Puran vs State of Haryana

S. S. Dewan, J.

Puran appellant was arranged in the Court of Session at Karnal on the charge of murder. The learned Sessions Judge has found him guilty under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and has imposed the sentence of life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ or in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. He appeals.

The victim of the violent crime was Smt. Mahlo Devi deceased wife of Sube Singh, who is the real brother of Puran appellant. These two brothers owned land measuring 41/2 acres each situated in village Adyana. Puran accused was cultivating his own share of land and the land belonging to Sube Singh was in his possession. Sube Singh was a class IV employee in the Food Corporation of India and presently posted at Jagadhir. Out of the land owned by him, he gave three acres of land on lease to Randhir Singh at the rate of Rs. 1,000/ per acre. It is alleged that out of these three acres, Puran accused forcibly occupied two acres of land and did not permit Randhir Singh to cultivate it. Randhir Singh then went to Jagadhri and asked Sube Singh to get him delivered possession of two acres of land or to return his lease money of Rs. 2,000/ Sube Singh, however, promised him to visit village Adyana and to settle the things. On 17 August, 1986, Sube Singh his wile Smt. Mahlo Devi and their infant daughter came to village Adyana. In the evening Sube Singh, Rajbir son of Randhir Singh etc. went to Puran accused and requested him to hand over the possession of 2 acres of land which he had forcibly occupied. Instead of acceding to the request of Sube Singh, he challenged him that he would not permit him to enter the land. On the following morning Sube Singh left for Karnal. The prosecution case is that on 1881986 at about 3 P. M. Smt. Mahlo Devi accomplished by Rajbir, aforesaid went to see the land forcibly occupied by Puran accused. When they were returning to their village, Puran accused met them on the way. He threatened Smt. Mahlo Devi to teach a lesson for visiting the field. Out of fear, both Smt. Mahlo Devi and Rajbir started running back. On the way towards canal, they met Mahabir and requested him to save them but the refused to render any help. Puran accused overpowered Smt, Mahlo Devi and gave a gandasi blow on her shoulder as a result of which she fell down. When Rajbir raised alarm, then the accused threatened to kill him. Puran accused caught hold of Smt. Mahlo Devi by her arms and took her towards the Rajbaha (canal). In the evening at about 6 P. M Sube Singh returned from Karnal and did not find his wife in the house of Randhir. He was apprised of the whole incident by Rajbir. After about half an hour or so, Sube Singh, Rajbir and Randhir Singh went out in search of Smt. Mahlo Devi. At about 5 30 A.M., all these persons went to police station, Urlana, where Sube Singh lodged the FIR Ex. PF at 5.45 A. M. on 19.8.1986. Initially, the case was registered under Section 364, Indian Penal Code. Sub Inspector Waryam Chand went to the place of occurrence and prepared, its visual plan Ex. PR and thereafter set out in search of Smt. Mahlo Devi. Her dead body was recovered from an abandoned well at about 12.00 noon. Waryam Chand held. inquest Ex. PE and sent the dead body of Smt. Mahlo Devi to the mortuary for autopsy.

Dr. O.P. Gogia PW2 conducted autopsy on the dead body of Smt. Mahlo Devi on 19.8.1986 at 5.30 PM. and found the following injury:

"There were multiple diffused contus on marks on the back of left shoulder. These were all bluish in colour."

Death was opined to be due to asphyxia caused by drowning. The time that elapsed between injury and death was stated to be within a few minutes and between death and postmortem within 6 to 36 hours. The accused was searched but he was not traceable. He was, however, subsequently arrested on 2581986 when he was produced by Zile Singh, PW6. It is alleged that the accused approached Zile Singh and confessed having committed the Sub Inspector Waryam Chand interrogated the accused and he suffered disclosure statement leading to the recovery of gansdasi Ex. P. 8 from the specified place of concealment. After necessary investigation, the accused was challaned and committed.

To connect the accused with the crime, the prosecution examined as, many as 7 witnesses. When examined under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code the accused denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication in the case but led no evidence in defence.

It is the common case that the heinous crime was committed on the evening of 18th August, 1986. It is not in dispute that the murder was committed unseen. The primary issue here, therefore, is as to the identity of the culprit. The learned counsel for the parties are agreed and in fact it is patent that the cornerstone of the prosecution case is the extrajudicial Confession alleged to have been made to Zile Singh PW6 on 25.8.1986. The rest of the prosecution evidence is only corroboration to buttress the main plank of confession in the case.

The core of the matter, therefore, is the acceptability of the testimony of Zile Singh (PW6) and the confession which he chooses to attribute to the appellant. At the outset, it may be noticed that this confession is alleged to have been made seven days after the date of murder and if the prosecution allegations are to be believed, the appellant remained at large during all this period. Would he in such a situation, first choose to confess and further to pick up Zile Singh PW as his confidant. The answer to this question appears to my mind to be in the negative. On Zile Singh''s own owing he had no influence with the police nor he had any relationship with the appellant. Considering the issue in this background and perspective, it seems most unlikely and indeed improbable that the appellant without having any intimacy with Zile Singh would make a clean breast of his guilt before him. Zile Singh PW patently is a man with a shady and questionable past. He has admitted that he had appeared as a witness in one more case of murder in which Luxmi Devi was murdered and in that case the accused were acquitted. With the kind of the background and the conduct to which Zile Singh has admitted, it is patent that much reliance cannot be placed upon his testimony. However, that is not all. Zile Singh has given two different versions regarding the confession allegedly made before him by the appellant. Firstly, in the examinationinchief he has stated that the appellant had confessed having thrown Smt. Mahlo Devi in a well after tying her hands with rope whereas in the crossexamination he has stated that before throwing her in the well, he had committed rape on Smt. Mahlo Devi. Viewed from any angle, therefore, the solitary and the unsatisfactory evidence of Zile Singh PW on the point of making the alleged extrajudicial confession attributed to the appellant is devoid of credibility and has necessarily to be rejected.

Once the main plank of the prosecution case fails, very little indeed remains. However, reference to the other circumstance would further show that far from adding to the prosecution case it indeed lends to erode the same. The prosecution has attempted to lead evidence that Smt. Mahlo Devi deceased was last seen in the company of the appellant in order to create a link in the chain of the circumstantial evidence led against the appellant. To buttress this case on this aspect, Rajbir PW4 attempted to give evidence that on 18th August, 1986 at about 2.30 PM., he accompanied by Smt. Mahlo Devi deceased went to the fields of Sube Singh in the area of village Adyana to see the paddy crop which has been forcibly cultivated by the appellant and that after seeing the paddy crop when they were returning towards village, the appellant who was then armed with a gandasi met them on the way and he threatened Smt. Mahlo Devi to teach a lesson for visiting the paddy crop sown in his field. It emerges from the evidence of Rajbir PW4 that out of fear of the accused, they started running back and when they had hardly covered a distance of about 5/6 killas, the appellant overpowered Smt. Mahlo Devi and gave a gandasi blow on her shoulder and thereafter he caught hold of her by her arms and took her across the canal.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the statement of Rajbir PW4 is correct, even then his evidence does not connect the appellant with the commission of the crime. This witness does not known how, where and when Smt. Mahlo Devi was done to death. The deceased might have been seen by Rajbir in the company of the appellant but the possibility of her being killed by some other person cannot be ruled out. There is not a shred of evidence on the file to show that either before or after the alleged murder the appellant was seen in the company of the deceased near the place of occurrence. This circumstance alone is not sufficient to connect the appellant with the crime.

For the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to put much stress on the projected testimony of Rajbir PW. That being so, the link of the alleged evidence on the point of appellant having been last seen together with the deceased virtually disappears.

For the foregoing discussion, it is manifest that the charge levelled by the prosecution against the appellant is wholly unsustainable and his conviction and sentence are, therefore, set aside. The appeal is allowed.