Rachhpal Chand and another vs State of Punjab

S.S. Kang, J.

Rachhpal Chand and Rajinder Pal, the two brothers, through this appeal, challenge the judgment dated September 22, 1983, of the learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby he has convicted and sentenced them as under :

Rajinder Pal, accusedappellant Under section 302, read with section 34, Indian Penal Code, to undergo imprisonment for life, under Section 201, Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years; and under section 404, Indian Penal Code, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year;

Rachhpal Chand, accusedappellant Under Section 302, read with section 34, Indian Penal Code, to undergo imprisonment for life and under Section 201, Indian Penal Code, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.

The substantive sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently.

Briefly stated the prosecution case is that Kulwinder Singh (PW2) and Harinder Singh (PW 9) are brothers. They had a sister by the name of Tripta. She was married to Rajinder Pal, appellant, about six years prior to the present occurrence, which took place on the morning of December 4, 1982. After the marriage, her parentsinlaw named Smt. Tripta as Urmala. After the marriage for about two years the relations between the husband and wife were cordial. Thereafter when Smt. Urmala gave birth to her second daughter, her inlaws started maltreating her. She was even physically assaulted. The second daughter, however, died in her infancy. To her misfortune Smt. Urmala gave birth to the third daughter. Thereafter Rajinder Pal, appellant, and other members of the family started beating Smt. Urmala more often. Another reason for this behaviour was that Rajinder Pal and members of his family were not satisfied with dowry brought by Smt. Urmala. After giving her beating they used to turn her out of the house. She used to go to her brother''s house in Dera Baba Nanak. Rajinder Pal, appellant, in the company of his relations his sister and mother used to visit the house of Kulwinder Singh and used to request for sending Smt. Urmala with them. On the assurances given by these people that they would in future keep her properly Kulwinder Singh and his brother used to send Smt. Urmala to her inlaws'' place. Smt. Urmala used to inform Kulwinder Singh and Harjinder Singh (PWs) about the maltreatment meted out to her by her husband Rajinder Pal and the members of her family. She used to tell them that when Rajinder Pal appellant used to beat her, his family members never interfered and asked him to desist from these nefarious activities. In fact Rachhpal Chand, appellant, and other members of his family used to join Rajinder Pal in torturing her. Both the appellants lived in a separate portion of the house with common compound.

Some days prior to June 1, 1982, Smt. Urmala after being harassed and illtreated came to her father''s house of Mollowali. On June 1, 1982, Rajinder Pal, appellant and his father Tirath Ram came there, but Kulwinder Singh and Harjinder Singh (PWs) did not agree to send Smt. Urmala with them, because they had been maltreating Smt. Urmala. On the insistence of Rajinder Pal, appellant and his father Tirath Ram, the brothers of Smt. Urmala agreed to send her with them. To satisfy Kulwinder Singh and Harjinder Singh, Rajinder Pal and his father Tirath Ram gave in writing an assurance that Rajinder Pal will not take liquor and will not harass and maltreat his wife. This document was scribed by Rajinder Pal and signed by Tirath Ram in the presence of Kulwinder Singh (PW 2) and Probodh Singh (PW 5). It is Exhibit PG. On this assurance Smt. Urmala was sent with Rajinder Pal and Tirath Ram.

On July 2, 1982, Tirath Ram, father of the appellants, submitted an application, Exhibit PE, to the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Village Mallowali, in which it was alleged that his son Rajinder Pal abuses and beats his wife (Smt. Urmala) frequently; that she is fed up with his behaviour; that it is possible that she may commit suicide. If any such incident takes place, then only Rajinder Pal will be responsible for it, that when (Tirath Ram) and his wife try to prevent Rajinder Pal from torturing his wife, he (Rajinder Pal) threatens them that he will kill them. Rajinder Pal was summoned by the Panchayat. He appeared before the Panchayat and put his reply in writing. It is Exhibit PE/1. He begged pardon from his father as also from the Panchayat. He prayed that he will not do anything wrong in future and will not beat or abuse his wife. If anything happens to his wife in future then neither his parents nor any of his relatives would be responsible and that he alone would be responsible for it. There is an endorsement on this application that Rajinder Pal has begged for pardon and the Panchayat and his father Tirath Ram have pardoned him. This is attested among others by Harbans Lal (PW 4), who is member of the Panchayat. Harbanse Lal has appeared as a witness and supported this version. He proved this application (Exhibit PE) written by Tirath Ram and reply thereto (Exhibit PE/1), submitted by Rajinder Pal, appellant, in his own hand.

On the morning of November, 22, 1982, at about 5 a.m. Chaman Lal (PW 3) was returning from his tubewell to his village. When he reached near the village school he met Rachhpal Chand and Rajinder Pal, appellants, in the company of Smt. Urmala. On Chaman Lal''s asking, the appellants informed him that Smt. Urmala was indisposed and that they were taking her to a doctor for treatment.

On that very day, i.e. November 22, 1982, Kulwinder Singh (PW) went to the house of Rajinder Pal, appellant, in village Mallowali. Smt. Urmala was not present there. Out of the inmates of the house only the mother (Smt. Rani) and sister of Rajinder Pal were present there. On an enquiry by Kulwinder Singh (PW) Smt. Rani told him that on the previous evening Smt. Urmala had a tiff with her husband and that thereafter Smt. Urmala went away. She took with her pair of earrings and currency notes worth Rs. 2000/. She also stated that Smt. Urmala may have gone to Kulwinder Singh''s house at Dera Baba Nanak. Rajinder Pal (PW) came back to Dera Baba Nanak. Smt. Urmala had not come there. Kulwinder Singh, Harjinder Singh (PWs) and their relations started searching for Smt. Urmala. However, they could not trace her. Then Kulwinder Singh lodged a report on November 24, 1982, at 8 p.m. because he suspected that the two appellants and their relations had concealed Smt. Tripta with the intention of murdering her.

On December 9, 1982, Rachhpal Chand, appellant, went to the house of Meghraj Singh (PW 8), who is an uncle of Kulwinder Singh and confessed before him that he and his brother Rajinder Pal took Smt. Urmala to Amritsar on November 22, 1982 with the intention of killing her there. However, they could not accomplish this at Amrittar. They returned with Smt. Urmala to their tubewell within the area of village Mallowali on the night intervening December 3 and 4 of 1982 and murdered Smt. Urmala in the small hours of December 4, 1982. He also disclosed that the legs of Urmala were chopped off by his brother Rajinder Pal. Rachhpal Chand, appellant, requested that Meghraj Singh should help him before the police. Consequently, Meghraj Singh (PW) produced Rachhpal Chand before the police on that very day. Meghraj Singh was incharge of the busstand Amritsar District Transport, at the Dera Baba Nanak and thus had influence with the police. Harjinder Singh (PW 9) was also present there in the police station. Assistant SubInspector Natha Singh (PW 12) arrested Rachhpal Chand, appellant. He interrogated the latter. Rachhpal Chand disclosed that he had buried the dead body of Smt. Tripta (Smt. Urmala) in his fields and he offered to get the same recovered. This statement was recorded by Assistant SubInspector Natha Singh and attested by the witnesses. It was thumbmarked by Rachhpal Chand, appellant. Thereafter, Rachhpal Chand led the police party to village Mallowali. Mela Ram, Sarpanch, of the village was also joined there Rachhpal Chand then dug out the dead body of Tripta. The lower parts of both the legs of Smt. Tripta were missing. The face of the dead body was identifiable. Meghraj Singh identified the dead body to be that of Smt. Urmala. Harjinder Singh (PW 9) has corroborated this statement of Meghraj Singh regarding the disclosure statement by Rachhpal Chand and the recovery of the dead body of Smt. Urmala at his instance. Rajinder Pal, appellant, surrendered in the court of Ilaqa Magistrate of Batala. He was arrested by Shri Harbhajan Singh, Inspector of Police (PW. 13) on January 3, 1983, and his police remand was obtained. This witness interrogated Rajinder Pal on January 4, 1983, in the presence of Harminder Singh and some police officers. Rajinder Pal disclosed that he had kept concealed a pair of earrings of his wife wrapped in a piece of cloth and by burying them near a pole standing in the vicinity of his tubewell kotha and offered to get the same recovered. His statement was recorded and then in consequence of his disclosure statement he led the police party to his tubewell and got recovered the above articles, which were taken into possession by the police. After completion of necessary formalities, the accused appellants were arrested, challanged and tried. They were convicted and sentenced, as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment.

Shri H.L. Sibal, Senior Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the prosecution evidence in this case is provided by the witnesses, who are interested being relations inter se. Kulwinder Singh and Harjinder Singh (PWs) are brothers of the deceased. Probodh Singh. (PW 5) is also related to them, he being an uncle from the brotherhood Harbans Lal (PW 3) is the father of Kanwaljit who is married to Sukhwinder Kaur, daughter of Chaman Lal, who is brother of Manohar Singh (father of Kulwinder Singh and Harjinder Singh, (PWs). Meghraj Singh (PW 8) is a brother of Manohar Singh and is uncle of the deceased. It is now well settled that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses cannot be distrusted or discarded simply because they are relations of the deceased or the complainant. All that is required is that the Court has to scrutinize the evidence of such witnesses with greater care and caution. Meghraj Singh has not admitted that he is a brother of Manohar Singh. While appearing as a witness, he has given the name of his father as Gurdial Singh. Similarly, Probodh Singh (PW. 5) has stated that he is uncle of Kulwinder Singh from the brotherhood. So, both these witnesses are not closely related. Anyhow their evidence has been scrutinized by us very carefully.

Mr. Sibal argued that the evidence of Chaman Lal, who has stated that he had seen the appellants with Smt. Urmala, deceased, on the morning of November 22, 1982, does not inspire confidence. We are unable to concur with this submission. Simply because Chaman Lal during crossexamination has stated that he had not made a statement to the police on the day when he saw Rachhpal Chand with the police near the dead body, his statement cannot be disbelieved. He has stated this under some misconception. The last line of his examinationinchief reads : "My statement was recorded by the police". Chaman Lal has given a straightforward account of what he saw. The defence has not been able to point out any flaw or infirmity in his statement. The statement of Meghraj Singh (PW) was adversely commented by the learned counsel for the appellants. It was contended that Meghraj Singh has admitted that he did not know Rachhpal Chand, appellant, before. According to the learned counsel it is highly improbable that Rachhpal Chand will go to seek the help of a person who was a relation of the deceased and who even did not know this appellant. There is nothing improbable in the conduct of the appellant in going to Meghraj Singh (PW). This witness was in charge of the bus stand at Dera Baba Nanak. He has clearly stated that he had dealings with the police. He may not be knowing Rachhpal Chand, but the latter was aware of his relationship with the deceased and his influence with the police. So, he went to this witness to seek his help. He has given a detailed account of what was told to him by Rachhpal Chand, appellant, on the morning of December, 9, 1982. He then produced Rachhpal Chand, appellant, before Natha Singh, Assistant SubInspector (PW 12) who has fully corroborated this witness. Mr. Sibal argued that Meghaj Singh stated in Court that Rachhpal Chand while confessing his guilt before him had not told the witnesses that the deadbody of Smt. Tripta had been buried by him in his field and he had not stated this fact to the police. However, in his statement, Exhibit DA, this fact finds mention. According to the learned counsel, this shows that Meghraj Singh is not a truthful witness. We are not impressed with this argument. Immediately after the arrest of Rachhapal Chand, appellant, he was interrogated by Assistant SubInspector Natha Singh. He made a disclosure statement that he had concealed the deadbody of Smt. Urmala in a wheat field belonging to him. This statement was recorded. It was thumb marked by Rachhpal Chand and thereafter he had led to the recovery of the deadbody. It seems that the Assistant SubInspector Natha Singh while recording the statement of Meghraj Singh under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure mixed up the facts and wrongly mentioned in Exhibit DA that Rachhpal Chand told Meghraj Singh that he had buried the deadbody of Smt. Tripta. As noticed earlier becuase of his position in the family of the deceased and his relations with the police. Rachhpal Chand, appellant, went to Meghraj Singh (PW) and sought his help and made a cleanbreast of what had been done by him and his brother Rajinder Pal, appellant. Rajinder Pal also led to the recovery of a pair of earrings belonging to the deceased, which he had buried close to the tubewell. This circumstance lends corroboration to the prosecution case. His conduct in not reporting the disappearance of his wife to the police also goes against him and indicative of his guilt.

When Kulwinder Singh went to the house of the appellant on November 22, 1982, he did not find Smt. Urmala there. The appellants were also absent. Their mother (Smt Rani) made a wrong representation to Kulwinder Singh that Smt. Urmala had a tiff with her husband on the previous evening and had left the house with a pair of ear rings and Rs. 2000/. Smt Rani was inmate of the house. She must have known that the two appellants had taken away Smt. Urmala on the pretext of getting her treated. This false representation was made to put the complainants on a wrong track. This conduct also is a pointer towards the guilt of the appellants. This conduct of Smt. Rani, mother of the appellants, could be taken into account. In Udai Pal Singh v. The State of U.P., 1971 CAR 427, the father of the main accused had made a false report to the police, trying to create an alibi for his son. The Allahabad High Court took this fact into account in convicting the principal accused under section 302, Indian Penal Code. The Final Court affirmed this finding and rejected the appeal of the convict.

To sum up the prosecution has established the following circumstances against the appellants :

(i) Strong motive

(ii) The deceased was last seen alive with the appellants;

(iii) Extrajudicial confession of Rachhpal Chand, appellant, before Meghraj Singh (PW 8);

(iv) Recovery of deadbody of Smt. Urmala alias Smt. Tripta in pursuance of the disclosure statement of Rachhpal Chand, appellant;

(v) Recovery of earrings belonging to the deceased at the instance of Rajinder Pal accused;

(vi) The conduct of the appellants in taking no step to trace the deceased or to make any report with the police regarding her disappearance and the false representation by Smt. Rani to Kulwinder Singh.

These circumstances do lead to one and only one hypothesis i.e. the guilt of the appellants.

For the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.