State vs Ravinder Singh and Others

We have considered the submissions of Learned Additional Advocate General in support of State's Acquittal Appeal against judgment dated

31.10.2008 of Learned Sessions Judge, Jammu, whereby he has acquitted Ravinder Singh alias Ricky and Harmeet Singh alias Sonu, who have

been arrayed as respondent Nos. 1 & 2, in the State appeal.

According to the prosecution case, Kulbir Singh, a bachelor, was a regular visitor to the house of Smt. Gurdeep Kour, his brother's widow.

Ravinder Singh and Harmeet Singh, respondents, would suspect illicit relationship of their mother Gurdeep Kour with Kulbir Singh and had

accordingly time and again told him not to visit their house. Their requests had, however, no effect on him. Both the sons of Gurdeep Kour are

stated to have thus connived with Tarlok Singh, respondent No. 3, their real maternal uncle (Gurdeep Kour's brother) to do away with Kulbir

Singh. They, accordingly, administered poison mixed tea to Kulbir Singh and thereafter committed his murder by setting him ablaze in the midnight

of 15th August, 2000 after pouring kerosene on him in the street outside their house.

The prosecution had produced sixteen witnesses namely Zorawar Singh, Hazara Singh, Kuldip Singh, Jagat Singh, Bhajan Kour, Rajinder

Kumar, Dwarka Nath, Pyare Lal, Janak Singh, Kamal Singh, Dr. C.S. Gupta, Section K. Razdan, Rohit Koul, Rakesh Bamba, Rajinder Kumar

Bakshi & Anand Jain, to support its case.

Besides relying upon the solitary eye witness namely Jagat Singh, the prosecution had sought support to its case from the Disclosure Statement

of Ravinder Singh respondent leading to the recovery of patka (head gear) and poison.

After the close of the prosecution evidence, the trial Court did not find any evidence against Tarlok Singh respondent No. 3 and accordingly

acquitted him vide its order of 18.12.2007. The case, however, proceeded against rest of the respondents.

These respondents too were later acquitted by the Learned Sessions Judge, Jammu, finding that the prosecution had failed to produce any

reliable incriminating evidence against the respondents.

Disbelieving PW-Jagat Singh, the only eye-witness, the trial Court has observed as follows:

In the above backdrop, inordinate delay of three moths in recording the statement of star witness PW Jagat Singh by the Investigating officer and

prosecution's apathetic approach in explaining the delay assumes importance. Prosecution was supposed to tender clear and cogent explanation as

to why the Investigating Officer(s) did not question and record the statement of PW Jagat Sigh for three months or as to why PW Jagat Singh did

not disclose to them what he had seen in the night of occurrence. As a matter of fact prosecution even did not choose to tender the explanationin

examinations-in-chief of Investigators RakeshBamba and Anand Jain or the witness himself. It was only by way of his cross-examination that PW

Rakesh Bamba sought to say that he could not record statement of PW Jagat Singh as he was in shock, a fact, which is devoid of any evidence

and contradicted by none other than PW Jagat Singh himself by saying in cross-examination that on the second or third day a police officer

questioned him and recorded his statement thereby belying that he was unable to depose due to shock. Likewise PW Anand Jain has failed to

explain as to why he did not seek any explanation from PW Jagat Singh for having remained mum for three months before making such a

sensational disclosure before him. The prosecution's failure to explain inordinate delay in recording the statement of PW Jagat Singh and it having

been found that he had not seen the occurrence gives credence to defence version as to why he made incriminating statement against his

grandsons. Defence plea in this context has been carefully stated by the accused persons in their statements recorded by the court. They say that

their father Gopal Singh died in the riots at Delhi in the year 1984. Delhi government had sanctioned compensation of Rs. 3,30,000/- arising out of

the death of their father and Dy. Commissioner, Jammu had intimated their mother for disbursement thereof. However, their grandfather PW-Jagat

Singh wanted a share in the compensation so three months after the occurrence he got them falsely implicated in this case and also filed a civil suit

and obtained injunction against disbursement of compensation to their mother. In support they have produced photocopy of a letter issued from the

office of Dy. Commissioner, District North West Kanjhawala, Delhi to the Dy.Com-missioner, Jammu forwarding compensation cheques

regarding compensation to kin of 1984 riots victims payable to five persons one of them being Gurdeep Kour R/o Bhor Camp relating to the death

of Sh. Gopal Singh. In this context, it is important to note that PW Jagat Singh in his cross-examination has admitted that his son Gopal Singh had

died in 1984 riots and that three months after the death of deceased (Kulbir Singh), cheque valuing Rs. 3,30,000/- as compensation for his death

had come in the name of the wife of the deceased. However, he has obtained stay contending that he should also get a share in the compensation

and in the result the compensation has been paid to none till date. Clear it is from the statement of PW Jagat Singh himself that three months after

the death of deceased Kublir Singh compensation of Rs. 3,30,000 becomes payable to the mother of A-l and A-2 as regards the death of her

husband Gopal Singh in Delhi riots of 1984 and PW Jagat Singh files a suit claiming a share in the said compensation and secures injunction against

its disbursement to the mother of the accused persons. It is at or around this point of time that he makes a statement giving eyewitness account

about death of deceased Kulbir Singh having died three months back involving A-l and A-2 in the said death. This cannot be taken, as a simple

coincidence particularly in backdrop of the fact that none of the family members including PW Jagat Singh had any clue about the persons involved

in death of deceased Kulbir Singh and investigators were unable to collect any evidence in this regard till them. For aforementioned, it can be safely

concluded and I hold that PW Jagat Singh made a false and well motivated statement against A-l and A-2 before the Investigating Officer

PWAnand Jain and likewise did so before this Court as well. In face of the glaring falsity of his version, nothing stated by him can be relied upon

and his statement deserves rejection on the whole.

Trial Court's observations holding that there was no other incriminating evidence against the respondents too need to be noticed. These read

thus:

Challenge from the defence notwithstanding, I have considered anxiously the question of importance of the recovered material viz a viz the proof of

charges against the accused persons, as apparently I could see none.

In this context, it is to be noted that as per the prosecution case before setting the deceased ablaze, accused Ravinder Singh had administered the

deceased an intoxicating chemical along with tea served to him. Dr. S.C. Gupta though opining the cause of death as shock as a result of burns by

fire has further said that the deceased had consumed 'formaldehyde' prior to his death.

Finding as regards presence of 'formaldehyde' is based upon the FSL report rendered and proved as Ex. PW-SK by S.K. Razdan Scientific

Officer, FSL, Jammu PW-17 on the basis of the analysis of the viscera collected from the dead body by the doctor during postmortem

examination.

As regards 'formaldehyde' PW S.K. Razdan vide his further report Ex.PW-SK/1, which have not been challenged by the defence in cross-

examination, has said that it is a colorless liquid, consumption whereof causes death within few hours to two days depending upon body weight and

resistance of a person. Prosecution seems to convey that the chemical contained in the bottle recovered on the basis of Disclosure Statement of A-

l from the compound of his house was the chemical, which he had administered along with tea to the deceased and was detected in viscera.

However, prosecution has failed to lead any evidence that whatever contained in the bottle was a poisonous chemical in particular the chemical,

namely, 'formaldehyde', which was detected, in viscera of the deceased. No evidence in this regard is available in the prosecution evidence. In this

context, recovery memos would show that at the time of recovery, the bottle containing the chemical was sealed on spot and marked as 'A'.

Likewise the 'patka' so recovered was sealed and marked as 'B'. Similarly a sample was separated out of the kerosene found in the container

seized on the basis of Disclosure Statement made by accused Harmeet Singh.

The sample, container and the match box were also sealed and marked as 'C, 'D' & 'E'. There is evidence to show that they were got resealed

from an Executive Magistrate Kamal Singh, Naib Tehsildar, PW-15. However, nothing after that is known. Prosecution has lead not evidence to

show that the material so sealed and resealed was ever put to chemical analysis and their chemical nature ascertained. No chemical analysis report

in this regard is available on the record of the case. In this context, it is important to note that prosecution has produced two FSL reports, one of

them having been proved by Rohit Kour, Scientific Officer, FSL, Jammu PW-18 as Ex. PW-RK and the other by S.K.Razdan PW-17 as Ex.

PW-SK read with Ex.PW-SK/1. The report proved by PW-T Rohit Koul pertains to rubber bathroom chapel and semi burnt pieces of cloth,

which as per the prosecution evidence were seized from the place of occurrence on the day of occurrence vide seizure memos Ex.PW-JS/2 and

Ex.PW/JS/3 and respectively sealed and marked as 'A' and 'B'. The reports rendered by PW S.K.Razdan pertain to the viscera as noted above.

To conclude in nutshell, thus, the prosecution has failed to lead any evidence to prove that the material, what it called as a poisonous chemical and

kerosene, seized on the basis of Disclosure Statement of the accused has any link with the cause of death of the deceased inasmuch as there is no

evidence to show that chemically they were poisonous chemical or kerosene. Likewise recovery of 'patka' and matchbox, whatsoever has no

importance viz a viz death of the deceased.

To sum up, thus, the prosecution evidence has nothing to show, much less to prove, directly or impliedly that the deceased had died homicidal

death by way of poisoning or burning or that the accused persons were in any manner involved in his death.

During the course of consideration of this appeal, Learned Additional Advocate General was unable to point out any infirmity in the judgment

impugned in the appeal.

After examining the judgment, We are of the opinion that the view which the trial Court has taken in the case in acquitting the respondents, is

certainly a view which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, could well be taken in view of the fragile statement of PW-Jagat Singh and

absence of any other incriminating material against the respondents on records.

We are, therefore, of the opinion that there is no substance in this appeal warranting interference with the well reasoned judgment of Learned

Sessions Judge, Jammu. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.