wife of Charan Dass was found lying fallen on the ground in the cattle shed and blood was oozing from her forehead, on 26th Nov. 1984 in Muktsar. Charan Das, her husband, after closing his shop came to his house at about 6.30 P.M. and on coming to know that his wife had gone to their outer house for milching the buffalo, he went to that outer-house after about 15 to 20 minutes and finding her in the above position he along with his neighbour Om Parkash removed her to the Civil Hospital, Muktsar in a rickshaw where the doctor found her to be dead. Smt. Mohan Devi was wearing gold ear-rings in her ears and the same were found missing and some assailant or assailants had removed the same. Nobody was suspected but suspicion was expressed to show that removal of her ear-rings was the motive for causing the injury as a result of which she died.

After investigation of the case, the appellant was sent up for trial and on the basis of the statements of Dr. Sant Parkash Singh P.W. 1, Dalip Singh P.W. 2, Charan Das P.W. 3, Nirmla Rani P.W. 4, Jodh Singh P.W. 5, Jagir Singh P.W. 6, Kulwant Singh P.W. 7, Tara Singh P.W. 8 and Mukhtiar Singh S.I, P.W. 10, the appellant was found guilty of offences under Sections 302 and 392 read with Section 397, Penal Code and was sentenced to life imprisonment for the offence u/s 302, Penal Code and to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for offences u/s 392 read with Section 397, Penal Code. Both the sentences were made to run concurrently. The learned Sessions Judge has based her conclusions mainly on (1) disclosure statement Exhibit P.M. of the appellant in pursuance of which he got a pair of ear-rings recovered; (2) the recovered ear-rings were got identified from Jagir Singh a goldsmith, who had prepared the ear-rings at the instance of Charan Das for the deceased, in an identification parade held by Kulwant Singh, Municipal Commissioner and (3) A.S.I. Tara Singh P.W. 8 In charge Dog Squad reached there after receiving a telephonic message from the Police Station, City Muktsar and brought police dog ''Veena'' there and after the dog had smelt of the scent of bahi, an iron rod, Exhibit P. 5 was recovered from a! bedding lying in the room. The dog had pointed out the appellant from amongst other persons.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at a considerable length and have gone through the relevant record. The version given in the F.I.R. is quite simple and Charan Das P.W. 3 has not mentioned therein as to from whom he came to know about the deceased having gone to the cattle-shed. He is also silent therein about the appellant having accompanied the deceased from his house to the cattle-shed. These two facts have been introduced during trial and the help of Nirmla Rani P.W. 4 has been taken in this respect. Smt. Nirmla Rani P.W. 4 has come forward to depose that her mother went to the outer-house to milch the buffalo along with the appellant at about 6.30 P.M. on the day of occurrence. The deceased, according to her, took bucket Exhibit P. 2 for the purpose and when, her father came to the house from his shop and made an enquiry about her mother, she told him that she had gone to the outer-house for the said purpose. These two facts introduced in the evidence are definitely an improvement made with a view to connect the appellant with the crime and thus much reliance cannot be placed on this piece of evidence. The appellant was already in police custody when the dog squad was summoned, according to the statement made in cross-examination by Charan Das P.W. 3 and the statement of Tara Singh P.W. 8 shows that he reached the spot with the dog at about 12.10 A.M. during the night. Charan Das P.W. 3 specifically stated that the dog was made to smell a foot print found on the spot and preserved by the police.

A. S.I. Tara Singh P.W. 8 stated that he found bloodstained bahi lying at the spot and dog was made to smell the scent of that bahi and thereafter the dog led the track to iron rod Exhibit P. 5 lying in the bed. Thereafter the dog pointed out the appellant from amongst persons present there and report Exhibit P.Q. was submitted by him to the police. In cross-examination he stated that the dog did not move out of the house and appellant was present amongst persons present. Jodh Singh P.W. 5 joined the investigation on 27-11-1984 and in his presence some articles were taken into possession vide recovery memo. Exhibit P. G. Bahi Exhibit P. 3 smeared with blood was also taken into possession through a sealed parcel vide recovery memo. Exhibit P.H. According to him, the dog was given scent of the chappal lying near the staircase. This chappal was Exhibit P. 4 and was taken into possession vide recovery memo. Exhibit P.J. Thereafter the dog tried to jump on the platform built in the cattle-shed where bed of the appellant was lying and after search, an iron rod was recovered from underneath the pillow. He also stated that the dog scented the appellant who was arrested by the police at about 2.30 or 3.00 P.M. This witness is falsified by Charan Das P.W. 3 who says that Jit Singh was already in police custody when the dog squad was summoned. In these circumstances, Jodh Singh P.W. 5 cannot be believed when he says that the appellant was arrested by the police at about 2.30 or 3.00 P.M.

Ear-rings Exhibit P. 1 was prepared at the instance of Charan Das P.W. 3 by Jagir Singh P.W. 6 sometime before the occurrence and he identified Exhibit P. 1 in the presence of Kulwant Singh, Municipal Commissioner. This witness admitted that he maintains record regarding ear-rings Exhibit P. 1. He also admitted that he had issued a receipt to Char an Das and had made an entry about the ear-rings in his register. That entry was shown to the police by this witness. Neither the record maintained by this witness nor the receipt issued by him to Charan Das P.W. has been produced before the Court so as to find out the veracity of the version given by this witness and Charan Das P.W. 3. In the absence of the record, no reliance can be placed on the oral testimony of these two witnesses.

In the identification parade held by Kulwant Singh Municipal Commissioner, Muktsar (P.W. 7) three other pairs of earrings of similar type were mixed with the earrings and the same were got identified by Jagir Singh P.W. 6, who correctly picked up ear-rings Exhibit P. 1 and in this respect report Exhibit P.A. was made by this witness. This witness admitted that the report was not in his hand and it was written by one Bhola on his dictation. The name of the scribe was not mentioned on the report. These three earrings are said to have been brought by this witness from one Tara Singh, goldsmith but this fact was not disclosed by this witness to the police. There is no evidence on the record that Jagir Singh P.W. had no occasion to see the three other pairs of the ear-rings which were mixed up with ear-rings Exhibit P. 1. The prosecution was bound to exclude the possibility of mixed ear-rings from having been earlier shown to Jagir Singh P.W. Moreover the identification by Jagir Singh P.W. is not sufficient to conclude that the ear-rings Exhibit P. 1 was prepared by him for Mohan Devi at the instance of Charan Das. No specific feature of Exhibit P. 1 has been disclosed by any of the witnesses. In these circumstances, no reliance can be placed on the identification parade held by Kulwant Singh, Municipal Commissioner, P.W. 7. Another infirmity in this parade is that Charan Das was not made to identify the ear-rings Exhibit P. 1 and he admitted that after the occurrence he had been shown these earrings only on the 17th Dec. 1985 when he appeared as P.W. 3.

Pair of chappals lying near the staircase has not been proved to be belonging to the appellant. Charan Das P.W. 3 could not say whether the chappals taken into possession by the police from the spot were of his wife or not and, therefore, it cannot be definitely concluded whether chappals belonged to the deceased or somebody else. P.W. 10 Mukhtiar Singh, S.I. in cross-examination stated that he did not send any man to the village of the appellant and he noticed the appellant in the street at about 12.15 A.M. when he came to his own accord. The appellant was interrogated by him about the murder but not about the ear-rings of the deceased. This conduct on the part of the appellant shows that he had no hand in the occurrence.

Another circumstance to be looked into is that according to P.W. 1 the deceased had two lacerated wounds - one out of them was 8 cm. X 3/4 cm bone deep starting from the bridge of the nose going upwards and on the left side of the forehead and the other is 11 cm X 1 cm on the middle of the scalp where underneath bone was found to be fractured. No other injury was found on the dead body of the deceased by Dr. Sant Parkash Singh P.W. 1 and this excludes the possibility of ear-rings having been removed from the body of the deceased and makes it probable that the theft or taking away of the ear-rings was introduced later on to connect the persons found to be assailant or to falsely involve any person as the assailant. In this situation the very fact that the deceased was wearing any ear-rings becomes most doubtful.

In his statement u/s 313, Cr. P.C. the appellant has stated that he was innocent and was 14-15 years old and he along with Nirmla Rani informed Charan Das at the shop and the latter brought the police to the spot and the dead body was taken to the hospital. Thereafter he remained in the house and was detained by the police illegally and thereafter the evidence was fabricated. He has further added that Charan Das P.W. was not having cordial relations with the deceased, character of whom was suspected by him.

The normal closing time for the shops was 7.45 P.M. in those days and no reason has been put forward to show as to why Charan Das P.W. 3 closed his shop at 6.30 P.M. and came to his house. This unusual conduct on the part of Charan Das P.W. 3 gives some indication that about the occurrence he was informed at his shop and the version of the appellant looks to be probable in the absence of any explanation on the part of Charan Das P.W. 3. Mukhtiar Singh P.W. 10 stated that on 26th Nov. 1984, he received a ruqa at about 6.20 P.M. from the doctor and thereafter he went to the Civil Hospital, Muktsar and recorded the statement Exhibit P.A. of Charan Das P.W. 3. This witness reached the hospital, according to his own statement, at 6.30 P.M. and left the hospital at 7.45 P.M. in a jeep. Charan Das P.W. 3 thus was definitely in the hospital at 6.30 P.M. whereafter his statement, Exhibit P.A. was recorded. According to the prosecution case, the statement of Charan Das P.W. 3, Exhibit, P.A. was recorded at 8.30 P.M. in the hospital but we find that Mukhtiar Singh P.W. 10 had already left the hospital at 7.45 P.M. and had reached the spot at 8.00 P.M. This contradiction gives a clear clue that the statement, Exhibit P.A. was brought into existence after Mukhtiar Singh P.W. 10 had already visited the spot and in such a situation it cannot be concluded that Charan Das P.W. 3 had actually reached his house after closing his shop at 6.30 P.M. and then had removed the deceased, while she was taken to be alive, to the civil hospital with the help of one Om Parkash. The prosecution has not disclosed the truth and this type of evidence is difficult to be reconciled. In this view of the matter the story put forward by the appellant in his statement u/s 313 of the Cr. P.C. becomes more probable and once this conclusion is arrived, the whole prosecution based on the evidence produced during trial has to be discarded.

The statement of Nirmla Rani P.W. is to the effect that the appellant had gone; along with her mother to the outer house and at about 6.30 P.M. when her father came to the house she told him that the deceased had taken a bucket, Exhibit P. 2, and had left for the outer house to milch the buffalo along with the appellant. But in cross-examination she admitted that she had not mentioned the name of the appellant to the police, Thus her statement made in the Court is a complete improvement of her previous version. She had further stated that the appellant had only one bedding and one suit. This bedding and clothes were lying in the cattle shed and the police had seen these clothes and did not notice any blood on the bed or any article lying there. This excludes the recovery of iron rod which is now said to be bloodstained and to have been recovered at the pointing out of the dog ''Veena''. Jodh Singh P.W. 5 after having stated that the appellant was arrested by the police at about 2.30 or 3.00 A.M. has come forward to say that the appellant was interrogated by the police regarding the ear-rings and a disclosure statement was made by him in pursuance of which the ear-rings were recovered. The presence of this witness" on the spot is very doubtful because his having told a different story about the scenting of chappals by the dog instead of scenting of bahi. The report made by P.W. 8 Tara Singh, which is Exhibit P.Q. shows that the dog ''Veena'' was given scent of window frame and ''Veena'' followed the scent. In the original report in Gurmukhi this window frame has been described as ''chaukath'' and it has been stated also by Mukhtiar Singh P.W. 10 that dog was given smell from the frame of the window. We are unable to conclude as to whether the dog scented the chappals, bahi (which is commonly known as part of a cot) or the chaukath of the window, and in view of this discrepancy the pointing out of the appellant by the dog becomes meaningless.

In view of the above discussion we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant and thus this appeal is accepted, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court are set aside and the appellant is acquitted of all the charges.